SPEAKER_12

award-winning Seattle Channel.

We are back online.

Colleagues, coming back from recess here, the October 18th Select Budget Committee meeting will come back to order.

It is 1.49 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Wu.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Present.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_11

Here.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Moore.

Here.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_09

Present.

SPEAKER_03

Council Member Saca?

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Six present.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Coming back to order, thank you, colleagues.

We want to dig deep into these topics and stay on a good schedule today.

So we have two presentations left this afternoon, the Unified Care Team and then Office of Economic Development.

So with no further ado, clerk, will you please read the third item of business into the record?

SPEAKER_02

Agenda item three, unified care team briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

Going to pass it over to Jennifer Labreck and Director Noble.

Jennifer?

SPEAKER_06

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Jennifer Labreck, central staff analyst.

And I'm here today to talk to you about the unified care team.

This presentation will be a little bit different than some of the other policy considerations because the unified care team does straddle multiple departments.

So this is a policy consideration.

because there are several policy considerations for council and also because this was an opportunity or a format to synthesize information across different departments and put it all in one place to provide an understanding of what is happening with the unified care team in this budget.

Overall, the unified care team budget increases by 22% from the 2024 adopted budget to the 2025 proposed budget, with a 29% increase in dedicated unified care team staff during the same time period.

Some of those increases in budget and staffing are due to changes that occurred with the 2024 mid-year supplemental ordinance, which I will go into in further detail in just a moment.

The unified care team budget increases 3% from 2025 to 2026, and there is no increase in FTE during that same time period.

Let me just stop to what I should have done before diving into the budget is just say for a moment, what is the Unified Care Team?

The Unified Care Team is a cross-departmental effort coordinated through the mayor's office to address unsanctioned encampments and maintain public spaces.

It was implemented in 2022 after the city had tried several other different strategies for addressing unsanctioned encampments.

And as you can see from this chart, it really does involve the involvement of multiple different departments, with each department playing a unique role in terms of implementing the unified care team.

So HSD outreach and referrals.

Financial administrative service provides customer service.

Seattle Department of Transportation does the cleaning, site visits, inspections, generally in the south part of the city.

Seattle Parks and Recreation provides the same service, generally in the north part of the city.

SPD, Seattle Police Department, provides safety and compliance.

Seattle Information Technology provides GIS technology needs.

And then Seattle Public Utilities provides RV remediation and some trash mitigation, including the Purple Bag program.

And again, because so many departments are involved, this presentation is an opportunity to sort of synthesize that information into one place in order to provide some overview of the changes that have been made in this current budget.

I'm sorry, in the proposed budget.

So I want to talk for a couple of minutes about the increases in the UCT budget, what are driving those, and why they were made.

There are three major reasons for the increase in the UCT budget.

The first were changes that were made in the 2024 mid-year supplemental, which Council obviously passed last year.

Those changes were not reflected in the 2024 adopted budget.

The mid-year supplemental added 19 FTE positions to the Human Services Department to support the UCT.

That included 14 counselor positions, which will support outreach-led encampment removals, provide referrals to shelter during encampment removals, and provide support to individuals to move out of immediate hazard and obstruction locations.

Five of the position ads were also regional coordinators, four of which had already been filled through administrative means.

The second reason behind the increased appropriations for the Unified Care Team is increased staffing to support UCT operations, including ongoing funds for a UCT director.

The UCT director was an existing position that had used one-time funds, so this budget provides ongoing funding.

The proposed budget also adds funding for a new UCT administrative specialist, Let me back up and say, the proposed budget also provides funding essentially for two new customer support positions for the UCT.

And finally, the third reason for the increase in appropriations is an expansion of unified care capacity, including allowing the unified care team to move from operating just five days a week to being able to operate on the weekends, so operating seven days a week.

The proposed budget adds funding to expand the UCT capacity by four field teams, two at Parks and two at SDOT.

That will now make a total of 12 teams.

Those teams will be full-time, and so that does allow them now for there to be staff to work on the weekends.

And to allow those staff to work full-time, they'll also be doing some work on Mondays and Fridays.

So it is also an expansion of activity during the regular work week as well.

The budget also adds $300,000.

to HSD for expanded shelter intake hours during the weekend.

So if there is an encampment resolution and offers of shelter are made, that those shelters would be able to have staff on site to process intakes during the weekend hours.

That is a general overview of what is happening in the budget.

So let me stop there before I go into any policy considerations.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Jennifer.

I'll take just a little opening because this is in the mayor's office rather than in a department.

And then I can pass it to Council Member Moore should she like to make statements on the overall budget.

I talked at length when this was discussed on the first day of central staff presentations or Maybe it was when CBO Eder was here.

So I'm not going to go over everything.

What I will say is that the change between 2019 and 2024, the change between the navigation team to the unified care team is good and important and we are achieving better outcomes.

And there is more work to do to improve our service delivery model.

It is a situation where Having fewer employees does not make this work better.

It does not help us necessarily.

If anything, we don't have enough people working in this sphere to produce the outcomes that we all want, which is to not push people around.

We want to, when we engage with individuals, to have them have a direct line route.

Noticing that the TV monitors with Seattle Channel have just gone blank.

They're back now.

those are the outcomes, right?

It doesn't, it takes more, not fewer case managers to work with and assist the folks living on our streets.

And a lot of the work in that chart that you have up right now, you can see is not necessarily moving people around.

It is cleaning up trash.

It's, it's maintaining open spaces in the parks, our sidewalks in front of our libraries, um, And I'll let you go through your policy considerations and I'll come back to some of these things at the end.

I'll just say that one of the most important changes between the navigation team and the unified care team is in the navigation team days, Seattle Police Department was leading the first line of this outreach work, which created challenges for having meaningful engagement with people on the street.

We see that Seattle Police Department is still a line item here.

Their role is very different today.

They're there providing security for our unionized workers.

and our other city workers.

Some of their work does not require the Seattle Police Department, and some of it does.

It just kind of depends.

With that, Council Member Moore, anything that you want to say overall?

SPEAKER_14

No, I just want to say ditto to your comment.

SPEAKER_12

Great.

Back to you, Jennifer.

SPEAKER_06

just turn that off.

So the first policy consideration is around specific areas of focus for expanded UCT capacity.

As I noted, this budget does fund the expansion of Unified Care Team activities from five days a week to seven days a week, including the weekends, and also allows for more capacity on Mondays and Fridays.

The executive has not identified the specific areas or sites where expanded UCT capacity will be deployed.

What they have said is that they will determine sites to be served on the weekends using the same data-driven methodology they do for determining really how to prioritize existing UCT capacity.

For weekend activity in particular, the data that they will use to inform decision-making will include the frequency of repopulation, which means how often an encampment is removed and then returns.

It will also include the amount of trash accumulation happening over the weekend, you know, along with whether an encampment is causing damage.

a major accessibility issue, for example, by being on a busy sidewalk or something like that.

The executive has said they will regularly evaluate data and may focus on different sites on the weekends throughout the course of the year, depending on the highest need at a particular time.

So options here are that council could adopt a statement of legislative intent, providing further direction to the executive on how and where they would like to have additional UCT capacity deployed.

They could adopt a SLI requesting regular reporting from the executive on how expanded UCT capacity is deployed.

As context, for the last several years, Council has adopted a SLI requesting quarterly reports on UC activities and reporting on deployment of expanded UCT capacity could be integrated into that SLI.

should council choose to adopt it again or no change?

And I do want to note that the executive has stressed to me that they feel that one of the reasons the unified care team has been able to be effective is because they are able to make decisions about how to prioritize those resources using data and that they have a strong preference to continue to be able to use that same methodology for the expanded capacity as well.

SPEAKER_12

Wonderful.

I will, unless council member, no, I'm going to just jump in.

I will tell you when I work with the unified care team, my favorite response from them is data.

And that can be in one of two ways.

The data doesn't support what you're asking for, or it does.

And what I appreciate about that is in the Without data, the team would be responding to whoever was the loudest, not necessarily what is the greatest need.

And that has been a shift over the last five years in how we do homelessness response.

It's just something that I really appreciate.

I will say that seven days a week is important because, again, right now where we're at is, and I'm going to speak specifically about trash, not necessarily about people, because trash is one of the bigger parts of this work, is that by the time...

The UCT goes out on Monday, Tuesday.

They're catching up from the weekend.

I know, Jennifer, you were just mentioning this.

I'm just going to say it again.

So by Wednesday, Thursday, they're getting ahead.

By Friday, they might have one step forward.

And then on Monday, they're two steps behind again.

I'll also say that it is important that we are able to provide the Unified Care Team services to our residents who are working nine to five.

I've got my district office at the Ballard Library and it's really interesting to see all week there are people that sleep there at night but they take off in the morning and there's a more pro-social behavior that is occurring during the week than on the weekend.

I don't think that that's because or not because of the Unified Care Team, but what I see is that the Unified Care Team does show up and supports the removal of the trash, creates those connections with the people that are living out there.

and increases overall public safety in a place that most folks who are using the library on the weekend are not using it during the week.

And the weekend is when we need to have that space feeling the most welcoming.

So those are my thoughts there.

I see we've got Council Member Morales and then Council Member Nelson.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

I'm going to ask a lot of questions.

And these are maybe just to go into the SharePoint if we haven't already asked them, because I'm not sure that you have the information available.

But getting to this point about data, well, first, I think it's important to, as we all have already acknowledged, Domestic Violence Awareness Month, pointing out that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women.

And we've heard that there were something like 4,000 removals last year, this year so far.

And one of the things that we heard in the public hearing is that we know people are getting removed repeatedly.

So we've had folks say they've been swept several times, which we know just increases the instability in their lives.

So I'm interested to know how many offers of permanent housing UCT is able to connect people to.

If they haven't been able to connect people to permanent housing, why not?

And what that relationship looks like before folks are removed.

I'm interested to know how adding 19 new staff would help actually get people housing.

And we can send all this to you afterward.

So, you know, if I'm looking at this right, we're spending about $30 million on removals, but only about $11.5 on access to health care services, about $13, almost $14 on housing and shelter.

And so I'd be interested to know how the decision was made.

What was the analysis, the cost-benefit analysis?

I don't know how...

what precisely how you talk about this, but how the decision was made to invest so much in moving people around rather than investing in more permanent solutions.

And I guess the other thing I want to ask is if we are expanding the case managers, but we're reducing funding for shelter services, the memo indicates that we'll see an increase in the ability to conduct unsanctioned sweeps.

And under the MDARs, we know that there's no requirement that shelter be offered if they're removed for obstruction.

We had a memo from the mayor last year, or maybe it was the year before, basically defining any encampment as an obstruction.

And so I'm just trying to understand the role of case managers if there are no shelters for people to go to, but we're increasing the capacity for people to be removed.

SPEAKER_06

We'll answer where I know the answer, and then we can certainly post any follow-ups.

I will say that, as you may be aware, that there is a percentage of city-funded shelter units that are set aside for the unified care team.

So those are ones that are open.

If there's an opening, they are reserved for the unified care team.

So the unified care team does generally if they're going to refer someone, they refer them to shelter.

As far as I know, they are not going through the process of directly connecting someone to permanent housing.

And that is in part because we have a coordinated entry system that is designed to go through that prioritization process.

And what I've just heard is when an encampment is being removed, that's often happening on a relatively quick timeline.

And so the idea would be to refer someone to shelter.

because going through the coordinated entry process may take longer and that timeline might just not align with the activity at the encampment.

That's one answer, but certainly if you want more information about efforts to connect to housing, we could post that.

SPEAKER_13

Well, and I think just to a statement that you made, Jen, you know, the idea here is to build the relationship, create a by name list, start to have an understanding of what the individual needs of people are.

But we know that at least one of the individual needs is housing.

And if we're not actually making that connection and doing that throughput into a place to stay, then what are we doing with these resources?

And I think that is the thing that we struggle with because we do know that if people are removed from a sidewalk or from a park or from a bus stop, and they are not going into a stable place to be, they're just going to show up a block away in a couple of days.

And everybody knows that this is what happens.

You see them move down the street a couple days later, which just makes the next neighborhood mad and the next neighborhood mad.

So I guess my point with this is, Fully acknowledging that the unified care team works to clean up sites, that they refer people to services and may refer into what would eventually become a permanent place to stay.

It still seems to me, honestly, fiscally irresponsible.

The fiscally responsible thing to do would be to direct these funds to housing, to shelter, to services that we know people need in order to get off the streets instead of paying $30 million a year or more for moving people around.

And honestly, rarely results in permanent stability for people.

If that is really our goal, then I think we should be investing in the things that lead us to that goal and stop spending so much money on a strategy that doesn't actually produce the outcome we're looking for.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

One clarification, too, and this is actually a point that connects to both the Unified Care Team and the previous presentation on the Human Services Department.

We did have a discussion about the budget and those shelter units that may be at risk in 2026. I do want to state that the proposed budget also has new ongoing funding to sustain a shelter, a 150-unit shelter in the Central District that Also had one-time funding that has now been extended and then does provide the new funding to maintain tiny house villages.

So I just want, you know, just so everyone has all the information that there is some money in the budget as well to sustain existing shelters.

Just wanted to put that out there.

SPEAKER_13

Yeah, and I appreciate that, knowing that that 150 beds will be available.

And we know that we have tens of thousands of people who are homeless.

So it's a drop in the bucket.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

I will also note, I forgot to note this about 12 minutes ago, we have all council members in attendance and that occurred before 2 p.m.

Over to you, Council President Nelson, Council Member Kettle, and Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_07

I just want to go on the record, thank you very much for this presentation, that I am in complete support of policy option B, which is continue the reporting.

So I don't know if that slide has to just be renewed every year and now this would be included, it would be modified slightly.

But those quarterly reports, colleagues, are really, really interesting and provide a really I think, necessary window into what's going on on the street.

For example, to piggyback on Council Member Morales' point, when we think about the number of people getting into housing or shelter or whatever, there is also a list of refused or referred but didn't take advantage of or go into the housing, and the refused piece is really interesting because we often talk about our options aren't suitable for the broad variety of people and needs out there.

And one of the issues is, what I've noticed, is that one of the second or the third priorities is want to reconnect with friends or family elsewhere.

So that's just one example.

And you brought up the coordinated entry program, which is problematic in some ways because it's a complex process that is governed by rules and there is no real-time inventory of housing units or beds availability at any one time.

So that is an issue also that needs to be looked at, and I would love to see at some point some resources allocated to technology, if that is possible within the UTC budget, UCT budget, but not necessarily saying this year.

But anyway, what I wanted to really say is that, well, confirm this is a temporal expansion, but not a geographic expansion, right?

And let me just provide some backup, because I ask that because two years ago, Mayor Harrell, when putting forward this model, wanted to make sure that there would be a district, there would be teams of unified care teams people out there in different districts, not necessarily corresponding to council district, but they would be distributed citywide.

And council, I believe for the most part, rejected that model the first year and provided and shifted that funding to KCRHA, but then last year it came back to in-house.

And so has that geographic model been implemented yet?

SPEAKER_06

Yes, that district model, or I think they call it regional, has been fully implemented.

And so the UCT is already citywide.

So this is a good way to put it, a temporal expansion, an expansion of capacity on some days.

But it was already citywide, so no change there.

SPEAKER_07

Great.

And then my last point is where in the budget, I was thinking I might see it in this budget item, but where is the clawback of resources the city took back from KCRHA for outreach services?

I didn't see it in HSD's budget, and I'm not seeing it here.

SPEAKER_06

That's a great question.

So it is...

Partly, it is item number one.

So it was part of the 2024 supplemental budget.

HSE took back both homelessness and outreach.

I'm sorry, homelessness prevention and outreach contracts.

There continues to be money available for homelessness outreach contracts.

HSD rebid that and hasn't announced their awards yet, but I think that is coming soon.

That money lives in the essentially homelessness...

At HSD, then they took part of the money that used to be available for homelessness contracts and used it to hire those 19 counselor positions that are now part of the UCT that are doing direct outreach to people in unsanctioned encampments.

So that's the connection there is that essentially they.

reduce the amount available for homelessness outreach contracts by about, I think, a million and a half, and use that to hire UCT staff who do outreach and are based in the Human Services Department.

OK, thank you very much for that.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council President.

I'm just going to share my recollection of what you just shared because it's different.

I'm not saying any one way or the other, but my recollection is that the geographic scoping started in 2020 when I provisoed outreach, contracted outreach funds to have district-specific districts.

OUTREACH WORKERS THAT LED INTO THE WOODLAND PARK ENCAMPMENT RESOLUTION THAT ENDED WITHOUT A SWEEP, WHICH LED INTO THE UNIFIED CARE TEAM BEING CITYWIDE, ONE TEAM, WHICH LED INTO THE GEOGRAPHICALLY BASED DIVISIONS, AT WHICH POINT THERE WAS A PUSH TO SEND THAT MONEY TO KING COUNTY.

take that step.

Instead, we said, if the King County Regional Homelessness Authority is ready to take on this work, we will pass it there.

They have not yet been ready, and we have retained this body of work this entire time.

So I'm looking at central staff to see if I was wrong.

SPEAKER_06

I think the only nuance I would add to that is that the city did transfer its homelessness outreach contracts to KCRHA in 2022. And so KCRHA was managing those homelessness outreach contracts up until earlier this year when the executive announced that they were transferring them back.

And so that has changed over the last couple of years.

SPEAKER_12

Yes, that's a correct statement, and those contracted outreach workers are different than the case managers in the Unified Care Team.

SPEAKER_06

The staff, so I know I would say that HSD is really, they are paying for contracted outreach, right?

And then they now have 14 of these counselor positions that are also really doing outreach.

So are they, you know, this might be just like a semantics thing, but they are doing outreach.

They're helping, you know, build relationships, doing what they can to provide people with like, understand what their options are, get ID and all of that.

But so I think we might be saying the same thing.

SPEAKER_12

I think we're saying the same thing.

And one of the things that we found was when King County Regional Homelessness Authority was holding these outreach contracts, it was creating space between our unified care team counselors and our contracted outreach, which is why it's helpful to have them.

SPEAKER_06

both together and i would actually when the city transferred those contracts back they reduced the amount of contracts by 1.5 million and they used that money to hire those 14 counselors so those counselors did not exist when case rha was managing the contracts maybe that's the we did have we did have some a few like these regional coordinators who are on the ground that's correct there was some staff just not as many that's correct yep

SPEAKER_12

That was my history lesson.

I'm not going to make my point.

I'm going to pass it over to Council Member Kettle, Council Member Moore, and Council President Nelson.

Are you back in the queue?

SPEAKER_07

Well, I just wanted to...

Are you back in the queue?

It was a response to your response to my statement.

We're going to come back to this at the end.

Okay.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I just wanted to state...

Yeah, my support for the Unified Care Team, I think it's important to do so.

I also support its expansion in terms of scheduling into the weekend.

I think that is important for all the reasons that I already discussed.

And I also support its district-based approach.

I've already been out with the D7 team and I really appreciate the work that they're doing.

And being a district team, they gain that knowledge of the district, you know, equal to, you know, the community groups that I meet with and speak with on a regular basis.

I also support the council president on the points that she was making regarding the data points that, you know, kind of tie into option B.

And, you know, there's a philosophical differences in terms of approach generally, but you know, as many times as we stated in the public safety committee, I think we do need to lead with compassion and have empathy for those individuals, but then also have the wisdom to look at the neighborhoods and the communities overall.

And we have that broader responsibility and that really drives, you know, my support for the unified care team among other programs like it.

And so I just wanted to end by saying thank you specifically to the members of the District 7 care, UCT team.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Moore, then Council Member Sato.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, thank you.

So I, too, support the expansion of the unified care team.

And I guess, with all due respect, Councilmember Morales, you and I just have a difference of opinion about whether there is a role here for getting people off the streets in a way that UCT has done.

And my personal experience is that people are not being swept, and people are not being just shoved along.

I meet with the unified care team every week.

There's one woman in particular who does the case management work.

We need more case managers, absolutely.

And to Chair's point, we've come a long way and we still have plenty of room for progress, absolutely.

She has not swept a single person.

She has encountered people with serious mental illness, and she spent six to eight, and we had one woman who'd been living in trash for months.

And she met with her, you know, several times every week for months.

Got her three different placements.

Because of her own mental health challenges, she turned, you know, each placement she turned down and eventually she went her own way.

That was not a sweep.

That was a refusal for a variety of, you know, internal mental health reasons to not accept three very good options.

You know, we've had that happen with other people as well who've had many—they could have gone to a tiny house village, they could have gone to the Oak Shelter.

They turned them down.

They went on their own way.

Some people do wind up then having to be moved because they are posing a hazard risk to the rest of the community.

And yes, sometimes they show up again.

because they have chosen to turn down the offers of shelter because either they had their own mental health issues or it wasn't the shelter that suited them.

Many of them have turned them down because it wasn't a tiny house village.

Which goes to my other point, which is we absolutely need more tiny house villages.

We need four tiny house villages a year, like Barb Oliver was saying.

I will also note that in Lake City, we have Lake City Mini Park, which had a huge encampment.

Most of those people were then given shelter.

We now have a new encampment.

Half of those people in the encampment are permanently housed.

They're either housed in the tiny house villages up the road on Lake City, or they're in Sacred Medicine House.

So it's not about if we provide them permanent housing, they're not going to come back to the street and hang out.

And one of the things that the case manager is doing, and we just had a conversation last week, was, hey, does Sacred Medicine House know that this person is hanging out at Lake City Mini Park doing drugs every day?

And maybe they could use some help with your case managers who are on site?

And hey, does Lake City tiny house villages know that several of your residents are down here publicly using and selling drugs and maybe they could use some help?

Maybe they could get into treatment?

So the discussion was how do we create, how do you, this one person, create those collaborations with the service providers who are supposed to be taking care of people that we're providing a lot of money to, these non-profit providers to provide the services for.

They're not doing their damn job.

I am so tired of this narrative.

that we have no concern that we are sweeping.

We are not sweeping.

Those people are city employees who are doing God's work, if you believe, and if not, humanity's work.

And not everybody who's on the street wants to be off the street.

And this is a program that we're trying to fund that will help people who choose to be on the street be more healthy when they are on the street and also to get more people.

And yeah, they don't have access to the coordinated entry.

It's not like the state program.

And we note the state program, They never talk about the people who refuse to get off the highway or the people who move on.

It's only presented as a glowing success.

And yeah, it's been a success, but it's not 100% success.

And it's as successful as the program we've got here.

And you know what?

They have more money to do wraparound services all the time.

And they have access to coordinated entry.

We don't.

UCT doesn't.

And that's a policy decision, but also we don't have enough housing anyway, but that's also a policy decision.

And what needs to happen is people need to get off the street and they need to get into a tiny house village where they can get more normalized, they can become ready to then move into stable housing where they won't blow out of stable housing because they don't know how to function in that kind of environment.

They haven't been able to reintegrate.

Tiny house villages are a therapeutic step to recovery, to permanent housing.

Why do we have all these nonprofit providers coming to us and asking for $30 million in stabilization funding?

Because they are having to deal with people who do not have the skills to function on their own.

They need significant wraparound services.

And they need the time to learn how to reintegrate and function.

And we are not having these discussions as honestly.

And we need to have these honest discussions with the public and stop being in this position of you're all sweeping and this council doesn't support compassionate response.

UCT is compassionate.

But we also have to deal with the broader community.

We have to deal with all the thousands of pounds of trash.

and dirty needles and feces and urine that our school kids have to pass every day, that our seniors have to look at every day.

And the other thing that UCT does is they activate public space.

That's one of the things they did at the Lake City Mini Park.

They brought in summer movies.

They brought in dancing.

They've put in trees.

They activate community space.

This is an essential program, and it needs to be better, but it is not about sweeping people.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Chair of the Human Services Committee.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Saca.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Council Member Moore, for sharing your truths and your inspiring advocacy towards this issue.

And also, by the way, the same thing to Council Member Morales.

It's easy to align on shared goals, high-level goals and priorities even, but it's much more difficult to align on philosophical disagreements, and I think that's what's at the issue here.

So it doesn't mean we all won't continue collaborating together to keep trying, but In any event, I do appreciate the comments that have been made.

I'll just say, from my perspective, I'll restate, reemphasize my strong support for the Unified Care Team.

I'm grateful for the work that they do.

It is difficult, difficult, difficult work.

But I'm grateful for every last one of the UCT workers.

The leadership team there, the mayor's office, including Deputy Mayor Washington, for their support, they built this program and made it better.

Is it perfect?

No.

No, it's not.

Is it better than it was last year?

Yes.

Better than previous iterations of that function and program?

Yeah.

Is it going to be better next year?

Absolutely and and so all we can do is continue to iterate get better improve and learn from mistakes and shortcomings and That's that's the journey of life there we go But so I again just want to re-emphasize and restate my strong support for UCT and their expansion here as well also The importance of making data-informed decisions, and I'm glad that they have that rubric.

It's a great starting place.

Just like I said before, nothing is set in stone.

Everything can always be improved and better and made better, including that rubric.

But it does enable and empower the team to make data-informed decisions and direct resources in a targeted manner.

ultimately from a citywide perspective and ultimately do more that said and I also support data informed decisions because if you look at the data by the data my district colleagues district 1 as the highest number of RV encampments the highest number RV encampments district 1 and where are they they're in Georgetown.

They're in South Park.

They're in Delridge.

Areas and neighborhoods that are historically underserved and historically underrepresented.

Not anymore, because I live in Delridge, so they're no longer underrepresented.

They're not in more affluent parts.

They're generally not in more affluent parts of my district.

Not so much in Admiral.

Not so much in Alki, along the water.

And that's unacceptable.

My constituents are fed up with it, and damn it, I'm fed up with it too.

Pardon my, my anger and my passion.

It's something that I'm not, they're not going to accept and nor am I.

So we want to talk about the data.

Data strongly supports more investments, especially on RV encampments in my district.

Fed up, not going to happen.

But we can't just look to, just as we need to continue to refine our processes and criteria and evaluate, continue to check in and make it better over and over again.

It's a continuous process, an iterative process and journey.

We can't get too focused on data at all times, 100% of the time either, because data, Certain compelling factors are not easily expressed in the quantitative type of data that typically appears on these data sheets.

And so if we blindly follow the data, that can potentially lead to ivory tower decision making, which we want to completely avoid.

So we need to be thoughtful about our approach.

But Council Member Morales, you mentioned that when we're essentially kind of moving people around and they appear one block over and then sometimes neighbors are upset.

And you're right, sometimes neighbors are upset.

That's one of many feelings that people have when we see people living in such deplorable conditions.

Anger is one.

But the sense that I get from my constituents, the feelings that are more often surfaced to me are feelings of sadness and frustration at the city for allowing that, and allowing that in a lot of ways.

It's complex.

I get it.

People are fundamentally concerned about the well-being of our unhoused neighbors.

And I share that too.

For example, my own district, again, today, right now, on the corner of Highland Park Way Southwest and West Marginal Way South, there's a person experiencing homelessness in the middle of a In a median, in a center median, has erected a shelter of some sort.

In a center median, colleagues, West Marginal Way is a heavy traffic, heavy cargo freight corridor.

So dangerous.

So when I, I've been receiving a lot of constituent reports about that.

We're down a constituent services person right now in my office.

So mayor's office, listen and please help this person, because when I see this person, I'm not mad.

When I see this person, and I saw him last night when I was driving my daughter to soccer practice, I'm sad.

We can do better.

I strongly support continued expansion of our unified care team.

It's not perfect.

We're going to make it better.

And also, we need to target, adopt a data-based approach that spreads the resources to where they're needed the most.

And like I said, I'm not—we're not going to take it anymore.

We're not taking it in D1.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I will, colleagues, ask, I know that this is a passionate topic, but let's keep our language appropriate for council chambers, is how I will frame it today.

Council Member Rivera, I don't think I have to worry about you in that one, but I'm excited to pass the mic right over to you.

SPEAKER_09

I just want to express my strong support for expansion of the UCT.

I have done a ride along with the UCT.

I want to first start by acknowledging the folks that work on the UCT or city employees that have been doing this work for a long time.

And I will also say that I appreciate Deputy Mayor Tiffany Washington because she also worked At HSD doing this work and has been doing so for many many years and so they have the experience Of doing this work and working with this Population of individuals and I very much appreciate councilmember more all of the comments that you made plus one on those And I will say that when I did my ride along, you know, absolutely true, there are individuals who have homes who have apartments um that that permanent that they can transition to but they're um they are at these encampments for one reason or another and so it's not true that all the folks that are at encampments i'm going to restate what you said councilmember moore because it bears mentioning it is absolutely not true that all the individuals at the encampments do not have a place to go it's also true that we've heard from folks that are working on the Third Avenue project for instance that there are folks there that have places to go to and they do not want to go home because they don't feel safe in those nonprofit housing housing and the non-for-profit housing so that is all true and so we shouldn't be you know We need to give the facts.

It is a complicated issue and it is not all that, you know, it's not all folks that are in these encampments do not have anywhere to go.

And as for the investment, it's an and approach.

we spent a lot of money on housing.

We just passed a billion-dollar levy.

That's in addition to the tens of millions of dollars that we collect from jumpstart.

And that's just for housing and creation of housing.

We create permanent housing.

We create permanent supportive housing.

And we have an emergency response, which we spent $104 million with KCRHA to handle the emergency response.

And that's aside from all the human services that we fund related to treatment and mental health and other wraparound services.

So there is a lot of money that we're investing to help people in this city.

up here or in this city that I talk to that does not care about people having access to housing and the services that they need to stay housed.

So to characterize this as otherwise is simply not true and it's actually quite frankly disrespectful.

And I'm just gonna say it.

So yes, you're absolutely right Council Member Saka that we could have differing approaches, but we need to also give facts.

I am compelled with facts.

I have a science background and so I am data driven.

And so yes, our constituents are tired of it because they want better for people.

constituents that are expressing concern about this is not because they don't care.

It's because they want people to have places to live.

They don't want to see people struggling.

It is sad and it's sad for our kids who have to walk by folks and see this.

And it's also sad for the families that are living out there with children.

There was an encampment in my district that UCT helped with.

There were children living in there.

No child should be living in an encampment, period, full stop.

And it is true that the UCT folks do talk to people and establish relationships.

Just because that might not be written somewhere doesn't mean they're not doing it.

They are absolutely doing it.

And so I'm going to give credit where credit is due.

UCT, lead with compassion.

Because I've talked to them.

I've seen it.

I've heard about it.

So I support this expansion.

We need and we will continue to do more.

We are doing more in lots of spaces, not just this space.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_07

Well, it's great to hear so much love for the UCT because I share that and it's vital work.

And I will add one more thing.

Taking up on Council Member Moore's impassioned comments, I do have to say that homelessness advocates and also Donald Whitehead, when he spoke at the Uplift Northwest luncheon, made the point that addiction is a foundational issue in homelessness.

And unless we deal with addiction, then we're only perpetuating the problem.

And the same people will say that if People don't become homeless because of addiction.

They become addiction because of life on the streets.

And therefore, we are complicit.

If we do not resolve encampments, we are complicit with leaving places where people are vulnerable to the dealing and the violence that is associated with life on the streets and our fentanyl crisis.

So I just wanted to make sure that I, in case there's any misunderstanding about what I was saying, in 2022, when we were having our deliberations on the 2023 budget, this is the first year that Mayor Harrell branded the model that we're now talking about, unified care team.

I understand that people would go out to different areas of the city before and that there were efforts to make sure that that was that other neighborhoods were represented, Chair Strauss, what I was referring to was Council Budget Action HSD035B001, which did pass.

It was put into the balancing package, and the title is Reduce Proposed Position Authority by 5 FTE for the Expansion of the Unified Care Team in HSD.

Repurpose 812 general fund 2023 and 812 in 2024 in HSD to increase funding for the KCRHA for homelessness outreach.

Add 400,000 GF to HSD for KCRHA outreach and data support.

So that's what I was referring to when we tried to do this early on.

It didn't, you know.

I tried to pull that out of the balancing package.

That did not work.

But since then, we are expanding, and that is the right thing to do.

And I fully support this budget action for all the reasons that have been said at the dais.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Anyone else?

Colleagues, I see Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_00

I just had a quick question.

Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I'm reading correctly, and I just wanted to double check, the memo, thank you, Jennifer, for the memo.

Am I reading correctly that the proposal is to go from 11 full-time employees for outreach and referral to shelters to 32 folks for 2025 proposed budget?

SPEAKER_06

That's correct, although I do want to clarify that there are positions that are funded by the department that are based in the mayor's office.

So not all of those HSD-funded positions are working on outreach and referrals.

Some are actually in the mayor's office.

For example, there's the UCT director that's funded by HSD but is really sort of based out of the mayor's office, providing that overall coordination.

The expansion in staff that is related specifically to outreach is the five regional coordinator positions that were added as part of that 23 council budget action.

First transferred to KSRHA, now back with HSD, plus the 19 counselors.

I'm sorry, the 14 counselors.

So really a net increase of 19 staff that are kind of focused on outreach and coordination.

SPEAKER_00

Understood.

No, that makes sense.

No, I appreciate it.

I mean, obviously, my colleagues have said a lot and really appreciate the work that the UC team does.

And I know that people have...

their own opinions and controversy and all this stuff, but I see the UCT team as like the airport traffic controllers who go out and assess a situation and then try to figure out, hey, where can we put this person?

How can we be able to get them care and help?

They did a phenomenal job.

We had an encampment over in Interlochen for three years, And it was absolutely dangerous for a person to be living on the side of a hillside and explosions.

And there was just a lot of stuff going on.

And they couldn't even get to that person until the weather stopped raining because it was on a hillside.

And there was mud slides.

There was so much stuff going on.

And they really, it took them two days.

to get all of the trash and garbage out of the hillside and then get that person, you know, living in those conditions, connected to resources and eventually housing in that area.

And that really took a lot of time and energy, and they assessed that situation, and that was six months of work.

that they did and I don't see another you know it was just it's a very sensitive subject I agree with councilman Morales you know we need housing we need tiny homes we need any type of housing we also have a mental health crisis going on we also have a drug crisis on our street it's not heroin it's not crack it is fentanyl and it is really messing up people and so Anyways, just really support our whole approach in all this.

I don't think it's a one shoe fits one size, whatever that saying is, but really support our UCT team because we need the data that they give and the point of contact to all of the nonprofits that are doing this work.

And there's a lot of crossover in our city and a lot of stuff going on.

And I think this team is able to get people where they need to be.

It's a drop in the bucket, but fully support the expansion of it.

So anyways, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_12

Any final statements, questions?

Otherwise, I'm going to have last word.

Council Member Sockett.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are we going or do we already do the policy consideration two or?

SPEAKER_12

Fair question.

Thank you.

Council Member Saka, keeping us honest, I think we have exhausted council policy option one.

Are we going to go to council policy option number two?

Fantastic.

And then I'll save last word for the end.

Appreciate you.

SPEAKER_06

All right.

So policy question, the second policy question here is around potential opportunities to enhance the efficiency of the unified care team and ensure continuity of this service.

As a little bit of background, I just mentioned this.

A couple of things to consider.

I'm going to go back to this chart as we talk this through.

The first is that there are multiple departments.

The Unified Care Team has been an effective model for bringing together city departments, various city departments.

And it's been an effective model for communication and collaboration for the type of activity that involves multiple city departments.

So it's been effective.

There can be questions about if there might be opportunities for efficiency.

As you can see, there's a lot of different city departments involved, each one performing their own activity.

And I'll note in particular that, really, SDOT and the Seattle Parks and Recreation are performing the same body of work.

So you have two different departments performing the same body of work, just kind of splitting up the city north and south.

There could be really good rationale for doing that.

There could also be an opportunity to take a look and say, is that the best way to split up the work?

Are there efficiencies that could be gained by thinking about approaching it in a different way?

And the 2025-2026 proposed budget just provides a good example of how some, I think, nine positions removed working on graffiti were moved from SBU to parks.

And by doing so, generated a net savings, I think, of about $500,000 just because Parks has a lower overhead rate than SPU.

So just those kinds of examples, it may be worthwhile to consider.

Second thing to just think about is that there really is a core team that is based out of the mayor's office that is providing some of the kind of overall functions.

So leadership, policy analysis, data, performance evaluation.

And, you know, there's just considerations about when core services like that are provided out of the mayor's office, if that provides the kind of continuity that council might want for the unified care team, or if there's opportunities to think about other ways, you know, to perform those services, or if they could live in a different place within the city to ensure continuity.

Let me go back to the...

Policy considerations.

So policy considerations here could be adopt a sly requesting that the executive explore ways to enhance the efficiency of the UCT and support the continuity of services provided.

SPEAKER_12

Stop there.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Colleagues.

Councilmember Saka.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For clarity.

Let me start off by saying, you know, my comment earlier in that last round when I said something along the lines of, I'm not going to take it anymore.

We're not gonna take it anymore in D1.

Absolutely true.

I am the duly elected representative in city hall for my constituents in district one.

But colleagues, I just want you to know that that same principle applies to each and every last one of you all as well.

I'm not taking it for any person experiencing homelessness across the city.

It's unacceptable.

I'm not tolerating it.

I'm not tolerating it.

That simple.

And yes, we need to optimize our resources using a database approach to areas of the greatest need.

In this case, like RV encampments in District 1. But I do know that non-RV encampments and tent encampments, for example, are more of a problem in other areas across the city.

And so I'm not taking it for anyone.

It's unacceptable.

So on this issue of efficiencies and the opportunity to enhance efficiencies, yes, there's always an opportunity.

You get my gist of what we've been talking about today and the last 10 months.

That's the very essence of the growth mindset.

Nothing is perfect.

Everything can always be improved upon.

And so I'm just wondering, more of a self-reflection out loud, not necessarily a directed comment or a question rather, but I noticed that parks and SDOT, they seem to be getting a fairly large increase and to support UCT expansion and just wondering if there is a potential opportunity to consolidate that with SPU or doing more with what funding is already there under the adopted 2024 budget?

Because there's 2.8 million from SDOT, by my tally, and 2 million from parks over the next couple of years.

That's 4.8 million.

Just wondering, again, if there's an opportunity to consolidate and drive some efficiencies there It's probably not as simple as being able to use all that $4.8 million towards other things like tiny homes, but maybe there is a portion of it we can use to fund tiny homes.

And, oh, by the way, RV safe lots.

We need a mixed, a blended approach, right?

But in any event, I'm wondering what more we can do to help encourage and incentivize the great team.

They do great work, but to help this team grow.

do even more and have even greater impact.

Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Do you want to share anything?

SPEAKER_06

I don't.

I think that's a great example of the types of questions that a sly could answer if that is something that council is interested in.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Up next, Council Member Moore, Chair of the Human Services Committee.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, thank you very much.

And so ditto to Council Member Salka's comments there.

And one of the things that I do like about, well, there are many things I like about UCT, but I do like the fact that it's cross-departmental.

because the issues are cross-departmental.

So to the extent that we can look for efficiencies, I think we should, but I wouldn't want to move away from that model of being cross-departmental and it just being housed in this particular, I think we run the risk of getting siloed.

So to the extent we can be more efficient, absolutely, but also if we could be more if we could continue an integrated model and even look at ways to become more integrated.

Like the example I was giving of the UCT worker talking to REACH people and talking to the service providers where people were actually living and housed.

So being able to have that kind of collaboration with providers as well would be, I think, would amplify the program.

The chair's left, so he doesn't get to hear me apologize for my salty language up here, but I'll be sure not to use it again.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_09

I'll accept on his behalf, Council Member Moore.

Can you accept my apology on his behalf?

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

Can I provide one clarification too, just to Council Member Moore?

As we mentioned previously, the city did bring back the homelessness outreach contracts.

And I think one of the goals of doing that was to better align and coordinate the work of the UCT with the work of the providers that are contracted for the homelessness outreach.

That is truly one of the goals that the executive hopes to accomplish with that change.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah.

Thank you for reminding me of that.

SPEAKER_09

Anything else, Council Member Moore?

Okay.

I guess I'm next.

I want to say, colleagues, for those of us that have been here a few years, there were other iterations of UCT in the past.

that were not, for one reason or another, working as well as I believe UCT to be working today.

And I think that's in part because of the experience.

And so many of the same folks that were working in those prior iterations are involved today.

And so over time, I believe HSD, and again, under the leadership of Deputy Mayor Washington, have continued to do process improvements, if you will, to get to where we are today.

So I'm all for always improving efficiencies.

And I also wanted to acknowledge that there were prior iterations that didn't work as well and have been fine-tuned.

And I believe that's why today UCT works as well as it does.

But not to say their efficiencies couldn't be continued to be looked at.

for continuous improvement, especially because conditions always change.

You know, what was true 10 years ago is not what is true today.

But I did want to acknowledge that there had been other iterations of this that hadn't which just weren't working as well.

And Jen, you've been here too all that time, and Ben, you have too for that matter.

So I do think that this current iteration is working well, and I really appreciate how these departments under UCT are working so well together.

I would like to see that kind of collaboration in other areas, but just wanted to provide that, just call that out as well.

Because, I mean, this is work that's been ongoing for quite some time.

Chair's back.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And the benefit of me having been here long enough is even if I'm not in the room, I can hear everything everyone's saying.

So thank you, Council Member Moore, for the apologies.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

There is a trick.

I'm happy to share it with anyone who wants to know.

On this point, before I make final comments, I wanted to, on this note, actually riff off of what Vice Chair was saying, is that in the past, I think one of the difficulties that we've experienced is having the team, whatever team is working to address homelessness housed within a department because there is not an over, silos occur, and then we don't get departments working as well together.

That's the benefit of having this driven by the mayor's office.

Actually, one of the recommendations out of the permitting audit was very similar, saying the permitting system overall has so many different departments working on it that they need a coordinator.

in the executive's shop.

So that's the benefit here.

The drawback is continuity and institutionalization of this product.

If we were to change having mayors, we might not be guaranteed to continue having this coordination happening interdepartmentally.

I don't know if there's a there there, Jennifer, but I would like to explore with you if there's a way that we can help institutionalize the cross coordination.

I'll flag that.

Colleagues, if you look at Jennifer's next slide, it says questions.

I think we've asked a lot of questions.

We've even made some question statements, which I appreciate.

It's supposed to be a joke.

I'm not landing well.

And so I just want to open the floor up to, and I see Director Noble, but then want to open the floor up to colleagues, any final statements on Unified Care Team, and then I'll go into my close.

Director Noble.

SPEAKER_10

Just real quick, maybe a summary from kind of central staff perspective, that with the additions that are proposed in the budget, and I anticipate will be approved in the budget, the city is ever more embracing and institutionalizing, if you will, this model.

And this slide is just essentially acknowledging that and saying, if we're going to double down, if you will, and now would be the time to figure out whether we've got this organized the right way.

And I think the observations from the dais, I think, are appreciated.

Things seem to be working well.

We're only asking the question, you know, is this potential?

If we're going to do this full-time, you know, ongoing, have we got this organized the most efficient way?

And are there any measures that could be taken to be sure that it there will eventually be a transition in the administration, whether that happens in two years or in six or in ten, whatever the math is.

And again, I think both Councilmember Rivera and I from a different side saw this work sort of begin as kind of a skunk work project, if you will, somewhat haphazardly organized, but importantly directed from the mayor's office where that cross-departmental coordination almost essentially needs to be led.

But anyway, just to say that there is a sense that this is becoming

SPEAKER_12

THIS IS BECOMING A LONG-TERM CITY EFFORT AND IN THAT CONTEXT WE GOT IT ORGANIZED RIGHT BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE MOTIVATION HERE IF YOU WILL THANK YOU COLLEAGUES ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO PASS IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE AS THE SECOND TO LAST COMMENT AND THEN I'LL CLOSE US OUT SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IS HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to thank Jen and Ann, and she's not here now, but for a very thorough analysis and insightful policy considerations.

Thank you for all the work that you have done.

It's been incredibly helpful, and the presentations that you have given here today, and Chair Noble as well.

So thank you very much for that.

And I just...

I did become very impassioned, and I just want to say respectfully to Council Member Morales, I do appreciate the validity of your positions.

I also want to say I appreciate that You know, the program, the Unified, the navigation team, I think did very much start out as a suite program and we had advocates who, you know, came and brought that to our attention and to the city's attention and that is incredibly valuable.

And I think that that has moved the dialogue forward.

And so clearly there's a place for critique and criticism that that's essential to the work that we do.

So I do want to express appreciation for that.

But also I think it's important to acknowledge when we've made progress.

And sometimes I feel that that gets lost because it's kind of that narrative like, You know, some people say, well, you know, you love your country and so you never, any criticism is a lack of love.

And others say, I love my country and therefore I criticize it all the time.

It's like, how do we, you know?

So I think it's important to be mindful of that.

And the other thing that I wanted to say is When the Grants Pass decision came down, a lot of people in the homelessness community were really worried that this council was going to become draconian and begin to pass laws that allowed us to criminalize and arrest people who were shelterless.

And the mayor, to the executive's credit, came out and said, we are not going to do that.

And the council has also made a commitment to not do that.

And we could have taken the Unified Care Team and gone backwards and done a grants pass.

And we chose not to.

And we've made that commitment.

And so I think it's important to acknowledge that we...

We're on the record of supporting, making sure that every person has an offer of shelter.

We have to make that a viable, real offer, and there's work to be done to do that.

But that's a commitment that the administration and this council has made, and I would really, really like the advocates to hear that so that there isn't so much fear emanating about what this council is going to do, even when we talk about supporting expanding the unified care team.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Well said.

I'm just going to respond to a couple of things that I heard earlier today, especially about case managers.

We need more case managers to be able to create the by name lists, the needs assessments, and the placement.

We rely both on contract outreach and what I've seen is that the counselors that are on the unified care team are giving us more and better information to make better decisions.

When there's the disconnect between contracted outreach and our own city team, there can sometimes be a communication difficulty there just because everyone's human.

And again, when we're siloed inside, outside, By having case managers on these teams, we are getting better information.

I'm not gonna share the next level of work that I'm trying to push the Unified Care team to do right now, because that would not be appropriate to do so on the award-winning Seattle channel.

But I just let you know, colleagues, having more case managers is central to the success there.

I don't have the experience that obstructions are the primary use of the Unified Care Team.

My experience has been the majority of their removals have fit within the four to six week notice timeframe that we have today.

Again, in 2019, we were giving 72 hour notice to both contracted outreach and the people living on the streets, and that wasn't right.

And giving the four to six weeks notice has made a big difference.

There are also some people that have incredible mental health or chemical dependency issues that make it more difficult to meet their needs.

When we were doing the work on Leary Way last year, we were able to get 37 out of 38 people on our list into shelter, and one of those people we couldn't find.

And so from that statistic, it's a very good number.

If we couldn't find the person, that's 100%.

But to do that, we needed to take a long time to create that by name list, to do the needs assessment, and to find the right type of shelter for each of those individuals.

One of the steps in there was that many of these people did not have identification cards, had received referrals to shelter in the past, but not had been able to enroll in the shelters because they didn't have identification cards.

A really common sense solution there was one of the contracted outreach teams suggested we just bring the Department of Licensing van down to where everyone was and we got the folks their IDs.

And that was central to the success of that moment.

Another one of the elements that created that success was that we had different levels of shelter.

So we had some very high needs shelter that came with 24 seven staffing, medically assisted treatment.

We had a middle tier that maybe didn't have 24 seven staffing, but had medically assisted treatment sometimes.

And then we had tiny homes.

Three of those people were not ultimately successful, in shelter because we did not have the ability to match them with the level of shelter that they needed.

SAID MORE PLAINLY THEY PROBABLY NEEDED THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SERVICES AND WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM A TINY HOME VILLAGE PLACEMENT AND THEY RETURNED TO THE STREET.

AND SO IT IS I BRING I SHARE THIS STORY WITH YOU FROM MY TIME HERE ON COUNCIL AND WORKING IN DISTRICT TRYING AND PUSHING AND THIS WAS THIS PROJECT WAS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE PUSHED THE UNIFIED CARE TEAM TO START INCORPORATING THE BY NAME LIST also more commonly the census, needs assessment and placement.

I'll be really candid that that pilot project we ran was not scalable.

It did create really good policies that we're still using today.

A situation right now in my district is that There's an encampment that our case managers are working with the folks in that encampment to get them placement.

And the timeline of the removal is dependent on that the people be having their needs met.

That's not a sweep.

The resolution date has been moved because the services weren't able to be found.

The unified care team is well aware that if there's a date set and if we aren't able to be successful in meeting these people's needs, that date will get moved.

I don't know how better to say that that's not a sweep.

And I also understand that when obstructions occur, people feel like those are sweeps.

And I just, again, center in the fact that obstructions are not their primary, from my experience, have not been their primary method.

And that obstructions do occur when tents are blocking the sidewalk, when they're in parks, and when there's an incredible amount of violence or something that has happened that is very bad.

parks, sidewalks, libraries, these are places for community gathering.

And that's why those places have that special level of attention, that caveat, if you will, to the standard practice of four to six weeks.

We've had a long discussion.

It's 3.10 in the afternoon.

I'm gonna move us on to the next agenda item.

Thank you for letting me share my experience.

Jennifer, anything else for you to add at this point?

Thank you for sitting with us on this one and walking down this path.

We're gonna move on to the final presentation for the week.

Phil, if you could read the short title of item number four into the record.

SPEAKER_02

Agenda item four, Office of Economic Development for briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

We are joined by Jasmine Marwaha, our central staff analyst, still with Director Eater.

Director Noble, sorry.

Director Eater's not even here.

He'll be back on Monday.

SPEAKER_05

Okay.

Good afternoon, council members.

SPEAKER_12

Good afternoon.

SPEAKER_05

My name is Jasmine Marwaha, legislative analyst on council central staff.

And today we'll be going over policy considerations for the Office of Economic Development.

Just gotta sync my notes here.

First here we have a summary of OED's proposed budget.

Overall you can see that OED's 2025 budget is proposed to be reduced by 18.7%.

The business services BSL, which funds the bulk of OED's programs, is facing about a 29% reduction.

This primarily reflects one-time appropriations that are sunsetting, but then being added back as ongoing investments at a reduced scale.

And for greater context, in the 2024 adopted budget, almost half of OED's budget and the majority of were allocated as one-time.

That is because in fall of 2022, OED was still drafting its strategic plan for the jumpstart economic revitalization category of funding.

And as we were budgeting for the biennium in fall of 2022, allocating jumpstart funds before the engagement work was complete as ongoing would have been a bit disingenuous, so it was allocated as one-time funds in recognition of the engagement and the strategic planning still to be finished at that time.

The strategic planning effort that was going on in 2022 became what is now called the Future of the Seattle Economy or FSE strategic framework.

It has five pillars, which I'm sure you've all committed to memory because we adopted it as our city's economic development policies in the summer of 2023. But don't worry, we'll be going over those pillars shortly in the memo that's broken down and the attachment to the memo that's broken down.

The pillars are broken down.

What we're seeing now is essentially a combination of stabilizing the office's ongoing economic development projects after a lot of programs were launched with one-time funding from both Jumpstart and from Clifford.

funds, as well as a recognition of the executive's direction to OED and other departments to reduce spending in response to the general fund shortfall.

One other quick note, you'll see in this budget summary that OED would actually add two FTEs in their proposed budget, and that's intended to add capacity for the Special Events Office.

The Special Events Office has seen a surge in applications and in the size and complexity of events post-COVID, and they're anticipating additional needs in the run-up to FIFA.

If there are no general questions, I can move on to the policy consideration.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Council President, as chair of the committee overseeing this department, do you have anything that you'd like to share on this overall summary?

SPEAKER_07

Yes, I do.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I have to say that when we talk about a reduction in workforce development of that magnitude, I can understand that in principle people might be concerned about that.

But I can't argue with the rationale that the executive provides for this reduction, which is to proactively respond to economic and industry needs, adapt to the changing nature of work, scale effective practices across departments and programs, and ensure job seekers are securing and retaining employment in livable wage conditions.

jobs and careers.

So I do have to say that I trust the people that are really focused, including Director McIntyre and other members of the executive.

I trust what they are saying, that we have to better align our programs with industry needs and with what's already being offered.

So I will wait until the community attributes assessment comes out and see how we go forward in the mid-year supplemental if that.

And I do want to also note that it is my understanding that the apprenticeship programs that our labor partners offer are not in jeopardy here, because I fully support that.

Okay, I'm seeing a nod, so that's good.

All right, so while I'm fine with that, I do, however, have a problem with the combined $2.3 million reduction to the Tenant Improvement Business Community Ownership Fund and the Capital Access Programs, which help black and brown entrepreneurs who, because of the legacy of racist lending policies combined with many forms of structural racism historically that over generations have resulted in entrepreneurs having less equity to work with to start with, They have a much more difficult time accessing capital for tenant improvements, et cetera, to say nothing about owning their commercial space.

And these innovative programs not only fill a gap in more accessible financing products, they also increase opportunity to build generational wealth while helping to reduce the displacement of minority-owned businesses and the jobs and neighborhood cohesion and vitality that they support.

So that's where I'm coming from when I'm looking at these combined cuts.

And this total reduction of $2.3 million is over 31% of the total $7.37 million allocated to these programs.

You might think, $7.3 million?

That's not very much.

And yes, that is true.

And that gets to a more fundamental issue that I want to voice and say that support for small businesses citywide pales in comparison to the support that we provide in other programs that help our communities that are at risk of displacement.

And I think that that's something that we seriously need to take a look at.

Obviously, as a small business owner, I care about small businesses, and I ran in part to provide the perspective of small business and the importance of small businesses and to try to maybe I don't know, bridge the gap between what is a perceived gulf between City Hall and the business community in general.

And I—so we're not talking about a lot of support for small businesses at all.

And with these programs being reduced to such a magnitude, that simply means that there will be fewer projects that are approved.

And we—recently there was a—there was the announcement about Marjory reopening in the CD.

taking advantage of the commercial affordability program.

And so that's what we're going to be seeing less of.

And so I do want to know whether or not it has ever been considered that small businesses can be approved for any of the EDI funding, because that funds nonprofits.

But at the same time, these small businesses It's my understanding that they receive funding once.

I don't know of any small business that has received more than one round of funding.

And they are proving to be successful because these businesses are still in business two years later.

And so that's something that you can inform me of a little bit later.

I'm not saying...

I don't want to decrease the amount of money that is available for nonprofits, but I'm just wondering if there has ever been any thinking of thinking about these small businesses, particularly owned by people of color in our communities that have a hard time getting capital to begin with, have they ever been considered a potential recipient for any other kinds of support other than what is coming out of OED.

And lastly, what I'll talk about is I just want to remind people that OED is sort of the landing pad for a lot of the investments for the downtown activation for DAP, Downtown Activation Plan.

And these are some of the, so when we look at the size of the OED budget, a lot of that was our initiatives that cross departments.

And so just want to note that we, I am concerned about the cuts to the services that OED specifically has tried to advance and expand, and that also are consistent with the future of Seattle economy pillars that you very helpfully noted in your memo.

So that's where I'm coming from, and I might have comments or questions as we proceed.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

SPEAKER_12

We're going to pass it back over to Jasmine to walk us through the policy considerations, starting with number one.

SPEAKER_05

All right, yes, and I had pulled up the attachment as you were speaking, Council President, so folks could see some of the cuts you were referring to, but you teed up the first policy consideration, which is, do you agree with the proposed changes?

Is there a different way you'd want to weave together the economic development investments?

You know, overall, OED's proposed budget does continue to advance strategies identified in the Future of Seattle Economy Strategic Framework, but Council may wish to restore or repurpose, scale, or provide further direction, such as through proviso, for these proposed changes to advance priorities that are still consistent with the FSC framework.

And so...

you know, you can see an attachment one to the memo the the summary of the proposed changes, excuse me, and I Couldn't I can go ahead.

I know council president a couple yet a question I could go ahead and answer if that makes sense right now you had in your when expressing support for more funding for small businesses and you asked if there's a but if EDI contemplates funding for small businesses, and if there's any other funding available.

I do know that there is some coordination.

There's coordination between OPCD, OH, and OED.

around EDI, particularly to activate that ground floor.

So there is some efforts.

There are some efforts.

I don't know if EDI-specific funding goes specifically to those businesses.

I think it's sort of weaving together OED's funding with the EDI funding.

But that's something I can get back to you on.

OK, thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Wonderful.

Have we jumped into policy consideration one?

SPEAKER_05

We have jumped into it.

Basically, if you have any questions about these proposed cuts or any further considerations for me.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

Council Member, my apologies.

Here we go.

Council Member Moore, is that old hand?

Old hand.

SPEAKER_04

Old hand.

SPEAKER_07

Sorry.

SPEAKER_12

No problem.

Council President, is that a new hand?

Yeah.

Okay, keep going.

SPEAKER_07

Yes, I do have a question about the 250,000 cut for one.

What is the 250,000 for one time support for the South Downtown Initiative?

Or I guess my bigger question is, can you please remind us what the South Downtown initiatives are?

SPEAKER_05

My understanding, and that's a proposed addition, and that is funding for more intergovernmental coordination in South Downtown.

There's a site that was owned by WSDOT that I think is near Lumenfield on First Avenue South.

The Waska site?

Yes, that's it, the Waukesha site.

And I believe it's being proposed for a mixed-use development.

And I think it's potentially going to be an anchor development for further revitalization of that area.

And so there is proposed to be $250,000 for consultant work to support intergovernmental coordination.

That's the information I have from the LED.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

I will probably not say this very much, but I have to say I completely agree this time with Council President and fully support the idea of making sure that we're investing and maintaining the funding for businesses, small businesses particularly, that are...

run by people of color.

And I do, you know, the whole rationale behind EDI was to support the ground floor construction of commercial space because it is so hard to find funding for that.

So that small businesses, particularly in communities of high risk of displacement, have a place that is more affordable because the construction of that is supported with city funds.

But to your point, I think part of the challenge with trying to provide money directly to a small business even as much as we would want to, is the state prohibition on the gift of public funds.

So I hope that that is on our state agenda.

I think I ask that every year, if that could be on our legislative agenda to deal with or to try to start something.

I also had a question about the South Downtown because one of the attachment two that you have identifies that as stakeholder engagement for South Downtown as a residential neighborhood.

and so if you don't have any I'd be interested in learning more about what that means this was a big conversation in the last couple of years and if we're going to go there I think it would be helpful for us to have a little more information about what that looks like

SPEAKER_05

I believe you're, sorry to interrupt, but just that is on the 20, the table 2024 Downtown Activation Plan status update.

Last year we funded $500,000 for Space Needle ideas for the Downtown Activation Plan.

That was one time funding.

And it looks like out of that stakeholder engagement, according to OED, one of the ideas was South Downtown as a residential neighborhood.

SPEAKER_13

Yes, and I see it back on the list of potential projects, and so I would be interested to know if that has changed into anything else, and what's going on there.

Okay, and then...

Is this, oh, so I, wait, I'm sorry.

I might be losing track of what I'm doing here.

Workforce development is the next issue.

Yeah, I just want to talk about the community wealth building.

So I have.

Hang tight real quick.

SPEAKER_12

I have lost track of where we are in this presentation.

Are we still on one or are we on two?

SPEAKER_05

We are on policy consideration one, which is all of the proposed changes except for workforce development, which would be the second one.

SPEAKER_13

So I'm going to hold that question.

Fantastic.

Yeah.

Sorry, my things are not numbered in order.

So on this, the pillars, I think, is what I want to talk about.

So pillar number three, is it pillar three?

Anyway, I wanna ask about generational wealth building and community wealth building.

So we did have sort of, parallel processes going.

Department of Neighborhoods was doing some work.

OED was doing some work.

And the department, so the work has been transferred from DON to OED.

We talked about this at the departmental presentations a couple weeks ago.

There is an assessment that I think we started many years ago, and it is still not quite done yet.

So I'd be interested to know if you have any more information about when that might be done.

But I also am particularly interested because what was happening at the Department of Neighborhoods was that they had a community roundtable that they were convening of small business owners who were people of color who were very excited about the fact that the city was actually paying attention and inviting them to participate in a roundtable, not about how to help their particular business, but how to build up the ecosystem of small businesses.

I don't know if that work is continuing, but in the conversations I've had with our small business associations in District 2, well, they are not BIAs, right?

We have a lot of small merchant associations.

We have the Beacon Business Alliance.

We have the Rainier Beach Merchants.

We have Mount Baker Hub Alliance.

These aren't They don't issue assessments.

These are just organizations that work very closely with our small businesses and build relationship between property owners and small businesses who are looking for space and all of that.

This roundtable was a really critical way for those small businesses and those organizations who aren't BIAs to start to engage with the city, with OED, with other city departments to understand how to how to be more sustainable and how to participate and be partners with the city.

So all that to say, I'm interested in understanding if that work is not continuing at OED, if we can push them in that direction.

And if it is, if the plan is to keep doing it, they're just not there yet.

I would like to know that too.

SPEAKER_05

My understanding is that they were allocated 1.3 million in the transfer from DON to OED in the mid-year supplemental, and that funding will be carried forward into 2025. So because it's carried forward from the mid-year supplemental, it doesn't quite show up in the 2025 proposed budget book.

But my understanding from OED is that that is the intention, is to continue with the programming for generational wealth.

And part of that will be assessing the pilot programs that are currently ongoing, soon to wrap up, I believe, this year.

And there is a strategic advisor to position in OED that has not yet been filled, and I'm not sure where they're at in the hiring process, which is something I can follow up with them about, but that that person would be charged with continuing the generational wealth initiative.

in whatever form or iteration it takes after these initial pilots.

I do not know exactly what's going on with the community round table in terms of when was the last time they convened or if they are planned to be continued.

I think OED has stated the intention to continue with the round table, but I'm not sure where that's at and I can ask them.

SPEAKER_99

Okay.

SPEAKER_05

Thank you.

SPEAKER_13

And then the only other question I have is on this policy consideration is the neighborhood business districts.

The funding reflects OED's focus on BIA support and development.

And I will just say again, as I did at the department conversation, I'm not sure we can amend the economy study, but I would be interested in making sure that the support that OED is giving includes small business organizations in a neighborhood that aren't necessarily BIAs.

SPEAKER_05

I asked a follow-up question about that after the department presentation.

They said that they continue to be staffing at least four full-time staff dedicated to neighborhood business district support, as well as carry forward from the retail analyses, the one-time funding for business districts from this year into 2025. And that the focus on BIAs runs a spectrum from neighborhoods that are interested in and almost ready to form a BIA to those that are very, very early on in the development process.

So I think there is a contemplation of supporting neighborhoods that don't have BIAs At the same time, there is a reduction in that pillar.

So, presumably, there is less funding for neighborhood-based investments.

So, I just— Yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_13

Well, and I mean, this is a conversation I'm having with a lot of folks.

You know, I met with the Chamber and introduced them to the Mount Baker Hub Alliance and the Beacon Business Alliance.

the chamber was not aware that these organizations existed.

And if I hadn't brought them together to talk about their needs, that would still be the case.

So I do think it's important to do more to reach out to business organizations that are really trying to support neighborhood commercial areas, but that aren't interested or unable to operate as BIAs.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Colleagues, anyone else?

I've got Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_12

Sorry, I got- You could call me Council Dan.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, no.

SPEAKER_12

Sorry, it's Friday in the afternoon.

I'll button up a little bit.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Councilman Dan.

No, thank you, Chair.

And definitely want to echo the support for Council President on the economic investment and development in our minority-owned businesses.

The- The, sorry, I lost my wording here.

The Business Community Ownership Fund, the first one that went out was Law Union by Sergio.

I went to school with Sergio and his wife.

And they used to start up at 15th in this little, the old fire station on 15th.

And they grew their business and now they have, I believe it's in the South End now, and they have their own place.

But they are architects and designers for so many small businesses in Seattle now that use local businesses, local people who are investing back into their own community.

And I think it's so beautiful when we go and we talk to some of the contractors or the businesses that are being developed and they're using all local people.

local contractor, a local architect, people that, you know, they have a friend, 60 degrees of separation in Seattle.

So I just want to say the investment in that is so returned back to the city, 10 times full and stuff.

But one of the questions I had, so that was just a quick statement, but I had a, just to show the investment, how that is just paying back our community and is just really super important.

But One of the questions I have and I see, and I think other council members had brought up concern about this, and trust me, I understand how important downtown is.

It is the economic engine to our city.

But one of the concerns, and it's not a concern, but one of the concerns that I have is making sure that the money that's being spent downtown is all localized.

I know that's not something that we can probably do as a council, but just being cognizant of that with economic development so it continues to spread out, because all this is being focused downtown, just making sure we have local artists and local businesses that are being poured into as we are continuing to revitalize our downtown, I think is important.

Anyways, it's not necessarily a question, just more of a statement, but just being cognizant of that as we're making these investments.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

I saw Council President has her hand.

Does anyone else?

Do we?

I'm just confirming we are now on policy consideration number two.

We're still on number one.

SPEAKER_05

Yes.

Okay.

Policy consideration number two regards workforce development.

SPEAKER_12

That's what I thought.

Okay.

So any final comments about the budget overall?

Because I'd like to move us on to policy consideration two.

I think I was willing it into my mind.

SPEAKER_07

I do have some answers to some questions that were raised.

If I could just...

make my point before we go on to a different topic please as chair of the committee thank you overseeing this department so council member morales um regarding your question about what the executive might mean by uh quote add residential capacity as well as other development in the neighborhood south downtown i think what you're asking is are we talking about housing in the stadium district and um No, to my knowledge, I'm almost positive that that is not up for consideration.

I do believe it is what Jasmine was saying, which is about the Waska site.

So I just wanted to, when you mentioned that's been kicking around for a couple years, that's not this, I don't think.

And then also there was a mention of giving away of public funds.

I want to make absolutely clear that the programs that we're talking about, we're talking about low interest loans.

These programs are operating within the letter of the law and not just giving small businesses this money.

Some of these programs are fairly complex, but they're loan-based at first.

So just wanted to make sure that that is clear.

And then just to close out and say that there is, I don't know, there is some, maybe it's folk wisdom, that every dollar spent at a local business generates five times the revenue when it circulates in a local economy.

I just wanted to make that point clear why this is such important work.

Because for all the reasons that we've already said, and also in times of budget constraints, I have always said that the last thing that we should be doing is limiting funding to programs that actually end up generating revenue for the city.

So just wanted to make that point, and we can go on to policy two, which I have less to say about.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

I mean, the purpose of us all being here together is for us to have this discussion.

So with that.

SPEAKER_05

Okay, yes.

SPEAKER_12

Policy consideration number two, workforce development.

SPEAKER_05

And I apologize for the confusion.

Both policy considerations are kind of woven together.

I just kind of pulled out workforce development from the overall discussion of the proposed changes because it represents a significant reduction in that particular pillar of investing in diverse talent and building our workforce.

Overall, the proposal is to reduce appropriations by $3 million, representing an 86% reduction in that pillar.

And as mentioned by the council president, OED does anticipate forthcoming citywide workforce development.

that will inform potential changes to our overall citywide strategies.

So this is an attempt to kind of really reset our workforce development investments.

The policy consideration for you all is related to the fact that the $3 million proposed reduction is permanent.

and that there's no funding proposed to implement the recommendations of the assessment whenever it gets released, which I believe is scheduled for, I think, April of next year.

So council may wish to allocate funding to ensure that there are these adequate resources to implement these recommendations, or council may wish to restore some or all of the proposed reductions, which I have listed out in attachment three.

Yes, these are your options.

You can restore any or all of the programs, allocate some funds in 2025 to implement, and you could have the funding be under a proviso to be lifted upon completion of the assessment.

You could accept the proposed reductions and just allocate funding in the 2026 endorsed budget, or no change.

And I'll go ahead and pull up the list of the proposed workforce development reductions in case that's helpful.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

Thank you.

I see Council President.

SPEAKER_07

That is an old hand.

SPEAKER_12

Okay.

You're also welcome to open this up for us if you'd like.

I'll also give you the opportunity to close us out on this issue if you'd like.

SPEAKER_07

What is the $3 million reduction being used for?

SPEAKER_05

So that is attachment three.

That list right there are the proposed reductions that total to.

SPEAKER_07

No, but what will it be used?

Where will that $3 million go?

SPEAKER_05

It's proposed to be reduced into the balancing.

SPEAKER_10

It's not being redirected.

Its effect is a net reduction in list up.

SPEAKER_07

I might have an idea of what to do with it.

Just kidding.

Anyway, thank you.

So no, it's not being directed.

It's not being redirected now.

SPEAKER_05

It's just being reduced from OED's budget.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Colleagues, any...

I have a couple questions.

Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_13

So I... I put the CBA in a couple of years ago to do this assessment of our workforce development strategies because as it demonstrated, we were sort of scattershot in our approach and spending a lot of money without having an overarching city strategy.

So I'm glad that this work is beginning.

I am concerned that there may be something for us to continue, some role for us to continue playing and we won't have any money to implement the recommendations here.

I might be interested in preserving at least some of that so that the department can actually implement whatever comes out of this assessment.

But...

More broadly, I think as it relates to the shift, what seems to be a shift to really letting our regional partners do workforce development, and the fact that most of this is reductions to the Seattle Jobs Initiative, can you talk about what the impacts for folks participating in those programs might be?

And really, I'm also interested in what the impact is on the the youth employment program as well.

SPEAKER_05

I do have some information about how many participants were in each program, which I could share with you, or I can also share with you later offline.

There are a number of participants that just won't receive the services from those programs.

It's essentially going to be the impact.

Some of these programs, there are similar programs that are being conducted by the Workforce Development Council.

I'm thinking about the digital skills training.

There are other organizations that do digital skills.

I'm not sure what their funding level is like or if those programs that exist outside of SJI would be enough to make up THE LOSS OF THIS FUNDING.

THAT INFORMATION, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN KNOW, BUT I CAN PULL UP JUST SOME INFORMATION ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONLINE LANGUAGE LEARNING RESOURCE SERVED 40 TO 50 PERCENT.

participants in 2024. The healthcare apprenticeship program looks like it has 45 participants this year.

It stipends for cohorts for low-income participants to meet their basic needs as they go through the apprenticeship program.

So yeah, I can give you numbers for each of these.

SPEAKER_13

So regarding the apprenticeship, I thought you had mentioned to Council President that the apprenticeship programs would be preserved, but I see the health care, health apprenticeship program and the health industry leadership program.

Well, maybe that's not an apprenticeship program.

SPEAKER_05

Yeah, I think I was interpreting apprenticeships as our traditional construction apprenticeship programs, which wasn't contemplating the cut.

But you're right.

It's true.

The health apprenticeship program will be cut.

SPEAKER_13

OK, yeah.

I'd like a little bit more information, if you have it, about how many people would be impacted by this.

SPEAKER_05

By each of the programs?

Yeah.

SPEAKER_13

Just knowing that healthcare is something both that we need tremendously and that that is an actual, even allied health programming is something that has career path potential and opportunity for promotion and advancement.

It'd be good to know what other options for the people involved in those programs exist.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Anything else to share, Jasmine?

No.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_01

I just want to reiterate my and other support for more workforce development.

I have a feeling at the very beginning of the year there will be a lot of closures of local restaurants and there will be a lot of people looking for employment.

And so I'm also interested in learning how the impacts to cutting these amounts for these different groups, especially the Filipino community of Seattle, what would that mean for their programming as well?

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

And Jasmine, are you gonna put that on SharePoint?

Or is that a real-time answer?

SPEAKER_05

Yes, as I mentioned, I do have the numbers of how many participants.

Actually, for Filipino Community Seattle, OED was not able to provide me numbers on that particular program.

But for these other programs, I have the numbers.

I just wasn't sure if I should read aloud the numbers for each of those programs or follow up in writing.

SPEAKER_12

Council Member Wood, would you like them right now or follow up later?

SPEAKER_01

A follow-up is just fine.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Comments?

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and recognizing I probably missed the boat on this.

This is probably a better line of questioning or comment for the earlier kind of policy consideration, but here we are.

I'll get it in if you don't mind.

So...

I have a question about the BIAs and specifically the neighborhood, quote unquote, neighborhood capacity and BIA support item under Pillar 4 for OED here.

And just curious to better understand how that proposed investment amount for this compares with future years.

And I ask because BIAs are critically important.

I'm honored to have three in my own district.

And SOTO and Alliance for Pioneer Square and the Junction.

And I think that's probably more of a reflection of the massive geographic size of my district relative to other districts.

Because you know we all represent roughly the same amount of people, but the...

The land mass is different.

In any event, BIAs are critically important, and I know this firsthand.

They deliver vital services to neighborhoods and help match or go above and beyond what city or local government services can provide.

And I also know that in certain under-resourced neighborhoods, historically, including those in my district, like South Park, Georgetown, and Highland Park, have expressed interest in a BIA.

And working with folks in South Park, for instance, requires a more targeted approach and assistance and collaboration with many people from immigrant and refugee communities and backgrounds who are business owners, sole proprietors in different forms.

And so I'm sure there's no doubt similar situations across the city.

And bottom line, these kind of entrepreneurs need more intensive type of technical assistance and resources and support to explore BIA, what a BIA could potentially look like in their area.

And I'd ideally also like to see more funds allocated on an equity scale.

for those kind of neighborhoods that might not be quite ready for BIA, but do need that extra support, extra kind of hand-holding to expedite the efforts.

Comment, question one.

The next thing I'll just say is with respect to the Junction BIA in West Seattle, you know, they've been curious.

They recently, colleagues as you know, we recently authorized their expansion.

And so, but they're also curious about the potential and opportunity to scale even further and adopt a regional approach across the entire peninsula and what that could potentially look like or alternatively along California from Morgan Junction to the Admiral District and Elk High.

have some sort of across the entire peninsula or have some sort of more confined but still greatly expanded geographic scope on the peninsula.

And just curious, wondering if there's an opportunity to do some sort of study or pilot to create a model on how we could potentially scale an existing BIA in such a way that could potentially be leveraged and used as a model for other neighborhoods.

That is all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Council Member.

Dad from Delridge, Saka.

Loving this.

Dad from Delridge.

Dad from Delridge.

All right.

Council President, anything else to close us out?

I'm going to make some final comments, and then we'll be done for the day.

SPEAKER_07

No final comments.

Just to remind people that...

the property owners or the business owners are the ones that pay the assessment.

And usually that takes quite a long time and a lot of coordination to do that outreach and get that feedback about whether or not those businesses or property owners want that.

But I hear you and I remember Council President Juarez also saying, what about Lake City?

What about here?

What about there?

So noted.

SPEAKER_12

Fantastic.

Jasmine, thank you for this presentation.

You went into a lot of incredible detail.

I think you're the first central staff analyst to screen share the memo.

So job well done.

I think that's part of why I was losing my place.

SPEAKER_05

You spent so much time on those charts.

I know.

SPEAKER_12

They're good charts.

They're good charts.

And so just want to thank you.

I want to highlight that Office of Economic Development is one of the few Jump Start funded departments.

I look at Your chart, I have to pull it back up myself, because I'm in your memo, I need to go back to your presentation.

On slide one, looking at the business services for the adopted 2024, 29.6 million.

In 2019, that was 8.5 million.

So even though we are seeing in 25 and 26, 25 dropping and then 26 slightly going up, the comparison to five years ago was 8.5 million for those lines.

And I just highlight that it was really important to get the small business support aspect into the jumpstart payroll expense tax.

And so it's because Seattle is a city of neighborhoods and our smallest businesses make that fabric vibrant.

And it's great, it's beautiful.

No further comments on Office of Economic Development.

I'm going to close us out for the week, although we're not done with this section of budget.

We have two more days ready to go on Monday with public safety.

We've got the Seattle Police Department budget, Care Department, Fire Department.

We'll take lunch and then go into the City Attorney's Office budget.

CAVEAT HERE, THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES PROVIDE PUBLIC SAFETY WORK.

THEY ALSO PROVIDE THE CIVIL WORK, CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE.

SO THERE'S A DISTINCTION THERE ON TUESDAY.

AGAIN, WE'LL COME BACK FOR THE JOINT MEETING OF THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THE FORECAST COUNCIL.

This Tuesday is where we will either have more revenue to be able to fund our priorities or we will have less revenue and have to actually make reductions to the mayor's proposed budget.

I have been so lucky enough to be here when there's only positive news other than the real estate excise tax and a small drop in the sales tax last fall.

But I will share with you, hearing from Ben Noble earlier this week about some of the situation up in Snohomish County, this could be the first time where we have a bucket of cold water.

And if that happens, we're going to have some even harder decisions to make than we've already had to think about.

Just flagging that, we'll finish off with the Department of Transportation.

And then again, colleagues, I'm gonna be coming around next Wednesday, Thursday.

I know that I've got meetings scheduled with everyone to go through your priorities.

I wanna also share that holding back priorities to share with me because you think somebody else has the same priority, not a good idea.

The reason it's not a good idea is because if everyone shares the priority, that even if it's lower on your list, that means that there's consensus that everyone wants it.

For the viewing public, there's no Open Public Meeting Act violations here because I'm not sharing with other council members what other council members are saying.

Everyone's free to do that themselves, but this is me creating the chairs package because I want everyone's priorities involved.

With that, if there's no further business to come before the committee, we've reached the end of today's committee meeting.

The next Select Budget Committee will meet again on Monday, October 21st at 9.30 a.m.

Only written public comment will be accepted during that meeting, and the public may continue to submit written public comment at council.seattle.gov.

Hearing no further business to come before the Select Budget Committee, we are adjourned at 3.57 p.m.

Three minutes early.

Well done, team.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.