Seattle City Council Public Safety Committee Meeting 3/25/2025

And good morning.

The Public Safety Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.36 a.m., March 25, 2025. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

President.

Council Member Moore.

Excuse.

Council President Nelson.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson will soon be joining us.

And I also want to welcome Council Member Solomon to our committee.

Thank you for coming.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Before going into public comment, I have the chair's comment report.

I wanted to start off today.

Again, welcome everyone.

I wanted to start off today by noting that 2024 was an important year legislatively with respect to public safety.

11 major public safety bills were passed.

Key now is the implementation of these bills.

The vacant building abatement bill.

Chiefs Goggins is using this to great effect to those buildings that are basically a public safety threat to our communities.

SPD staffing, recruitment incentive bills, which were done through our sister committee, the Governance Accountability and Economic Development, along with the SPOG interim agreement, were key in terms of what we're seeing now with applications up.

But what is important is graduating those recruits into the police force.

That's what's really important.

Right now, we're seeing applications up.

But that is the key point.

And because of circumstances, that takes a better part of a year.

We have our technology bills, the ALPR, the Automatic License Plate Reader, Real Time Crime Center, RTCC, along with the CCTV, the closed circuit television.

Been informed already that ALPR has been used in making a homicide arrest.

And I can see as we stand up the RTCC and the CCTV program that will be aiding us as well, which is so important.

but I'm happy to see that the ALPR is being used to great effect now that it's fielded throughout the fleet.

The SCORE ILA is important to complete.

Related is the King County Jail Agreement, arguably along with the SCORE interim agreement, the two most important pieces from last year.

The bed rate at the jail is super important in that it reflects efforts to improve our public safety posture.

It reflects the arrests that we make.

And I should note, I had a meeting with the King County Jail Health team recently, and we'll be working with them to have them come to committee.

A lot of attention goes to soda and soap.

They're starting off slowly, but that's part of the reflection of the lack of officers.

Part of this is understanding how these bills come about, but how they're implemented, and what's the process to get to the end point, in this case, a judge ordering a soda or soap order.

But those have started.

Street racing.

I'm happy to report that I've been hearing that street racing is established and starting to be more and more used, which is important due to what that goes to in terms of our permissive environment in our city.

Key here, and this is one thing I wanted to note, is expectation management.

I noted with the SPD staffing, it takes a year.

I think sometimes because of reporting and the like, there's this expectation that everything's going to turn on a dime.

And it doesn't happen that way.

It takes time to implement these bills.

It takes time for not just the police department, but also the fire department and care department to be able to act on them.

But we are moving in that direction.

And in 2025, we already have less lethal weapons for crowd management in the books as part of our consent decree process.

And today we'll have our after hours establishments bill, which really seeks to address the violence that we're seeing between 2 AM and 6 AM, along with our consent decree resolution.

These are important, but arguably right now, you can also say past bills are important or even more important.

And one of those is 2023's public drug use and possession bill.

One of the things on this bill that is key to remember, and I think it gets lost, is in the recital it says, whereas people suffering from substance use of disorders need treatment and arrest in case of knowing, possession, or in use of public place of a controlled substance should occur only when there is a threat to peace and well-being of the community or a threat of harm to others.

I've had so many meetings lately where the community is being harmed.

There is threat to the Belltown community.

I see it again and again.

I've had meetings with community.

The downtown community is feeling that threat to peace and well-being.

Clearly, everybody knows about Third Pike and Pine, but 12th Jackson and King, the CID, the Chinatown International District, clearly there is a threat to peace and well-being of the community and threat to harm to others, particularly as we've seen in CID with the stabbings.

This is the key point of this bill, and it is something that needs to be emphasize something that needs to be understood.

Later in the bill, in G, section number three, an officer will not arrest an individual who only poses a threat to himself absent articulable facts and circumstances warning such an action.

I will argue to you that it is an articulable fact that our communities and our neighborhoods are being harmed.

And it's not just those I mentioned.

We also have what's happening in West Seattle that we see now and again, but particularly in D4, as we've seen in Magnuson Park, where we have to have rolling mobile teams, this is articulable harm to that community.

And moving north, we have Aurora.

Clearly, articulable harm is being thrust upon that community.

So my position as a council member and as chair of this committee is that it is important to have that in mind for our police department, for all elements of public safety, and for us to act on that.

It is key if we want to improve our public safety posture and improve the safety of our citizens in this city.

I just wanted to say that because it's important, and I believe due to, you could say lack of clarity, but I just wanted to bring the clarity, particularly from the city council, because that's important for our officers to hear.

So thank you for that.

Separately, I just wanted to note as well, is that we recently had an officer-involved shooting at the Southwest Precinct.

The key thing here is for we put a lot of pieces in play, as we've seen with the consent decree, a lot of reform.

We have accountability partners.

We have policies regarding investigations on use of force and the like.

And it's important for us to let our system work.

And I think it will work.

And there'll be questions.

And we'll get to that.

And that's our responsibility as a committee, is oversight.

And we take that seriously.

I believe that we should be doing that oversight.

We will do that oversight.

But we'll let the system work.

And we'll support that process, both in terms of policy for SPD, but also support our public accountability partners.

Obviously, the OIG, Officer Inspector General, Office of Police Accountability, OPA, and also our Community Police Commission, which is represented today in our audience.

I think it's important to do so.

And sadly, it was a tragic event that happened at the Southeast Precinct.

But let's look at that.

Let's have our investigation.

Let's review.

And let's see what lessons learned can be drawn from it.

So with that, that is the end of my chair comment.

And we'll now move.

to our hybrid public comment period.

Clerk, how many people do we have today?

Currently, we have three in-person speakers signed up and there are six remote speakers.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes and we'll start with the in-person speakers, just run through those three and then to the remote speakers.

Can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

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

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

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

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

The first in-person speaker is Andrea Suarez.

Hello, there we go.

Thank you, my name is Andrea Suarez.

I'm the founder of We Heart Seattle.

I own, work, and play in Belltown.

I was a first responder in my neighborhood on March 6th at 11.30.

Six to eight gunshots I heard from my window.

Thank you SPD for having the perpetrator in handcuffs within 10 minutes.

I was also a first responder.

I live in Belltown, and you guys all know I'm boots on the ground.

I have all the video of the stabbing victim and perpetrator on Friday at noon on 3rd and Blanchard that took place last week.

A man was tased to the ground, and again, he was in handcuffs in less than 10 minutes.

Thank you to SPD.

In my last minute, what I wanna convey here is that Belltown is hell town.

Still, even after all of the work we've done, there's more to do.

Not by a lot of hard work by the council, and I appreciate you, Council Kettle, for all you've done for my community.

The most vulnerable population is actually at harm here from this lack of action, though, and lack of arrest, and a lack of actual crime taking place.

This morning on my walk here, There were more than 50 people smoking fentanyl, methamphetamine, crack cocaine in their wheelchairs, on their tarps, on our sidewalks that I walked by and did welfare checks with.

There are other agencies who walked by and handed out these snacks and these waters and I want to help the helpers.

I want to do better.

I want to intervene.

I want to be known for the agency that does drug user intervention.

And right now we're on track to helping two people a week get inside to detox and reunite with family into halfway houses.

So I'll continue to put myself out there to want you all to be successful.

I also witnessed yesterday a sweep, I guess, that happened by the Sheriff and Metro team in Lenora.

All of those people were back within 10 minutes.

It's an honor to be here with Scott Lindsey, who I know has been talking about policy for decades.

Our next public speaker is Lauren.

Good morning.

My name is Lauren Lundberg, and I am the deputy director of the Soto Business Improvement Area, and I'm here to share my support for Council Bill 120956, establishing regulation of after-hours nightlife lounges.

Our city has seen a rise in violence and lawlessness associated with unpermitted after-hour nightlife venues, escalating in the tragic shooting we saw last summer in Soto.

Over the past two years, we have seen a staggering increase in concerning behaviors associated with these illegal nightclubs, with hundreds of shots fired, injuries, and increased property damage.

We have long advocated for a pragmatic approach to addressing these issues, and the proposed bill recognizes that simply shutting down a single club after a tragedy doesn't address the root issue is that Seattle is a growing city and needs to have safe options for people who want to socialize after 2 a.m.

I want to thank Council Member Kettle for introducing this legislation and for the committee's leadership on this issue and for recognizing that targeting this one specific type of club or calling for a shutdown of all after hours nightlife is not a realistic solution.

The bill presented today is a step in the right direction, and we hope you pass this legislation to ensure that the City of Seattle has a nightlife ecosystem with diverse types of venues and opening times that are all operating safely.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker is Yahira, and if I mispronounced your name, please correct me.

Good morning, my name is Yajaira Garcia, and I am David Esquitel's cousin.

I am someone who looks forward to a night out in a city.

After realizing the reality of these safety issues at after hours clubs, it's made me second guess being out late.

This shouldn't be the case.

What more enjoyable would it be to know I can be out with people I care about and not have to worry so much about our safety?

There's absolutely no reason to have

Any weapons at an after hour lunch?

It's ridiculous to be having this conversation because these are common sense regulations that should already be in effect.

What number do we have to reach in homicides for regulations to be enforced?

How many more families torn apart will it take for there to be a change?

It's unfortunate that we have to share these concerns using the story of my cousin.

But I would like to end by saying that we will not stop at nothing to give him the justice he deserves.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Thank you for all the public commenters in person today.

Our first in our first remote speaker is Valerie.

Valerie, please press star six.

District two.

Police reform under the consent decree was instigated in 2010 when an SPD officer panicked at the sight of the wood carving knife John T. Williams was carrying and shot before Williams knew what was happening.

Fifteen years later, we've heard much rhetoric about Seattle's police reform process, yet the recent killing of a person in crisis in the West Seattle police parking lot is an example of how far we have to go in improving police culture attitudes, training, and practice.

Video shows numerous officers in a large enclosed space with many available barriers between them and a slow-moving man with a knife.

They shoot him before trying any other physical methods.

A Twitter post from SPOG this week claimed that, quote, this individual gave the officers no choice, unquote.

But there were choices, as proven in places where police are trained to respond differently.

For example, police in the UK use shields to protect themselves when disarming people with knives, a technique recommended by PERF, T-E-R-F, in the US.

This is not the first time since the consent decree that SPD has fatally shot someone who could have been disarmed.

Please educate yourselves on the alternatives to shooting people in mental health crisis within the first moments of a police encounter.

We could do much better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Howard Gale.

Howard, please press star six.

Good morning.

Howard Gale, District 7. Last week, the SPD killed the 19th person in less than 15 years while they were brandishing an edged weapon or with no weapon at all in their hand.

17 of these people were shot to death.

14 of these people were clearly experiencing a severe mental health crisis.

Every single one of these killings was declared, quote, lawful and proper, unquote, by all aspects of our police accountability system.

Yet today you will discuss a resolution congratulating SPD's success in reform and accountability.

In the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland, civilians killed by police when they are brandishing edged weapons over the last 35 years, excluding terrorism or hostage taking, nine.

That is nine people killed by police with an edged weapon in an entire country of over 66 million.

You might think this approach makes policing more dangerous in the UK.

Yet police killed in the entire United Kingdom by an edged weapon over the last 196 years, 20 years.

Council member Kettle, you stated to me at last week's town hall that Seattle's police officers must do what is necessary to get home alive.

What a shameful standard for public safety officials.

Imagine if our firemen and women adopted that mantra.

Would they rush into a burning building?

In the United Kingdom, police say, quote, our duty is to make sure everyone goes home alive, unquote.

That is demonstrated by their statistics, and we should have no lower standard.

And the UK is not alone.

In Japan, despite most officers, carrying guns, people with edged weapons are almost never shot or killed.

We need a full hearing on this unrelenting pattern of executing folks experiencing a crisis.

Such a hearing requires someone with expertise, like myself, to ask and pursue questions that have remained unanswered, thereby perpetuating this cruelty.

Council Member Kettle, are you willing to pursue real answers or simply perpetuate a continuing inhuman practice?

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Tia Petrovich.

Tia, please press star six.

Good morning, my name is Tia Petrovich and I'm speaking in support of the after hours nightlife legislation and committee today.

In my Pioneer Square neighborhood just this year, January 25th, one man dead, one woman injured, 1.30 a.m., both shot.

February 15th, woman shot in a nightclub, 1.20 a.m.

February 25th, before 2 a.m., multiple people shot, one dead, two injured.

March 14th, gunfire.

One man shot in the leg.

All these incidences within blocks of each other, all nightlife related.

You can go back in time over the last 15 years and you'll see a similar pattern.

People being shot after a night in a club.

We need to try to keep people safe after a night of clubbing.

This legislation is a step in that direction.

for clubs that choose to license after hours.

The legislation would give something that we can rarely gift to anyone, a gift of time.

It would allow people to take time before leaving club, time to sober up, keeping them safe and others safe, time to leave when they wish and not being pushed out the street at the same hour.

I appreciate the club operators in my neighborhood and in other neighborhoods that helped craft this legislation to date.

And I appreciate all council members in support of this legislation.

Thank you so much.

Our next remote speaker is Gabriel Newman.

Gabriel, please press star six.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

My name is Gabriel Newman and I'm with the GSBA, Washington's LGBTQ plus Chamber of Commerce.

I'm here representing our over 1200 members to urge your support for CB 120956, which will increase the safety and vibrancy of our city's nightlife.

Our members want to grow Seattle's nighttime economy.

This is a key element to public safety.

After bars close at 2am, there just aren't many places for satellites to visit.

This doesn't just impact folks who visit the bars.

There's a large group of students, workers on late-night shifts, and night owls that want to take advantage of the late-night economy.

Unfortunately, the violence associated with illegal nightclubs and problematic after-hours activities deters folks from fully engaging with the nighttime economy.

This stifles the growth of a much-needed area of our economy and provides a deterrence to public safety.

This bill was put together through a thorough stakeholder in process that incorporated many different perspectives and community representatives.

I thank Seattle City Council for making sure this legislation was carefully drafted with the needs of the community at the forefront.

When we legislate to empower people to walk their neighborhood and visit businesses at all hours of the day, we can take back the night, support our economy and deter potential criminal activity.

This legislation is a fantastic first step towards transforming Seattle into a 24 hours city.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is David Haynes.

David, please press star six.

Hi.

Seattle is still in violation of constitutional policing, and it's been sabotaged since the beginning, and you all keep ignoring it.

There needs to be a Department of Justice investigation of this police department's failures to combat crime proper.

Most gun violence is directly related to the exemption of low level drug pushers who escalate most of the violence.

Yet there's no real effective laws or properly trained police chief to combat that evil scourge.

Instead, city council is making laws to extend late night hours for people who are drunk or smoking shisha, which is a toxic harmful third world chemical mixed with low quality tobacco that's put into a hookah.

that's burned by charcoal.

People are literally inhaling charcoal smoke and yet we're not allowed to have proper grown organic marijuana cafes.

What kind of twisted liberal misinterpretations are you all delving into?

It's like council cares more for slum real estate that wants to be used as some late night suspect shady business to generate some revenue so they can prop up the perception of property value and make sure someone pays the rent so that there's a property tax to collect at the end of the year.

Well, they don't care what happens to people smoking poison.

When the Democrats defunded the police, shifted the paradigm away from improving the war on drugs, and then created all these spinning priorities that prioritize repeat offending criminals for housing and services first, using homeless crisis budget money, allowing innocent homeless to be racially discriminated and subhuman mistreated by politically connected nonprofit donors that exacerbated public safety, the homeless crisis and the housing crisis.

Yet, this council was supposed to overthrow all those bad laws and right the wrongs with the defund police that exempted drug pushers from jail.

Instead, council gave the cops more money who don't even follow proper crime-fighting training.

Instead, they trained for propaganda outreach as if cops are a new breed of politicians, BSing the law-abiding community with cops always hanging out, acting like they're keeping us safe during daylight hours, giving us bogus excuses as to why they can't and won't fight crime proper.

while the experience of the chief who admitted he's not here to throw criminals in jail so much has obviously been miseducated by a racist George Soros influence professor at criminal justice.

That marks the end of the remote speakers.

Thank you, David, and all those that were calling in.

I appreciate it.

Public comment has expired.

We will now proceed to our items of business.

I should note members of the public are encouraged to either submit written public comment on the signup cards at the podium or email the council at council at seattle.gov.

All right, we will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item number one into the record?

Council Bill 120956, an ordinance relating to the regulation of after hours nightlife lounges, defining after hours nightlife lounges, establishing operational and safety requirements for such businesses, describing enforcement mechanisms, and adding a new chapter 10.10 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

First up, Erica Santana and Caroline Escatel.

Ms. Antana Eskertel, please join us at the table.

Welcome, a formal welcome to the City of Seattle Public Safety Committee.

We have the microphone there.

Please introduce yourselves, and for committee members, please Let our community members speak and pretty much hold our questions for the follow-on presenters.

My name is Erica Santana.

On August 17, 2024, my brother was a victim of gun violence.

I'm sorry.

My name is Erica Santana and on August 17, 2024, my brother was a victim of gun violence.

There are so many factors that could have prevented his untimely death.

My sister and I were the older siblings of my brother David.

We tried while on this earth to care for him the best as big sisters could.

Now that he is no longer with us, we want to say that even after his death, we did everything we could to honor his death by keeping his memory alive and helping prevent others from going through a loss like ours.

You here today have the power to help the community you love and serve by helping pass this bill.

As a family, we knocked on many doors.

We were turned away, ignored, or never responded to till this day.

that we didn't give up and we are here before you again to make you feel and understand, to become allies in this mission to make a better and safer community for us, our families, and all our citizens.

When we were invited by Councilwoman Wu to be part of a group to help in this bill, on our way to the first meeting we had, I found myself hopeful because finally someone was listening and it felt like a step in the right direction.

Then, While we were there, many difficult conversations about the many countless problems of what this bill is trying to tackle.

I learned there are so many other victims.

For me, my brother's death was the tip of a gigantic iceberg.

There are so many gaps in the laws and great areas that allowed all this to happen again and again.

It all felt impossible.

It felt infuriating and I found that one step forward with all I learned that day felt like no step forward at all.

Even though we cannot control others from committing acts of violence, this after hours regulated legislation will play a part in helping combat many factors that contribute to so many acts of lawlessness and deaths that are yet to be justice for.

We cannot undo what has already been done, that we can't prevent it by learning from past tragedies, by looking and taking account all that we have learned and how all these terrible things have come to pass.

The facts are there.

We can all see there is a big problem that with time does not go away.

The numbers of victims are not decreasing.

We are now the voices of those who are no longer with us.

I ask you on behalf of not just my brother, but on behalf of all the countless lives lost because of this lack of regulation, please support the work we have poured into this bill.

This bill has been made with intention to create a safe space for the establishments and their employees, also their patrons and surrounding communities.

I ask you to please consider this bill and not continue to let slip through the cracks all the gaps that have been allowed by others in your position who have permitted knowing the issue and lack of regulations, seeing those cracks through the years turning into an endless sinkhole.

I urge you please to consider this bill and thank you for your time.

I'm Caroline Escatel.

I'm speaking on behalf of my family.

My brother David's life was taken inside of an illegally operating nightclub.

It saddens me to think that even with such a young, beautiful life taken from us, it still might not be enough to enforce better safety measures and regulations.

What will it take?

How many more families are going to have to endure losing their loved ones to gun violence?

The neglected regulations currently in place can be a factor in a life or death situation.

They cost my baby brother his life.

My heart continues to go out to all the other Seattle families that have lost their loved ones this way.

It is such an unbearable feeling we have to now carry with us for the rest of our lives.

I never realized the sense of privilege I had to not have to worry about these type of things, thinking these laws were, of course, in place, and if anything were to happen, there were going to be serious consequences for those wrongdoings.

I was wrong.

And I no longer have the privilege to sit in silence.

That worry-free privilege has been ripped away from me and my family from the moment my brother's life was taken from us.

Our hope is that with this proposed legislation, we can make a positive step forward towards restoring trust and safety measures in these after-hour spaces.

It is crucial that after-hour spaces must have working video surveillance, properly trained security, and unimpeded police access during operations, to the very least.

With the proper regulations in place, we would be able to regulate illegally operating after-hour spaces and have more positive business for the clubs that would like to join in on this regulatory license.

We deserve safe spaces to unwind and have fun in, which should include after-hours nightclubs.

My family and I support this proposal with the hope for a safer environment and that our beloved David's name may never be forgotten.

Thank you.

Thank you, so well said, powerfully said.

I will say that this committee hears you, this council hears you.

So thank you so very much.

And also thank you for noting that it's the tip of the iceberg.

And thank you also for noting Councilmember Wu's advocacy for this bill.

Because I think it's not just a recent thing.

I think of Donnie Chin, who was killed in July of 2015, as he was looking to protect his community.

So for Donnie and your brother David and everyone in between, and since we take up this bill.

So again, thank you so much for coming.

I appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

And I appreciate it.

Neen will help you now.

Second up, Deputy City Attorney Scott Lindsey and central staff.

Okay, welcome.

Will you please introduce yourself?

Scott Lindsey, Seattle Deputy City Attorney.

Tommaso Johnson, Council Central Staff.

Welcome to our committee and to this topic.

Please, I think we'll start.

Will we start with Central Staff or should we?

Okay.

Go ahead with your presentation then.

I'll kick it off.

Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you, members of the committee, for having us today.

I want to start by thanking the family members of David Eschatel, who just spoke, and who have contributed throughout on the stakeholder process, the engagement process, as we've developed this bill over the past several months.

I sincerely hope that David's death is not in vain.

This bill is to address after-hours nightlife safety.

If you can switch to the first slide, I want to start off by sharing with you what is the problem that we are trying to solve.

In 2025 alone, there have been 17 shootings so far, and we're only still at the end of March, associated with nightlife.

Last year, 2024, there were 47 shooting incidents connected with nightlife in the city of Seattle.

The most common time for those shootings to occur is after 2 a.m.

And so at the bottom chart, what you see there is a chart that reflects what time these are occurring.

Of the 17 shooting incidents, this is just for 2017, you'll see 11 of those, this is just nightlife-associated shootings, 11 of those occurred between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m.

That's the real nexus of the issue that we are trying to solve here with the legislation today.

Next slide, please.

Further, what we found through several years of investigation of this challenge is that a significant number of those after hours nightlife shootings are occurring in connection with a very small number of establishments.

Those establishments we're calling after hours nightlife lounges.

These are locations that stay open after 2 a.m.

and really have a business model that thrives in the 2 to 6 a.m.

timeframe.

As you may or may not know, most bars, nightclubs, lounges, restaurants close at 2 a.m.

That's the time when you, under state law or state liquor laws, are no longer allowed to serve liquor.

Any establishment with a liquor license typically will close at 2 a.m., but the state allows some of those establishments that get a special endorsement called the extended hours endorsement to stay open as long as they secure their liquor and don't serve the liquor.

The establishments associated with the majority of the shooting events do not have liquor licenses.

They are not authorized to sell liquor.

Some of those advertise that they are selling liquor regardless.

Whether or not they are selling liquor, many of them have, they are operating in effect in an unregulated after hours space.

So there are no current regulations, for example, that would authorize Seattle police or other city officials to inspect the safety of those locations during their operating hours.

By contrast, businesses with liquor licenses are required to allow inspections by city officials and by LCB officials.

And so what we found is that because these select institutions are operating without a liquor license, in effect become immune from regulation.

Today's legislation is to fill that gap, as the Escatel sisters said.

Let's go to the next slide, please.

I want to speak specifically as to what this legislation does and does not do.

So the purpose is to provide the city with additional tools to improve security at after-hours nightlife locations.

The legislation defines After Hours Nightlife Lounge as a business, nonprofit, or club establishment open between the hours of 2 a.m.

and 6 a.m., whose purposes in those hours include socializing and either smoking or dancing.

To be clear, this legislation would not apply to bars or nightclubs that close at 2 a.m., it would not apply to restaurants that stay open after 2 a.m., and it would not apply to other specialty niche groups such as adult entertainment venues that are regulated elsewhere in our city code.

Just for context here, our city regulates a variety of establishments that are similarly situated.

For example, nightclubs that have 250 or more person capacity are specially regulated in our city code.

All ages dance venues, specially regulated in our city code.

In addition, adult entertainment venues, specially regulated in our city code.

but our city code has not been updated to evolve to meet this emerging challenge of locations that are really, their business model is to be open during that 2 a.m.

to 6 a.m.

timeframe.

The requirements that this legislation imposes are fairly narrowly tailored to address the specific security needs that we found over the past several years are predominant at these most challenging locations.

First off, it requires that they obtain and comply with all city permits and licenses.

Second, employ at least two security personnel, trained security personnel.

Third, that they operate video surveillance at entrances and exits.

Fourth, prevent weapons from entering the premises using either pat down or metal detectors.

Fifth, have a safety plan, a well-established safety plan that is submitted to the city.

And finally, allow the entry by all city peace officers, whether Seattle police or others, during operating hours, just like any other licensed bar or restaurant would.

Next slide, please.

This bill will be enforced by the Finance and Administrative Services Department, which is here today in the audience.

In support of that would be the Seattle Police Department, the Liquor and Cannabis Board, and other city agencies that participate in monitoring the late-night establishments.

The first violation of this bill would result in a $1,000 civil citation.

The second would result in a $5,000 civil citation.

So these would be civil citations issued by FAS to the owners of each of these establishments.

If they, for example, are operating without the appropriate city licenses, are operating without the video surveillance required by this bill, or violate any of the other rules described on the prior slide.

The businesses have the right, just like with any other regulatory system, to contest these citations before a hearing examiner.

In addition, the bill will authorize the city attorney to seek legal and equitable relief from establishments that remain out of compliance if they continue to violate despite the financial penalties that they're facing.

Again, to be clear, this bill will not disrupt the activity of after-hours locations that currently have an LCB endorsement for extended hours and have appropriate security measures in place.

And I want to thank those establishments that do operate in the after-hours, that participated in the extensive stakeholdering process that was managed by City Council.

In addition, again, the bill will not impact restaurants, bars, or clubs that close at or before 2 a.m., and the bill will not impact after-hours activities in private homes.

So with that, I'll ask if central staff wants to speak further, or we can turn to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Lindsey.

Before moving on, I was remiss, partly because we had such compelling testimony.

I wanted to know Council President Nelson has joined us.

Sorry for not saying that earlier.

And as always, already welcomed Council Member Solomon, who's not on the committee, but also wanted to welcome Council Member Rivera here too.

So thank you.

Okay, to the central staff represented by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Johnson.

Sure.

So I'm happy to sort of go through the bill at a high level.

This will sort of recapitulate in part what Scott has just presented to you.

You have a memo from us dated March 20th, 2025 that is supplemental to Scott's presentation.

So I'll just reiterate a few things that he talked about, sort of how the city currently regulates after-hours establishments, what the bill would do.

Then I'll touch a little bit on the cost, which is somewhat uncertain, but that's an element here for your decision-making.

So how does the city currently regulate after-hours establishments?

As Scott mentioned, there are some regulations that are currently applicable to new clubs, which are defined in the code.

There's not a regulatory license associated with those types of businesses.

There are just a suite of regulations with which they have to comply.

That applies to larger venues.

There's an occupancy cutoff below which you're not regulated by the city.

And so it applies to businesses like, why is the name escaping me?

Business on Capitol Hill, after hours dance venue, airports as a bar up until about two o'clock in the morning, neighbors.

So neighbors, for example, is regulated through the nightclub requirements currently.

As Scott mentioned, all ages dance venues are also currently regulated by the city.

They have to meet certain safety requirements.

There is, in fact, a regulatory license associated with operating in all ages dance venue.

Similarly, adult entertainment establishments have a regulatory license associated with them.

They currently are required to close by 2.30 in the morning, but there's already a regulatory regime that applies to adult entertainment businesses.

And then in kind of a non-regulatory realm, the Office of Economic Development helps nightclub establishments understand what the regulations are, how to comply with them, not only the city's regulations, but also state and any applicable federal regulations.

serve as a facilitator in establishing new nightlife establishments.

And the City Attorney's Office has a role in reviewing applications for liquor licenses for nightclubs.

So what would Council Bill 120956 do, and what would it not do?

It's important to know what it would not do, who would it apply to, and who would it not apply to.

It would apply to, as Scott mentioned, businesses that are open after 2 a.m.

with certain exemptions, specifically all ages dance venues, adult entertainment establishments that are already regulated by the city, Entertainment venues, like theaters.

So, for example, if there's some kind of a production that is happening late at night, that wouldn't be regulated necessarily by this, by Council Bill 120956. And restaurants.

And restaurants is a defined term in the bill.

It means a food business with an active permit from Public Health, Seattle, King County, that operates at the same location for more than 21 consecutive days.

So, in other words, it's a bona fide restaurant.

It's not a pop-up or something like that.

Regulated businesses would not be able to remain open past 2 a.m.

unless they have that endorsement from Liquor and Cannabis Board.

They would have to maintain the minimum security requirements that Scott mentioned.

They'd have to allow access to public areas of the business by city enforcement staff during business hours, of course, and then they would be subject to escalating citations for noncompliance.

When it comes to cost, it's a little bit uncertain.

FAS estimates that enforcement could be accomplished within existing resources from underspend.

That's largely over time for license and standards inspectors who would be doing some of the enforcement work, not all of the enforcement work.

They may require security from SPD, for example, to do some of the work, and also to develop outreach materials at sort of a one-time cost so that businesses would know where the new regulations are and whether or not they apply to them.

I say that the cost is somewhat uncertain because we don't know exactly how many businesses would be regulated by Constable 120956, probably fewer than 30, but it's a little bit unclear.

So there may be some future costs and position authority that FAS would need to fully implement the ordinance.

Some of that cost could be offset by increased licensing fees.

So unless there are other questions from from you all, or I guess that's what we have.

So I guess now is the time for questions.

Mr. Johnson, any additional comments?

Nothing to add.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

I also know SBD is represented here, colleagues, if anything requires their participation.

But we'll start with Mr. Lindsey from the city attorney's office and our own central staff.

As always, I've not looked at my system here.

But actually, Mr. Doss, who is online from central staff, I just wanted to recognize him for all his work.

If you have nothing to add, Mr. Doss, I just wanted to recognize you because of your support to this bill.

He's joining us remotely.

I don't see him coming online, so we'll just move over to my vice chair, Vice Chair Saka.

Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And first off, I want to start off by expressing my gratitude and appreciation, and most importantly, condolences to the family of Francisco David Escotel for taking the time to join us this morning, for your steadfast advocacy on this issue, and for channeling your anguish and pain that you are experiencing as a result of the murder of your family member, Mr. Esticatel, channeling that anguish to action.

And it is a call to action for all of us colleagues.

And I don't know about you all, but I'm just not prepared to tell that family no.

Challenge accepted, we need to do better.

So thank you also to the presenters with this very informative briefing and to Chair Kettle for reintroducing this proposed bill that as we know, Council Member Wu had been working on last year.

And also thanks to everyone who came out to speak about it today.

We heard loud and clear.

Among other things, this proposed legislation is very important for our city, but it's especially important for my council district.

As noted in some of the earlier testimony, Pioneer Square Residence Council is in support of us better addressing the underlying issues at play here with respect to unregulated, unpermitted, after hours, nightlife establishments.

I've been informed that The negative nightclub associated issues were among the top three items on the Pioneer Square Residence Council's neighborhood to-do list.

We also heard today, I've heard over and over again, but we heard today here in public comment, my constituents from Soto have been heavily impacted.

And I'm told that of the hundreds of shots that have been fired since the beginning of the calendar year alone, most have been linked to unregulated and unpermitted after hours establishments.

Our city has seen a troubling rise in violence and lawlessness associated with unpermitted, unregulated after hours nightlife establishments.

Like we see in Soto, the tragic murder last August that took the life of 22-year-old David Escatel.

And thank you again to the family members for your continued advocacy.

And Seattle's first homicide this year in Pioneer Square, again in my council district, near a club early in the morning where a man was killed and a woman was wounded, and a total of four shootings since January, all within a few hundred feet of after hours night life establishments.

It is important for us to better understand that these unregulated, unpermitted night life establishments often operate under the guise of legitimacy.

Many are not.

With attendees showing up to have a good time with their friends, having no idea that the club that they are entering, the venue that they are entering, does not have critically needed permits, training, or adequate security measures to ensure the safety of all of their patrons.

So this is a call to action, I think, colleagues for all of us, to do more legislatively.

Starts with smart, common sense regulation.

All right, that said, I have one question about the The penalty scheme here, and colleagues, so I appreciate that this has an escalating series of penalties, which is a construct I strongly support and helped champion last summer, as you'll recall, during our anti-speed racing legislation.

So I think we need to continue to do more of that, the escalating penalties.

But I would just be curious to better understand the approach taken here in determining the penalty amount and how that escalates in a compound manner, one after the other.

So just, again, curious, I don't know if this is to legislative sponsors or central staff or everybody, city attorney's office, but would love to better understand the thinking that went behind, like how we landed and arrived on this escalating penalty scheme.

Thank you.

I'll start with this.

And central staff, if you want to jump in.

But I was involved in the negotiation, the back and forth.

And your question is, how did we arrive at the escalating penalty scheme?

The thought here is that financial penalties will significantly deter most establishments from continuing to operate without coming into compliance with this bill.

In particular, if an entity violates on the first night, gets notice of that, gets the referral, the next night that they open up illegally, after 2 a.m.

without appropriate security measures, without being in compliance with this bill, they are immediately subject to now a $5,000 fine.

So our thinking was, in analyzing the size of these venues, the overall economics of these venues, that that type of fine would be sufficient.

If they continue to violate the fines will continue to mount up, but at the same time, the concept is that the city attorney would quickly move for legal and equitable relief to enjoin that establishment from continuing to operate and bring more financial penalties at that juncture.

The only thing I would add to that is that There are, of course, penalties, and then there's some associated due process protections as well in the bill that are similar to what applies to other types of licensees in the city.

So if you believe that the citation is an error, you can appeal that to the city hearing examiner.

You can also request a mitigation hearing as well.

So along with the penalties, which are sized to induce compliance, there is also a due process component if you think that your citation has not been issued correctly.

Thank you, and final question is this legislation would obviously introduce a new regulatory scheme and requiring compliance subject to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms we discussed, but what kind of pre-enforcement outreach and education would for these various after-hours nightclub establishments would be done or could be done to help educate and help them come into compliance.

That's great.

Once the bill passes, the idea would be that there would be an education period, particularly because it would be 30 days until the bill comes into effect.

But there are really a fairly limited number of establishments that we've identified as being active in this after-hours space, and that number, I think, is somewhere in the 15 to 20. We know who those establishments are.

are, who the operators are, the locations.

So the idea would be that city officials led by FAS, joined by Seattle Police Department and others, and aided by the city attorney's office, would launch an education campaign as quickly as possible to educate them about the new standards and help bring them into compliance.

And I would hope that that would also be aided by the Office of Economic Development and the nightlife coordinator there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair, and I would hope also by our local news media, another way to amplify that point.

For the committee members, Council President Nelson.

Thank you very much.

As economic development chair, I do want to just raise the regulatory equity issue here because I note that Small businesses, large businesses, they're subject to a lot of different kinds of regulations, and the city does a pretty good job of enforcing those.

Anything from a complaint-driven lack of a change of use permit to some business can trigger a lot of expensive work and potential fines or violations, et cetera, for one example.

New businesses or existing businesses that have never heard of a new labor regulation are subject to investigation and settlements into the thousands of dollars.

I'm not casting aspersions on those regulations, but here we've got businesses that are operating without licenses after hours and people are getting hurt and dying as a result of that activity.

And so it just seems to me to make perfect sense that we do, you know, put our attention on this really urgent public safety issue.

I'm just going to continue down the line with our next committee member, then Council Member Solomon.

Council Member Hollingsworth first.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Chair.

I just had a quick comment, not really a question, but I did want to thank David Eschatel's family for being here as well.

I know a lot of people have said that, but I know that you all took off work.

You came from South King County to come all the way here to give us your story.

And I know how emotional this might be for you.

And I know it's incredibly important, this bill.

So I just wanted to thank you all just for being here and just really appreciate your, you showing up, because I know it's tough to reopen some of those wounds, so to get this, you know, to share your story, so just thank you all.

I also want to thank, and I know, Chair, that you mentioned it, Council Member Wu.

I know this was a big deal for her, and I also want to highlight and thank Nina Park, who is a part of her staff, as well.

And now I'm super lucky to have her a part of mine who has been helping with organizing the phenomenal process with stakeholders and putting some of this together.

So I just want to thank her and just highlight that.

And then also I want to thank our city attorney's office and Scott Lindsey for your leadership and help on this as well.

I know that we had engaged with stakeholders on Pike Pine because we have a lot of nightlife on Capitol Hill and them putting input.

And I know that that was huge for our stakeholders to have some of that engagement and conversation to understand how this impacted them.

and understanding that, hey, just because this might be happening in district one or district two, that does not mean that this cannot happen in district three and how they saw like trends and stuff moving towards Capitol Hill from these other neighborhoods because of some of the, some of the non-regulated vendors operating and how they were impacted by that and what they saw.

Even though this might be for non-regulated vendors, it does have an impact on our current businesses that are operating here and paying taxes and just doing everything above board and trying to keep the safe atmosphere.

and how some of this bleeds over to them as well.

So anyways, I didn't have any questions because I've been heavily, Nina has been always educating me on this every day about this bill.

So I had all my questions answered and then also had gotten support from Capitol Hill businesses as well.

So I just wanted to just point that out for members of the committee if they had any concerns.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

And reflective of how important this bill is, again, to the families involved, we have two non-committee members here.

And I would like to turn to them next.

First, Council Member Solomon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to the family.

Thank you for coming out.

Thank you for sharing your story and your loss.

I have at least three of these establishments in District 2. And each one has had incidents of gun violence erupt frequently.

So this is something that I'm very, it's a long time in coming.

And I'm glad to see that it's here.

When I talk to officers at the precinct, this is a tool that definitely can help them.

So, again, thank you to Council Member Wu for introducing this.

Thank you, Chair, for bringing it back to life.

I'm looking forward to getting this across the finish line because it's going to help a lot of folks, not just the directly impacted families, but the impacted neighbors.

I remember talking to a friend a couple of weeks ago who said regarding location in her neighborhood, first we hear the shots, then we hear the sirens, and then we hear the coyotes responding to the sirens.

And this is an almost nightly occurrence for them.

I did have a question regarding the enforcement measures.

Okay, there's the fines, there's the $1,000 and the $5,000.

Is there a mechanism in this that says, okay, you're out of compliance, you refuse to comply, you're shut down?

Yes.

And that is the city attorney's office is specifically authorized in this legislation to seek legal and equitable relief.

That means seeking, for example, a temporary restraining order or a permanent injunction against operators or an establishment from continuing to operate.

So if a establishment is not responsive to the escalating fine structure in the bill, then we would very quickly be taking legal action against that establishment.

Okay.

And is there a mechanism that, again, just hypotheticals like, you know, The inspection team comes in, they see the place is operating, they see that there is liquor being served.

Can they shut them down at that point immediately and say, hey, everybody out of the pool?

Because the bill requires that each establishment stay open to Seattle police officers and other peace officers, including LCB officials, which have not previously had access to many of these locations, If a location, if an establishment is serving liquor, then LCB would have the ability to seize that liquor.

And in fact, in District 2, just in this month, LCB has seized liquor from an establishment operating and serving liquor after 2 a.m.

Okay, cool.

Very good.

And the final question is, I know in the past there's been the tool of civil...

chronic nuisance properties, like a civil chronic nuisance or a criminal chronic nuisance, could those provisions kick in with some of these establishments?

Well, they could kick in with pretty much any establishment, correct?

You know, the chronic nuisance property ordinance has been an effective tool in some situations, particularly with respect to motels and some businesses.

It's not been a great tool, in all honesty, in regards to nightlife establishments and after hours nightlife establishments.

in particular because many of the shootings occur outside of the venue, and the Chronic Nuisance Property Ordinance specifically requires that each incident, associated incident that would trigger the steps in the chronic nuisance property ordinance occur within the property boundaries.

That's something that we are looking at offering suggestions to counsel to change in the future, in the near future.

But for right now, the chronic nuisance property ordinance is a difficult, is not the right tool.

It also appropriately because that really allows the city to, in effect, shut a business down.

It has a fairly high threshold for the number of incidents before a shutdown can occur.

So it's not exactly the right tool for this challenge that we're experiencing.

Okay, yeah, and thank you for that because at one point was my understanding that if there was a nexus to the business, that might be enough to trigger some kind of a chronic nuisance action versus it had to occur within the business itself.

So thank you for that.

The statute is that it has to occur within the property boundaries of the business.

So the shootings that occur in the parking lot, outside, across the street, on the sidewalk in front, do not count for the purposes of the collating of the incidents to trigger a chronic nuisance property designation.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Solomon.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

As always, I really appreciate how welcoming you are every time I show up at your committee and giving me the space to really have a comment, not a question.

I want to really thank Erica and Caroline for being here and having the courage to come here.

It's not easy.

to come before council and chambers, but I know how important this is.

I am very, very deeply sorry for your loss.

I am a mother and I'm also a sister to a brother, so I can't even imagine the suffering that your family is going through.

And so I very much appreciate you coming here and sharing your story and your steadfast, for your steadfast advocacy on a piece of legislation to really impact and hopefully have an impact on others not suffering what your brother suffered.

So thank you for coming here.

I want to thank the city attorney for being here and our central staff for being here and presenting this.

I have to say this is very thoughtfully planned out, in my opinion.

It has covered each aspect in terms of what is being regulated to what the recourse would be and everything in between.

And so I feel like it is a very thoughtful piece of legislation.

Councilmember Kettle, I appreciate you bringing this and carrying the water now that former Councilmember Wu's not here.

And so thank you for your leadership on this.

And I just want to say that I don't get to vote at the committee level, but I do get to vote at the full council, and I am making a commitment to you that I will be supporting this legislation.

It is very much needed, and it's something that we should have done by now, and I'm glad it's coming before us.

today, and I will be, like I said, supporting this, so thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to say a few words.

Of course, Council Member, always welcome.

Council President?

I forgot to mention or ask a request to be added as a co-sponsor earlier when I was speaking, so thank you, if you agree.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, to close, thank you everyone, particularly the family.

Thank you everyone for coming out.

There's been a lot of stakeholdering.

I started with Council Member Wu.

I appreciate Council President Nelson, Council Member Hollingsworth, pretty much all my colleagues.

And this shows, by the way, that we're working as a legislative branch with our judicial branch colleagues, the executive side, A lot of coordination and so I really appreciate all this work and particularly my staff and I do want to give out a little bit of a shout out to Ms. Nina Park who's been doing this from the beginning when I was working with Councilmember Wu and now continues with Councilmember Hollingsworth.

So we've adopted her, sorry Councilmember Hollingsworth, as part of our team at least with this legislation.

So again, thank you.

And finally, again, to the family, please go out and say that the effort that's going to be taken here, because your loss needs to be recognized and, most importantly, needs to be acted on.

So thank you very much.

Gentlemen.

Okay, we'll move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Resolution 32167. A resolution acknowledging that Seattle residents, workers, students, and visitors deserve to be safe and feel safe, recognizing and appreciating first responders from the Seattle Police Department, Seattle Fire Department, and the Community Assisted Response and Engagement Department.

affirming the city's obligation to fully support, train, and equip first responders, committing to a diversified public safety response team, acknowledging the city's actions to reform the police department under the federal consent decree, committing to resolve the remaining issues of the consent decree, and affirming the essential services provided by the police department.

Thank you very much.

I wanted to note, I mentioned him early, Mr. Doss from Central Staff.

He will now come on and speak to this resolution.

Mr. Doss, joining us remotely.

Hi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry I missed your reference earlier.

As you mentioned, Greg Dawes, central staff here to provide an introduction to Resolution 32167. Committee members can find attached to today's agenda a central staff memo which provides background and historical information for most of the issues covered in the resolution.

So in the interest of brevity and at the request of the chair staff, I'm going to keep my comments fairly short today and allow the sponsor more time to speak to his resolution.

Really broadly, the resolution covers several areas.

It recognizes and appreciates the services provided by the Seattle Police Department and Seattle's other first responders, the Seattle Fire Department and the Community Assisted Response and Engagement or Care Department.

It affirms the city's obligation to fully support, train, and equip first responders and commits to a diversified public safety response system, including investments in community-focused trauma-informed response options.

It commits to continue to enhance the police accountability systems, including supporting and maintaining a robust, effective, and civilian-led accountability system.

And lastly, it recognizes the city's prior and current actions to reform the police department under the 2012 federal consent decree, and commits to resolving any remaining consent decree issues that have been identified by the U.S.

District Court.

I want to note that much of the content related to this last topic, the federal consent decree, was provided by the executive, who noted that the passage of Ordinance 127182 on SPD's Crown Management Policies has allowed the city to address one of the remaining two outstanding obligations under the consent decree.

The last obligation relates to the city's officer accountability system and sustainment of that system.

Over the 12-year consent decree period, the court has identified specific accountability provisions that must be bargained with the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

These issues are currently being addressed in the city's collective bargaining process and may ultimately be decided in binding arbitration as required by the state when municipalities reach impasse with public safety unions.

So to sum up, this middle of the crowd management policies to the court represents the last consent decree requirement that the city can unilaterally fulfill.

The city and DOJ are now closer to being ready to file a motion to end the consent decree and ask the court to dismiss the case.

With this as a high-level overview, I'm happy to take any questions or turn it over to the chair or sponsor to discuss the resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

I think I will turn to Vice Chair Saka to speak to this resolution.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for hearing this resolution today and for your partnership on the committee and behind the scenes and crafting the constructs and the contours of this bill.

And thank you to the mayor's office as well, which is a unique feature of this specific piece of legislation is it's a resolution that the mayor has concurrently signed.

And at its core, this resolution is about resolving the remaining issues of the federal consent decree with the Seattle Police Department and collectively allowing us to move forward together to focus on the future of public safety in our city.

This resolution today is crucial for our city and represents a strong commitment to continuing to turn the corner on public safety and move forward and heal together.

We have done the work as the chair noted in his opening chair's remarks since 2024 last year as a council, We have passed numerous pieces of public safety legislation, 14 by my tally, to help create a safer city for all.

And broadly, so you can think of this resolution as, I think it's a consent decree resolution.

You can also think of it as a public safety resolution.

But regardless, At a high level, this resolution does a number of things, including expressing gratitude for our first responders, personnel with police, fire, and our new care department, acknowledging the important role that they play in keeping our city safe and supporting our communities.

It reaffirms the city's commitment to offering a diversified public safety response system.

including by supporting social workers, community-focused, trauma-informed response options, and the expansion of the care department's dual dispatch pilot program.

Resolution renews our commitment to enhancing the police accountability system, including supporting and maintaining a robust, effective, and civilian-led accountability system.

This means acknowledging the work of our accountability triad, our accountability partners of the Community Police Commission, the Office of the Inspector General, and Office of Police Accountability, OPA.

And finally, this resolution reverses any prior commitment or pledge by past councils to defund or abolish the police.

We know that these statements were routinely cited by departing police personnel as a reason for leaving.

We also know that they were very divisive.

Importantly, today's resolution is also another vital step aimed at resolving the remaining issues of the 2012 federal consent decree by recognizing the many prior and current actions to reform our department and hopefully help remove our city from the consent decree.

These impactful reforms reflect significant progress in areas such as use of force, crisis intervention, and data analytics.

Now, once SPD has updated its crowd management policies to comply with and be consistent with our less than less lethal weapons bill passed last month.

This legislation requests that the city attorney submit the updated policies to the federal monitor, the United States Department of Justice, and eventually to the court for review.

At that point, this resolution makes clear that SPD will be very well positioned to potentially clear the final remaining hurdle for termination of the consent decree and the end of federal oversight, taking back and reclaiming local control of our public safety responsibility, which is important now more than ever in this new administration.

This is council action that shows that we are ready to come together as a city, support our public safety professionals, acknowledge their hard work and commitment, and move on from the divisions of the past.

It's time that we focus on the future of public safety and how we can better serve our city.

Important piece of legislation, That is the proverbial cherry on top, if you will, for all the work that we've done this past year to reform our department, to advance public safety, to live up to our charter responsibility, to keep people safe and community safe.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you very much.

Is there any comments, any questions from first our committee colleagues or others that have joined us today?

No questions?

Councilmember Solomon Rivera?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Kettle for bringing this forward, and thank you to our central staff, Greg Doss, for joining us.

I will say that I've had at least one constituent very active in the district that has really wanted to see us take a stance against the defund rhetoric that we've seen in the past in the city.

And he's not the only one I know who has requested this.

And so this is something I have heard from other folks.

He's just been very vocal about it.

But as we meet with constituents, we have heard that they want us to be working on public safety issues robustly.

And I see this as taking another step.

We've taken many steps.

12 pieces of legislation by my count, Councilmember Kettle.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And it's only a year, a little over a year into our terms.

Yes.

For the record, by the way, I say major because there are a couple of smaller ones related to like the fire department BLS.

Yes.

So my vice chair, as usual, has the true final number.

Yeah.

Just a way to square the circle, if you will.

Major pieces of legislation.

So this is another aspect of it.

It's just to very clearly say that we are supportive of public safety efforts in the city.

It is what our constituents, it's what I talk about every single day and what I talk to about when I meet with my constituents is the first thing that they want to talk about.

and whether it's individual residents in the district or businesses or childcare providers or any number of folks that are in the district.

So thank you for your leadership on this.

And just to say that this is coming from things that we are hearing from our respective constituencies.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Salomon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I changed my mind about not saying anything, and primarily because concerning my background, considering where I came from, being in the precinct with officers and hearing their frustration by how the people that we work for were treating them or talking about them.

This, I think, is going to go a long way for there's already been some improvements in morale because of a change that's happened here.

But hearing the words directly that previous actions were wrong, I think it's going to make a difference.

The fact that so much action has been taken to get the department out from under the consent decree think that's going to go a long way as well.

So, uh, I want to thank, uh, vice chair, uh, Saka for bringing this forward.

And I look forward to supporting this when it comes to full council.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, council member Solomon, I appreciate your comments and your perspective, um, from your previous assignment, previous job.

So thank you for that.

I will say a couple words.

First is, you know, I've been to all five precincts.

I've had the roll calls, and each time I noted, because it's important that we have a consent decree, and I note why we have a consent decree.

We have to acknowledge that.

But we also have to acknowledge all the reform and the work that's happened in the last dozen plus years now.

That part tends to get forgotten.

And I will say that this is not a up to a point in finish.

This is a continual improvement plan that we'll be on in terms of improving and reforming and moving forward.

But I do want to acknowledge, let me say again, I always acknowledge the reason why we have a consent decree.

But I do want to acknowledge the work that's been done over the last dozen years in terms of reforming our police department.

And when I say reforming is moving forward, you know, improving, continual improvement.

All those things that we know from, you know, various types of organizations.

I know from my military background.

This is something that we always have to seek continual improvement.

And then move forward.

And I think we'll do that.

I want to note this resolution.

highlights that the consent decree has established a foundation for constitutional policing in Seattle, extra emphasis on constitutional policing in Seattle, and has spurred the Seattle Police Department to implement significant reforms over the past 12 years.

As recognized by the court-appointed monitor, SPD has gone above and beyond the consent decree in many areas, embracing a vision for the department centered on service-oriented and equitable policing, supported by rigorous internal systems of critical analysis.

This commitment is evidenced by a notable decrease in use of force, the expansion of transparent and leading edge data analytics, and adoption of new accountability systems and processes, and growing national recognitions of SBD's achievements.

Later, In section three, the city commits to continuing, again, continuing to enhance the police accountability system, including supporting and maintaining a robust, effective civilian-led accountability system, working in collaboration with SPD leaders, the city's accountability entities, the city accountability entities set the highest standards of professionalism and excellence and hold officers accountable for the policy violations that arose community trust.

One of the things I know every time I was in precinct, I said to them that I knew, like when I was a naval diplomat at our embassy in Moscow, in Russia, that I represented the greatest Navy in, I would always say, history of the world.

And when you're a top, When you're that varsity level, you embrace accountability, and that's what we did, and that's what I said, that it's important to embrace the accountability, particularly when you are at the top.

One last thing I wanted to note, and it says here, basically through the last sentence.

It says, through the adoption of this resolution, the city reverses any prior commitments or pledges to defund or abolish SBD services or personnel, which led to the resignations of hundreds of police officers.

I can already read the comments on that sentence.

in terms of, well, actually, we did not cut the budget.

We did not do this or that.

With no disrespect to the legal community, it's a bit of lawyering in the sense of they're finding some angle and then do it.

But what was clear despite that talk was that there was a defund pledge.

And as it says here, commitments or pledges.

That in itself was massive in terms of its impact on our public safety, massive in terms of our public safety posture, and something that we are working through day in and day out.

It goes to what I said at the very beginning of my opening remarks in the chair comment.

The reason why we have these 14 public safety bills is that we need to improve what we can do.

But SPD staffing, particularly, is so important to our public safety posture.

It's a central feature of our strategic framework plan.

The technology pieces, all these things that we're doing, is because we're looking to address the challenges that we face creating a better, safer city, to create that safe base, which is our mission here in the committee.

And I think it's important to make that point, to acknowledge that yes, you can talk about budgetary actions, this or that, but at the end of the day, the pledge was so key, and it's something that we need to address in this resolution.

Does it?

I see this resolution also in terms of the, you know, the work that we've done with the executive, as vice chair has noted, you know, and with the city attorney's office in terms of work related to the consent decree with the federal monitor and the Department of Justice to acknowledge the work that's been done and then to move forward.

So with that, Councilmember Saka, who's been point on this in so many ways, and I want to expressly thank him for his work on this resolution, would you like to move the resolution for committee recommendation?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may give a few final closing remarks of my own?

Yes.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and just want to respond to a few of these thoughtful comments from you and a few of our colleagues here.

So, yeah, like Section 6 officially reverses through this adoption of this resolution.

Any prior contracts or pledges to defund or abolish the police department?

Absolutely.

And that is an important element of this bill.

And...

but it's not the only element either.

And it also does the other things that you mentioned, for example, Mr. Chair, in terms of recognizing the reform work that's been done, acknowledges that we needed to be on that path.

And we've made, as a city, tremendous progress with respect to reforming our department, improving public safety for all, putting us on a better path to advancing constitutional policing consistently in an even-handed manner.

But the work continues.

Reform work, in my view, is not, at its core, is not a destination.

It's a journey.

And while we have made great strides and great progress, it is hardly the time to slap high fives and pat each other on the back.

because just when we think we have something dialed in, we're reminded here locally and across the country that the work continues.

So I'm committed to doing that work, continuing that work.

This resolution, this legislation binds the city to doing that work, continuing down that path, and it's an important step to doing just that.

And also I'll note section four that commits the city to fair treatment of first responders.

Going to countless roll calls and one-on-one conversations with our first responders, whether it's police, fire, care, they just want what we all want in our jobs, to be treated fairly.

And while some would demand that we scrutinize heavily only certain public safety, first responders, especially police, meanwhile, on the one hand and on the other hand, essentially rubber stamp the actions of other city departments, for example, SDOT, and would advocate that we completely abdicate our legislative oversight responsibility in a selective manner, but only scrutinize the actions of our first responders, categorically reject that approach and that notion.

For me, I'm committed to exercising my legislative oversight responsibility fairly, consistently, in an even-handed manner.

I'm not gonna cherry pick who I'm gonna scrutinize.

So in any event, really important piece of legislation that puts us on a path to ending the federal consent decree once and for all, in part by requesting that the city attorney will submit the updated less lethal use of force policies with the federal monitor, Department of Justice, and the court after SPD is updated to be compliant with the newest ordinance we passed earlier this year.

So, in any event, thank you, Mr. Chair.

If a motion is in...

One second, because the council president just wanted to, just jumped in for...

I just want to thank you both very much for bringing this forward.

To me, this is a taking of responsibility for past council action.

Seven of nine council members pledging to defend the police did end up in an exodus of officers that made it more difficult to keep people safe.

And also, it's a recognition of all the work that has been done on the executive side to improve policing.

So this is a very important It's a taking of responsibility, and it's an expression of not necessarily gratitude, but it's just a recognition of the good work that's been done on the other side.

As an oversight body, we should not just oversee the actions of the executive.

We also have a responsibility to acknowledge our own actions and be better in the future, which I think that this council is showing that they're making an effort on doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you.

Just quickly, Chair, I should have mentioned earlier, I mean, this is a resolution.

Obviously, it's not a law.

And I should have mentioned about the consent decree.

Obviously, we'll continue to do what we need to do in terms of the consent decree.

And, of course, there is accountability.

So, to me, it's always and, it's not or.

It's we need to support public safety on behalf of residents in the city for all first responders.

And of course, we need to make sure that as the city is doing its public safety work, that we are holding ourselves accountable to make sure that that is happening in a manner of which we should be providing that service, which is what really the consent decree is about.

So it's not either or, it's both.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Okay, Vice Chair, now to move.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to adopt Resolution 32167.

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the resolution.

Are there any other comments?

Okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass resolution 32167.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Moore?

Excuse.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

There are four in favor, none opposed, and one absent.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the resolution pass will be sent to the April 1st City Council meeting.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, and I'd like to point that we're 15 minutes from the end of our meeting, which is something unique within the Public Safety Committee.

I recognize that, but we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

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

Hearing and seeing no further business to come before the committee.

Oh, Mr. Solomon.

I'm sorry.

Just procedurally did 120956 as I passed out of committee so we can do a full vote at our upcoming full council meeting.

Because that's a piece of legislation that will have two hearings.

Oh, okay.

And then we'll go to a full committee.

Got you.

Thank you very much.

And then the resolution is part of the consent decree.

There's a lot of things related to the DOJ, the Judge Robarts, the court and everything.

This is a little bit different.

So this is related to Resolution 32167 only going forward today.

So we'll have one more on the after-hour establishments.

Thank you very much.

Okay, hearing and seeing no further business come before the committee.

We are adjourned.