Good morning.
Thank you for being here for our regularly scheduled governance equity and technology committee.
I'm joined by council member Jennifer Samuels.
I was just told that I got some, I'm scared it'll be a few minutes late.
We certainly understand that.
Uh, we have three agenda items we'll cover today with the first one in ordinance and we'll actually vote on and creating a, a code reviser position for the reasons we'll describe during our discussion of that agenda item.
We'll then move to, the ordinance relating to the City of Seattle's use of the Cascade Public Media Capitol Hill's transmission site and tower.
And last, we'll cover an ordinance relating to the technology matching fund, and we're always excited to see what the community is doing with the use of that technology matching fund program.
So as we always do, I'll move to, if there's no objection, we'll approve today's agenda.
I don't see anyone objecting, so I think we'll approve it.
And why don't we take public comment, but I don't believe we have anyone sign up for public comment, so I will open that and close that and ask.
I believe it's just central staff, but anyone associated with Council Bill 119594 to come forward and.
Thank you, Ali.
Yeah, please just read on the record.
Council Bill 119594, an ordinance relating to inter.
Interpretations, corrections and revisions of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Okay, so that was a short version which will suffice.
Let's do some introductions first.
Allie Panucci, Council Central staff.
John I've read all the briefing materials in your memo.
Thanks for putting that together.
It's very I thought it was Well written and sort of self-explanatory, but why don't you just describe for the viewing public what we're trying to do through this bill?
Thank you council president council bill one one nine five nine four would create the position of code Reviser in the city attorney's office this position would include, would introduce a new position that has powers to make corrections to the code, would introduce efficiencies into code drafting, and would provide opportunity to suggest changes to the council that would provide better code clarity and make it easier for the public and the council and staff to work with the Seattle Municipal Code.
The code revisor today, the city attorney's office has two legislative editor positions.
One would be permanently reclassified to a strategic advisor, too, creating the code revisor position.
Currently, the legislative editors provide code drafting support to the council, to city departments.
and advise on code drafting generally and work with us on making technical corrections that need to be processed through amendments.
This would allow certain corrections to be achieved through the codification process.
and would, again, introduce efficiencies.
The code reviser's expanding duties will include the authority to correct, revise, and proactively correct non-substantive errors, including addressing discrepancies and harmonizing ordinances before the publication of the final code.
And the legislation also enacts several general rules of construction for the Seattle Municipal Code.
These powers are based on existing state powers, county powers, and other guidelines that introduce clarity in code drafting.
And as I mentioned, this will provide a more accurate and understandable municipal code and will also have a positive workload impact on your own council central staff and that the position would have the authority to fix those technical corrections and allow us to work with council members on more substantive issues.
Appendix 1 to the memo provides a more detailed summary of the authority the code reviser will have.
And just to reiterate, the authority to make technical corrections to the code outside of a legislative amendment process is very specific and technical and would not allow for any substantive changes that change the meaning of any of the codes or ordinances.
In the memo, I highlighted a few pieces of legislation that could have been avoided if this position had been in place.
So again, that's just to note that this will allow for government efficiencies by not spending time at committee on those technical corrections.
If this proposed legislation is recommended for adoption by the committee, full council could take action next Monday at their August 12th meeting.
Thank you.
So, again, I think you sort of laid out the logic behind it to create the efficiencies and you gave several examples, ordinances actually that were passed where my guess would be you have several pieces of legislation affecting the same code often as coming from several different angles and this would be a step toward efficiency and allowing for sort of a Almost not a streamlined process but a more effective process and so I don't see and as far as budgeting is concerned I did read the footnote that we should we will be okay for this year and Next year, but we would have to it would have to be in the budget through the budget process for the year 2021
Yeah, correct.
So, like in any legislation that creates a new position that increases responsibility, there will, you know, in the long term, there will be a budget increase, but it is not significant.
And for the next two years, we'll be covered with existing resources.
And if there were not resources available at that time, we would revisit that with the city attorney's office during the council's budget process.
Okay.
Well, I think both the city attorney's office and The legislative department made very compelling cases for the creation of this position.
It almost seems overdue, but so it sounds like a smart way to go about improving the process.
And so I don't see any strong objection at the table.
So with that, I'll move to pass Council Bill 119594. I'll second it.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
And I'll present this to the full council.
Again, because It's a non-controversial piece, but I want to, what I was thinking about was sending something to my colleagues, but I'll work the issue offline about how I make sure they're, I don't have to explain it in complete detail for 20 minutes when I present it Monday, so I'll get out a memo to all my colleagues.
Okay, I'm happy to distribute it at your direction.
That's good.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
Let's read the next agenda, please.
Council Bill 119599, an ordinance relating to the City of Seattle's continued use of Cascade Public Media's Capitol Hill transmission site and tower, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a 15-year lease with Cascade Public Media governing the City's continued use of the transmission site and tower for radio equipment and associated antennae.
Why don't we start with introductions?
I'm Tom Mikesell, your council central staff.
Spencer Bonner, radio communications manager for City of Seattle.
Hillary Hamilton with the real estate section in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.
Okay, so Tom, I'll let you tee it up and then we'll sort of walk through the issue.
So go ahead and explain.
Thanks for the write-up too.
Thank you, Council President.
So Council Bill 119599 authorizes the Department of the Director of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to enter into a 15-year lease with Cascade Public Media for the use of its Capitol Hill transmission tower.
This transmission tower is a piece of the larger public safety emergency radio network, also called PCERN, which was funded through a 2015 county-wide ballot measure.
Council authorization is required for any lease longer than five years pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code.
This lease that's being considered with this legislation replaces an agreement with KCTS Television that was in place since 1992. The city has operated equipment at this location since 1967. In addition to authorizing the lease, the bill also includes an appropriation increase, which is $90,000.
Well, actually, it's $180,000, but the lease amount is $90,000, which covers lease payments going back to October 2018. So that will take it through 2019. The total increase that's in the ordinance is actually $180,000.
And this is double the $90,000 because it includes pass through authority for the Department of FAS to pay the lease.
Whereas the Department of IT will actually be, the department will be operating the tower.
The total ongoing cost beginning in 2020 is $145,000 per year, and it grows by 3% per year thereafter.
After the initial 15-year term of the lease, there are three five-year extension options.
Unless there are questions for me at this time, I believe Hilary Hamilton from FAS and Spencer Bonner from Seattle IT have a presentation to cover details.
Sure.
Go ahead.
And that actually was an excellent background and really covers some of the slide material.
We have a lot of history at this location.
It's a key part of our current radio system, public safety radio system, and is a key part of the PCERN system that will be replacing it.
It is also a substantial increase in the cost of using the facility.
The good news is In 2022 or 2023, that lease amount actually reduces considerably, and we'll be paying something closer to $50,000 a year long-term on the property.
Let's see if there's, again, mention there of the peace-earned system and the evolution in technology over time.
As was stated, a 15-year lease with the opportunity to extend it.
I'll add we do have a number of other systems besides the public safety radio system present at that location.
It's a fiber nexus for the city and it's also part of our wireless data network that connects a lot of city facilities using a specialized wireless technology.
So it has some long-term importance to the city.
And this is just an illustration of where it's at.
on Capitol Hill at 18th and Madison.
Any questions?
No, it seems pretty straightforward.
We've had this arrangement for decades, it seems, and it seems like it was well-negotiated, really no increase in liability or exposure per se, and it seems to be financially or fiscally sound, and so I don't see any issues.
Any issues from my colleague?
We're good?
Okay.
So with that, I will move to approve council bill All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
Thanks for presenting this and doing the work to get us to this point.
All the presenters can come forward on the matching fund.
Technology Matching Fund Projects in 2019.
Okay, we're all set up there.
I was going to tell you to press enter.
No, I'm just kidding.
Stopping with Tom, why don't you just introduce yourself and we'll come back to Tom.
Saad Bashir, IT.
Delia Burke, part of the community technology and broadband group in Seattle IT.
Tracy Cantrell, Seattle IT.
Tom, did you have any introductory remarks, or should we just turn it over to the group?
I really don't.
I mean, I would just steal the thunder from CTO Brashear, so I'll just turn it over at this point.
And, Council President, I have no thunder to be stolen.
I'm just going to hand it over to Dalia, who will take us through a brief presentation.
Very good.
Well, thank you.
I'm excited here to talk more about the Technology Matching Fund program.
So the Technology Matching Fund is Seattle IT's main strategy for helping to support the community's efforts for digital inclusion.
So we want to get the best ideas from the community each year on how to address these issues.
And Seattle has long been a leader in recognizing the need for digital inclusion.
And we want to thank you, Council President Harrell and the council for the ongoing commitment and support of this program.
We've been able to fund over 300 projects since the program began.
And this year, we are proposing to support 11 new projects with our budget of $320,000.
We'll be able to leverage that funding with an additional $302,000 in matching commitments from the community.
To get the group of proposals, we did extensive outreach early in the year.
We worked with doing workshops, one-on-one technical assistance.
Lots of opportunity for the community to apply.
And our objective has been to make city funding as accessible as possible.
We want to ensure that organizations, large organizations as well as small grassroots groups who may not have professional grant writers are able to be successful with this program.
So from that, we've received 47 applications requesting over $1.8 million in funding.
So we had a very deep pool of applicants and strong proposals to work from this year.
To select the projects, we worked with an external panel of reviewers comprised of members from our Community Technology Advisory Board, CTAB, Seattle Pacific University Information School students was a new partnership this year, and many other community volunteers.
And building this diverse group of voices to look and vet these proposals is a really strong part of our process in ensuring an equitable distribution of our funding.
Let me ask you a question about that.
That's sort of a new approach, and it seems to have worked successfully.
But can you tell me the thinking that went into that?
It was my understanding that prior to that, it was the CTAB subgroup that primarily did the evaluations, if I'm mistaken.
It was primarily a subgroup of CTAB members that were interested in volunteering on it.
But we find that, you know, often CTAB is somewhat limited in background and we wanted to actually broaden that.
We wanted to get more people from the community.
different from different perspectives.
So, and having a larger panel, I think actually brings that in as well.
So many of the community volunteers are actually, were ex-CTAB members who were engaged and want to stay committed to the program.
And Seattle Pacific, why Seattle Pacific?
Do they have interested students?
Did you sort of came forward or was that a target of ours?
Yeah, we worked with the information school and they actually had a digital equity component of one of their spring courses.
So we worked with the instructors there to engage the students on our review panel and they actually earned service learning credit by this and really getting some real world kind of understanding of what some of the issues are facing the community.
So it was a successful pilot this year and we hope to continue that next year.
So the panel is recommending this slate of projects, and we're really excited about the group of applicants this year.
It's a really nice mix spanning all over the city.
We have several groups that we funded in the past, but we've also opened it up to new projects.
And when you read the project descriptions, You know, all these projects have technology, a technology component about them, but the projects are really about people and about how people can use technology to improve their life goals and to helping them advocate for themselves and their communities.
Of this group of 11 projects, several of our grantees will be helping to build a more equitable workforce here in Seattle.
So for example, Real Change is working with homeless individuals to gain job skills, to move out of their situations.
Dress for Success Seattle is working with very low-income women to help get a pathway into tech careers.
Another interesting project is Indigenous Placemakers, which is working with Native American artists, which is actually one of the most disconnected communities here in Seattle.
And this project will help those artists gain more professional skills using technology for their careers.
Our projects are also helping some of the most vulnerable residents in Seattle, like seniors and people with disabilities, to reduce social isolation and stay more connected.
So Kenan Community Health Care is a program in the southeast part of Seattle that is working with Asian seniors to engage with telehealth.
So they'll be able to manage their own health care live healthier lives.
Full Life Care is actually working with seniors and people with disabilities to use the Internet of Things to help navigate Seattle transportation and accessing other resources.
So we're excited to see how that project goes.
Just so I have a little bit more of an understanding of how functionally that works on the reducing social isolation for seniors.
Does that mean that there's a person who's going out and talking one-on-one individually with seniors and people with disabilities and helping them navigate the internet?
I'm just trying to get an understanding of exactly what the work will entail.
Yeah, yeah, so Kandana's working.
They have a series, well, they have a technology lab And they have housing facilities where seniors live, and the seniors can go very easily into this tech lab.
And they do a lot of classes and one-on-one assistance with those seniors.
But it's really, technology can be a great way for people who are homebound or disconnected to connect with family members that may be in another country, if they can learn to use Skype.
connecting with their grandchildren.
So basically kind of opening up, demystifying technology to be able to make it accessible to connect more.
And that's what I'm trying to understand.
Is this reliant on people going to a place where there's a lab?
Or are there experts in technology who are going to where people are socially isolated and trying to connect them to the internet of things and internet access to health care and so on.
Yeah, well right now, I mean, they're offering these, you know, workshops and classes and one-on-one sessions sort of in the in the setting of the community center.
But both those organizations have, you know, case workers and trusted people that work with those populations to help engage them and help them embrace those classes.
Yes.
I'm familiar with Kenon and that's, they have monthly classes.
And it's sort of funny that, We're thinking of people in their 80s, but it's actually 55 and over, so they're not exactly older than 55. But it's people that for whatever reason are learning.
particularly in healthcare, learning how to navigate through this.
And so it's sort of a fun kind of workshop where they meet younger people and sort of help them.
And they're fun classes because they try to reduce the fear and anxiety that people have dealing with computers as well.
So it's a lot of workshops and classes.
They have engaged with lots of young folks.
They have Amazons, Asians at Amazon is a partnership that they have.
So they bring in young tech workers from Amazon to engage with those seniors and help them learn.
And just to touch briefly on, you know, a bit of what the other projects will be doing in the community.
So some projects will be working not just with a specific population, but really with the whole family unit.
So programs like Atlantic Street Center or South Park Information Resource Center will be working with youth to provide tech access to do homework help and places to go after school.
But they'll also be engaging with those children's parents to give them basic tech skills to learn how to do email and connect with their teachers and navigate the Seattle Public Schools online systems.
So those programs will really be helping to kind of strengthen that family engagement with technology, where there can often be a big disconnect, where the youth have stronger skills than the parents do, in fact.
And then we do have a few programs that are really targeting youth to help with closing that youth opportunity gap and empowering youth with skills for the future.
Computer Skills for All will be doing STEM programming and exposing youth to computer science careers.
Jack Straw and Multimedia Resources and Training Institute are engaging youth on kind of exciting video and audio and helping to elevate their voices through technology.
So it may seem, you know, that with this funding we have only 11 projects, but you can see that these projects really have a deep impact throughout the community and will reach over 3,000 residents in very meaningful ways.
good.
Did you want to speak?
I was just going to say council members that this is my first year in looking at how we have been running the technology matching fund program and some experience in running these types of programs elsewhere There are typically three things that make or break the impact of these types of programs.
And I just wanted to share what those three things are going to be on my, Delia, Tracy's radar that we are going to not wait until next year, but we're actually thinking about it from yesterday when we had our first kickoff discussion on this.
But, you know, three things are how to We have a lot of applications and we have a lot of funds and we are trying to create a much, much bigger multiplier effect.
Governments are always going to be stretched.
We this year had a lot more applications than we could potentially fund.
And there is one multiplier angle There are many non-profit organizations in the community, many private sector, corporate social responsibility arms that are based in Seattle where we can create, you know, two, three, up to five or more even multiplier times in terms of how much money we're able to give.
So that would be a big focus for us to identify who those partners are going to be in the community that have a like-minded mandate to the digital equity program we have here in the city.
The second is shrink the cycle it takes from the time a person submits an application to the time we are able to deliver the funds and get them out the door.
And, you know, reviewing the program today, we do take a significant amount of time from the time we closed the application, which was, I believe, back in March.
And, you know, the money is going to go out the door towards the end of the year.
And so anything we can do from, because those organizations are ready to do all of the good work that Delia talked about, you know, back in March.
And so there are some strategies there that I'm going to be working on to implement.
One of them being not waiting until next year to start the 2020 grant cycle, but to actually start accepting applications this year.
which is, you know, as simple as that.
And the third thing is often small organizations, we are talking about some organizations receiving as low as $5,000, some maybe $50,000, anywhere in between.
Reporting overhead is something that often organizations anywhere receiving money from public sector are going to complain about, that we got money but then we had to spend even more than that to just do the reporting associated.
So making sure that we are not taxing our recipients in unnecessary reporting processes.
Those would be the three things.
Appreciate that background, particularly the first one, and you have talked about that, the multiplier effect that there are grants out there and there's organizations out there trying to fulfill their corporate social responsibility, trying to get at some of the same demographics and social needs that we see out there.
And so there could be investment dollars there.
I did have a question about Excuse me about the the number of successful grants.
I don't think anyone could argue that this is one of the city's I think greatest efforts and programs and getting money out to communities that really need it.
And there are real impacts that are taking place to vulnerable communities.
And so I'm just very proud of the work that the city's done.
So there's no criticism there.
I sort of wanted to understand philosophically sort of our approach.
It seems like this particular year we have some larger ones in the $30,000 to $40,000 range.
36 applicants that weren't successful.
I'm just multiplying.
I'm just deducting the 11 from the 47 applicants.
And it seems like in prior years we did more of a peanut butter approach and we had smaller amounts for higher number of applicants.
And so is this just a result of how the groups that made the decisions, how it sort of fared out or did we give them some directions to go a little higher with a lesser amount?
Or is it just organic?
It just sort of is what it is at the end of the procedure.
But I've noticed that this one seemed like we had a smaller amount with higher amounts, but maybe you could give me some background.
I don't even know if I'm right or that.
Maybe they were always around 11, but it just seemed like we had...
larger and smaller amounts.
I could be wrong on that.
We did.
I mean, we did have, well, the grant maximum was increased over the years as some of the complexities of the projects and kind of the work that they were doing.
So it did increase from, I think, $20,000 to $30,000.
And right now it's at $50,000.
So the maximum is higher.
the budget has not increased, so we've been funding fewer programs.
This year, too, we weren't, this year we did have a higher average grant request than we did last year, so we were, the review committee elected to actually not even fully fund the proposals to even get to the 11. So we're trying to kind of deepen the investment on some of these programs.
to deliver these impacts, but it is a challenge and it may be that we need to reduce the grant award to fund more programs given the current budget.
So I'm guessing, do we give direction or parameters to the, I don't know what to call this.
The evaluation group, I just call them the evaluation groups with the Seattle Pacific and CTAB and the community members and staff.
Do we give them parameters and we say, okay, we expect there to be less than 20 or less than 15 in the average amount?
Or do they just look at the full pot of 320 and say, we're going to see what comes in to make an evaluation?
I didn't understand your response on my question.
Oh, so I mean, the maximum grant award that applicants can apply for is $50,000.
And so each year, we don't really know what we're going to get.
And so the reviewers will read and score all the proposals, and we'll basically get kind of a ranking based on their criteria.
And from that comes the hard job of looking at, where projects have fallen and how to best allocate that funding.
And so some years we may have smaller grant requests and we're able to fund more.
Some years it just depends on how that works.
But there are guidelines that organizations can apply up to $50,000 and many of them do.
So the increase to 50, is that new?
It's been 50 for the last few years, and some of that is, you know, staff capacity to administer the grants, the thinking was.
So in the last couple of years it went from 30 to 50 or 20 to 50?
It had been 30 for many years, but I think it was maybe two or three years ago that it was increased to 50.
So one of my just concerns about that approach, I didn't realize that, number one, but number two, I guess we have to monitor it, but it would seem to me that, again, I just don't know what's more effective.
Do we spread it around a little bit on smaller amounts for some of the grassroots efforts, or do we sort of double down on, I mean, they're all grassroots to some extent.
Do we double down on those on the higher amounts?
I don't know.
I'm hearing you say we, as a staff, apparently increased it from 30 to 50, and then we sort of see what comes in the door.
But there are some smaller awards given as well, I noticed, and so they're not all 30, of course.
But I was just, again, trying to better understand.
In fact, I think the smallest one was five, and that's a real change.
And, but most of them seem a little more so.
Okay, I'm just trying to understand the context.
It wasn't good or bad, I was just trying to understand.
And I guess my last area of inquiry were, I like the impact on the community chart.
It sort of helps understand where we're investing.
Same sort of question, do we, we know our needs as a city and where we may think or presume digital investments may, should occur.
But it seems that we don't dictate that to the evaluators, that we just let it come from the community.
Or, am I wrong, do we tell them, okay, one of our biggest concerns is homelessness right now or senior isolation, and look at those a little more favorably.
Do we just let it grow organically, or do we sort of give the evaluators some direction?
So in our guidelines, so one of our key criteria is that we are funding historically underrepresented and underserved communities.
So that has a very high weighting.
And so through our criteria, the evaluators really ensure that it's meeting those needs.
We also had, so I think through the criteria is really how we guide this.
There are also some areas of community benefit.
Is this, what impact is this making on the community?
What kind of, is there a recognized need?
Will this be successful?
So I think through that, as the reviewers score these things, certain programs rise to the top.
So all of these projects were very competitive with others to sort of identify who they're serving, how they're going to do that, and what is the need in the community.
If I can offer a couple of other ways to think about it, given the envelope that we have to give out, it's not going to be sustainable for the long term for any one organization.
So the way I would look at it is that this is seed funding that we are providing to a multitude of different organizations, where some of them are going to work in such a way that they will find the ways to sustain it beyond the city's funding.
and become independently funded projects.
And in some cases those initiatives, those pilots may not go much further.
And so I would go towards more providing funding for maybe a larger group of organizations versus just giving all the funds to one or two organizations.
The other way to also The other lens that I'm going to also apply as I get into this a bit more deeper is, are there any organizations that have no sustainability plan beyond receiving the $15,000 from the city?
And if they don't, then that is a red flag because we want these impacts to be much more longer term than just a calendar year.
Very good.
And were either of you on the evaluating committee or either of you staff on the on the evaluating committee?
I was not.
No.
Yes, we did have several staff members in our group, and I was on the review committee as well.
The reason I was asking is, in the past, I've usually had CTAB.
We did a little differently this year.
I really just moved toward efficiency.
I've literally had every recipient of the funds here at the table.
You've sat through some of these.
They're in the audience, because I want the city to know who we're investing in.
This year, I opted not to do that.
But I have found it very helpful to have CTAP members here to ask the question about how they evaluate it.
Because my heart goes out to the 36 that didn't get it as well.
And I'm always trying to let them know they could reapply again, or they should get some feedback on why they didn't quite make the cut list.
These 11 obviously will shine and do well.
And we want to make sure we're partnering with them.
But the last piece is, I think the last year we did it, some jokes about district representation.
And so offline, Tom, can you just give me the districts that these are?
Now, we understand they draw from residents and people from all over the city.
So just because they're based in District 1 or District 2 doesn't mean they're just there.
But there was some lively discussion on whether it was District 2 heavy for some reason, which it wasn't.
But maybe you could just let me know what districts these are in.
But I don't need it to, it's not going to alter my support for this, and I don't think anyone's, but we did, I did sort of commit that.
Tracy?
You mentioned the recipients that didn't get an award or that have submitted an application.
And that really, when Saad mentioned some of the areas that we're trying to look at to make this a more efficient process, part of that is what's driving the work that we want to do.
Because there is a need that's not met.
So are there things that we can do that will help meet a greater need.
Very good.
Very good.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
This is going to be an exciting year.
I haven't voted on it yet, but again, great work.
I want to thank all of the evaluators.
That's not easy work.
I mean, I've been in some of those kinds of meetings and to just look at the end product and say, ah, you know, look, great work.
We did a lot of work and went into that.
So any other questions from any of my colleagues?
Council Member Herbold.
I just want to thank you, Council President Harrell, for your work on the matching fund over the years.
I know it's been really important to you, and you've shepherded its creation expansion and did oversight of a lot of the awards that have gone out the door.
So I really appreciate that value you've given.
I appreciate that very much, and this is a great department.
They take this work very seriously, so I'm very proud of that.
Okay, with that, I'll move to pass Council Bill 119-595.
So, it's been moved and seconded and passed the bill.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, and we'll present this Monday.
Thank you very much.
And with that, we'll stand adjourned.