Seattle City Council Public Safety and Human Services Committee Special Meeting 9/12/23

the September 12th, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee will come to order.

It's 11 a.m.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Did I say 11 a.m.?

9.32 a.m.

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Present.

Councilmember Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair Herbold.

Here.

Five present.

Thank you so much.

On today's agenda, we will be hearing one item, Council Bill 120645 regarding possession and public use of controlled substances for discussion and possible vote.

We'll now approve the agenda for our committee meeting.

Any objections?

Seeing and hearing no objections, today's agenda is adopted.

Before we move into public comment, I do want to just say a few words.

I feel really compelled to address the recently released body cam footage and audio recording regarding Careless and inhumane messaging about the death of Jahavni Kandula.

Appreciate the remarks of Joel Merkel, co-chair of the Community Police Commission, who described this video as heartbreaking, shockingly insensitive.

and is damaging to the trust that the department is trying to build with Seattle communities.

While I'm angry and disappointed to hear the way that this detective talked about a fatal collision, I'm appreciative that the accountability system is working to find and daylight this type of culture within the department so that we can continue to push to shift and reform the police department.

Horrifying as this conversation was to hear, I want to also say that I'm thankful to police department employees who discovered this and appropriately escalated these comments through their chain of command to the chief's office and thankful that Chief Diaz referred the matter to OPA for investigation as the accountability ordinance prescribes.

And as we are looking to hire more officers, I think keeping our focus on the types of individuals who see their work as guardians, not warriors, and working to help the department to shift our culture to seek support and retain officers with an interest in protecting human life and upholding the peace and well-being of our city.

With that, we will transition into public comment.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak because of the large number of speakers that we have signed up.

I will alternate between virtual and in-person public commenters.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website in the sign-in form.

If you've not yet registered to speak, but you'd like to, You can sign up before the end of the public comment session.

Once I call a speaker's name, if you are using the virtual option, you will hear a prompt.

And once you've heard that prompt, we ask that you press star six to unmute yourself.

Please begin by speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item which you are addressing.

And speakers will hear a chime when you have 10 seconds left of the allotted time.

Once you hear that chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your comments.

If you do not end your comments at the end of the allotted time provided, unfortunately, the speaker's mic will have to be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to hear from the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following the meeting, We ask that you do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options that are listed on the agenda.

We've got 50 people signed up for public comment so far, 10 folks who are signed up virtually, and 31 who are signed up in person.

I will alternate between the in-person speakers and the online speakers.

And we'll start with some in-person speakers.

Let's start with Tara Moss, followed by LaTanya Sevier.

Good morning, council members.

Is this one on?

Yeah.

All right.

I am co-executive director of Purpose Dignity Action.

We operate CoLEAD, which is an intensive case management wing of LEAD Diversion Services, and we also provide project management for LEAD citywide.

The services offered through LEAD are based on principles of harm reduction because that approach is both humane and often most effective in engaging people on a long recovery journey.

But while in LEAD, we meet people where they are at and we don't leave them there.

The goal is to support individuals over a long arc of change that reflects how complicated and nonlinear recovery is for most people.

We offer a decade of experience showing that it is possible to combine case management based in harm reduction in partnership with the police and prosecutors to accomplish profound transformation for individuals and to benefit neighborhoods.

We appreciate so much the vote of confidence in the partnership with Mayor Harrell's proposed ordinance reflects.

At the same time, discretionary decisions to divert people to community-based services must always be scrutinized to ensure that we aren't inadvertently compounding racial disparity with the choices of who to divert and the quality of care provided.

We're really pleased to see that the proposed ordinance requires regular data

Thank you.

You can follow up with your written comments.

Thank you so much.

We've got LaTanya Sevier.

And after LaTanya Sevier, I'm just noting that we have a former elected official in the room.

And I'd like to observe the courtesy of having Representative Don Mason follow LaTanya Sevier.

LaTanya, I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

My name is Latanya and I'm a black non-binary renter in D2.

I'm here to ask again, I'm here again, telling you all again to reject this new criminal change to the criminal code to prosecute drug possessions and public drug use.

Let's visit San Francisco to see how their war on drugs is going.

In San Francisco, overdose deaths decreased in 2021 and 2022. Then they got a new district attorney who vowed to take a law and order approach to the opioid overdose epidemic, just like Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison and Council Member Sarah Nelson and Alex Peterson.

San Francisco's new war on drugs is going very badly.

In December of 2022, the San Francisco district attorney shut down a critical day shelter and service provider in the Tenderloin.

At the end of May, The city launched an initiative to arrest people suspected of using drugs in public.

The result, drug-related deaths have surged by 41%.

A third of the overdose victims were black, despite black people making up only 5% of the city's population.

Vote no.

Following Dawn Mason, we'll have Austin Haynes.

Good morning and thank you.

Councilmember Herbold for having this hearing.

And my name is Dawn Mason.

I'm a former state representative.

I represented the 37th District.

And I'm here to speak about the children and to shame you as a council.

In all of your amendments, in all of your decision-making and problem-solving, you never considered the children.

You have allowed this city to surround our children who are going to school every day with illicit drugs, fencing.

I'm speaking right now.

I spent time over here at 12th and King Street.

We have a high school there.

And what you have done is normed the worst, most egregious behavior a child can see.

I'm asking you to be a hero today.

Be a hero for the children.

Go back to the drawing board and draw into this legislation.

Drug-free zones.

There's a social construct that make people think that we already have drug-free zones, but we do not.

It's not the law.

Make it the law that no one will consume and use drugs in front of our children.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Austin Haynes, and Austin will be followed by Deontay Damper.

Hello.

I took time off work here in downtown Seattle to testify.

I'm a District 2 resident and homeowner.

My wife and I are expecting our first child.

We have lived the results of defunding the police and giving addicts, criminals, and homeless folks the ability to ruin a great city.

We have witnessed a murder a few hundred feet from our front door when we lived at the residences above Target.

We're scared to live here.

My wife and I have, oh no, this morning on a city of Seattle Street, we found the fuel tank of my wife's car drilled.

This $1,000 plus expense we can absorb, some of my neighbors cannot, which means if it happened to them, they could slide into homelessness, adding to the doom loop.

My wife and I have options and we may leave unless we see substantial progress on crime, homelessness, and open air drug use.

We also both vote on every ballot.

I'm in favor of this legislation.

I implore every one of you to have a few conversations with folks who have experienced addiction and have now been clean and sober for a couple years, and ask them if they feel the laissez-faire attitude towards dealing with addiction is the right path.

I've spoken with hundreds.

I am certain you will hear a resounding no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Deontay Damper, followed by Sean Blackwell.

Good morning, Council.

Today I come in peace.

Usually I am ready to go at you about the war on drugs tactics.

Usually I'm really just saying how problematic you can be.

But I think today we can be able to meet somewhere in the middle.

There's 27 million that's coming out of here that I hope that you can be able to provide to not only invest into some of these programs that are out here, such as REACH, CoLEAD, that are out here in the community.

I think that as council members, as opposed to listening to these negative comments of stigmatizing our community members that are impacted by drugs, that you can also go out here and meet the people that are impacted.

Because a lot of them are unhoused by money that was promised from county and city council.

I just hope that at this point of time, we can be able to meet each other in the middle.

And that's all the hell I got for y'all today.

Next speaker is Sean Blackwell.

After Sean Blackwell, we've got Barb Wilson.

Hey, good morning, Council.

I project manage and lead in East Precinct and West Precincts, Cap Hill, Downtown, also project manage Third Avenue Project.

I hear from desperate owners, operators, and businesses every day imploring us to reduce public safety issues in the community.

My entire focus is on increasing public safety for the entire community, hopefully in an upstream, proactive way.

When LEAD has enough case management and housing resources, we're able to effectively intervene, we're able to increase public safety, and we're able to, and the community feels that.

We within LEAD are absolutely committed to fulfilling the council's ordinance and fulfilling the vision in a really effective way.

And we commend the mayor for creating a framework for diversion that has a lot of potential to be the highly, to be the most progressive and highly impactful ordinance in the country.

We also greatly appreciate the amendment of council members Mosqueda and Herbal.

And I'll finish, I'll end with that, thanks.

Our next speaker is Barb Wilson and Barb will be followed by Lars Erickson.

Hi, my name is Barb Wilson.

I lead local government affairs for Microsoft.

Microsoft believes major employers have an important role addressing these important issues for our community.

And through partnership, philanthropy, and policy, we've worked closely with our communities across the region to support strong, vibrant, safe neighborhoods.

We urge you today to vote in favor of this legislation, and we agree with this balance between law enforcement and treatment.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lars Erickson, and Lars will be followed by Adrienne Meag, perhaps?

Lars?

Good morning.

My name is Lars Erickson, and I'm here providing testimony on behalf of the 2,500 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber and the Downtown Seattle Association.

Today, as we have since May, we are urging the Council to adopt an ordinance aligning local law with recently passed state legislation regarding drug use and possession to address the crisis and harm caused by fentanyl and other illegal drugs in our community.

And we agree with the intent of legislation under consideration today.

Help people get treatment and enforce the law.

As you deliberate and discuss, we also hope that the final legislation passed today will be simple and effective.

And we expect the practical, real-world application of the law to make good on the intent.

Passage of legislation today is one step.

The measures of success will be that in the coming months, we will see more people in treatment, fewer people on the streets, and far fewer overdoses.

We urge you to keep those tangible outcomes in mind as you deliberate today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Adrian.

I believe it's me.

Meese, thank you so much, followed by Reverend Harriet Walden.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Adrian Meese, and I am the founder and CEO of Fentanyl Awareness.

And our mission is to educate the communities on the dangers of fentanyl and drug overdose through our events, our events, books, and outreach programs that we pursue today.

Be that I lost 11 people, I'm trying to make a change in the community.

and put a stop to the end of fentanyl and drug use and drug overdose.

And I wanna make a change by rehab programs and facilities like that, man.

Because it can happen to your mother, it can happen to your father, your sister, your brother.

Everybody's vulnerable to the dangers of fentanyl and drug overdose.

So help us stop this problem today, you know?

Help us stop this problem.

Because if we can't, I mean, if we don't do it, then who will?

And that's all I'm gonna say.

Thank y'all.

Fentanyl wins.

Next speaker is Reverend Harriet Walden, followed by Brent Haberman.

Good morning.

Thank you.

I'm Reverend Walden, speaking for Mothers Police Accountability Day.

And personally, I had a fentanyl exposure, almost died.

I was ashamed to talk about it when I was here before.

I'm 77 years old and never been involved with drugs.

I think we have a real problem in Seattle, and I think it's time to do what's hard.

Sometimes we have to do what's hard.

And I mean, there was nothing wrong with the state law.

I mean, the state ordinance that the state law was.

I mean, it's not the war on drugs.

War on drugs was a felony.

And people see it as a felony.

There's a major difference between a felony and a gross misdemeanor.

And I think people don't understand the difference between those two.

So I guess this will be a start, but it's not what it could be.

It's time for Seattle to really want to do what's hard.

I mean, sometimes you have to have, I mean, if you raise children, and especially boys, you have to have some place where you're willing to do what's hard.

And I think that mothers would stand behind the city council doing what's hard.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brent Haberman followed by Sam Wolf.

Hello, Council.

Brent Haberman here.

I live at 9th and Virginia, and I've been a Seattle resident since 1986. I'm here today to support this measure, CB 12645, for many reasons.

With this short time period, I'll just give you a couple examples as to why.

First of all, I have seen the degradation of our streets in the last four or five years to become such a serious issue because of the drug dealers on the street.

open air and able to sell, as well as the drug users that are harming themselves.

So we're not taking care of anybody actually.

And so this bill should hopefully help that situation because people don't want to live here, want to move away.

You're losing a tax base because of the business to help everyone else.

believe in stigmatizing anybody, I don't believe in discriminating against anybody, but I believe in safety in the city and that's your major responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Sam Wolf and then we're going to move to some of our virtual speakers.

Good morning.

My name is Sam Wolfe.

I'm a senior project manager for the LEAD program.

I coordinate LEAD diversion services and case conferencing in North Seattle, and I have the honor of working with community leaders in the CID and Little Saigon to design street-based interventions for drug-related crime in their neighborhood.

PDA appreciates the mayor's approach to this ordinance, which emphasizes diversion to care.

That is a clear advance beyond the state legislation.

We also deeply appreciate the substitute by Herbold and Lewis that would establish a standing behavioral health advisory committee.

Our community has some of the most committed and advanced practitioners of modern recovery in the nation.

Their insights often don't make it into policy conversations.

The Lewis and Herbold proposal means that we would have the chance to tighten up our diversion and care systems, which is much needed if we're going to improve conditions on our streets and outcomes for the people that we're working with.

The Mayor's Fentanyl Task Force is convening this fall and will be a good start, but we're glad to see the proposal to make community input and expertise permanently available to public policy.

Thank you.

Actually, I'm going to take a few more people in person while I'm pulling up the online sign-up sheet.

Next, we have Colin Lamb and Colin will be followed by Jacob Mihalac.

My name is Colin Lamb.

I am a case manager with the Downtown Emergency Service Center, and I'm here to urge you all to vote against this measure because this directly targets the clients that I work with every day.

And look, I know that nobody wants to see, you know, somebody sparking up on the bus or something.

I have seen that myself, but I also understand that the people who use these drugs are not the problem.

It is a lack of support.

It is a lack of harm reduction programs that are, sorry, my throat's a little messed up, but you know, we need to fund harm reduction and housing first based approaches to this problem.

Otherwise, it's not gonna go away.

A new war on drugs is not gonna fix it.

Yep.

And yeah, just vote against this bill, please.

Thank you.

Our next speaker after Jacob Mihalak is Kate Rubin.

Good morning.

My name is Jacob Mihalik, and I've been a homeowner in the Central District for the past 32 years.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you.

My entire career has been focused on housing and services for people living with HIV and experiencing homelessness.

I was the lead author of the first comprehensive plan to end homelessness in King County, and more recently, a suite of resources developed for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development titled Homecoming, Life After Incarceration.

Time and again over the past 40 years, efforts by local, state, and federal governments to solve substance use issues through criminalization and enhanced policing have failed.

And these policies have disproportionately impacted people of color, especially those with African-American heritage.

The proven solutions, as my colleagues are stating, center around sincere, robust investments in person-centered care, housing, employment, education, food security, and family stability.

All of our money should be going there.

I am opposed to CB 120645. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Rubin and Kate will be followed by Dennis Sills.

Good morning.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I live in the city of Seattle.

I'm calling today to urge you to vote no on the racist and deadly Council Bill 120645 that criminalizes simple drug possession and drug use.

This regressive measure takes us right back to the failed war on drugs, harming public health and targeting marginalized communities.

Stable housing is a prerequisite for effective substance abuse treatment.

Housing first is the evidence-based, most effective approach to ending homelessness, backed by multiple national studies.

We are heading into budget season and we are in a budget deficit.

Instead of addressing the fentanyl crisis at its roots, investing in housing first, this bill will drain our limited city resources, disproportionately harm our black, brown, and indigenous, and unhoused neighbors, and overcrowd our already unhealthy jails.

It's rooted in white supremacy culture.

Do the right thing and vote no on Council Bill 120645. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dennis Sills, and Dennis will be followed by Michael Malini.

Sure.

Herbold and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.

My name is Dennis Sills, and I work at Plymouth Housing, a PSH provider to more than 1,200 chronically homeless adults in Seattle.

Plymouth is a housing first provider, which means we seek to meet residents where they are.

when they enter our housing.

We practice harm reduction strategies with achieving housing stability.

We are partnering with the city on a contingency management program to encourage recovery.

We support the amendments introduced today by Council Member Herbold and Lewis and Council Member Mosqueda.

Plymouth is committed to ending homelessness and decades of experience.

Show support for those with substance use disorder can lead to housing stability.

We also know that justice system involvement can contribute to housing instability, so we appreciate that the council is considering alternatives like LEAD.

We also recognize that there must be an avenue to direct individuals to treatment when they are a threat to others and when they will not enter treatment voluntarily.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Malini, followed by Carissa Knight.

Hello, my name is Michael Mulaney.

I'm a resident in District 3, and I'm calling to ask you to again reject the proposed legislation that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession and public drug use.

We have decades of evidence that incarceration doesn't prevent overdose, nor give people the help they need.

City adoption of this law would increase overdoses, deaths, and racial disparities in arrests, jail time, and overdoses.

The proposed bill will bring us back to regressive and racist policies instead of moving toward evidence-based, effective, and more compassionate approaches.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Carissa Knipe.

Carissa will be followed by Jason Walsh.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, I'm Carissa.

I live in District 4, and I want improved public safety for everyone, and so I oppose this new war on drugs legislation.

Through regular volunteer mutual aid work, I've met several community members, some of whom use drugs, including someone who shared how much shame they felt about it, how it's so hard and painful to quit, and that sometimes that's what gets you through a day of dehumanization and stress.

Another person said that she did meth to stay up all night because she was so scared of people coming into her tent.

And what I want for them is safety, professional care, resource community support, safe housing, and not a policy that could be even more deadly than the drug use itself.

I'm curious why criminalization is our answer when it seems to defy expert recommendations to prioritize the public health approach with prevention early intervention rather than punitive measures.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jason Walsh, and Jason will be followed by Brandy Flood.

Good morning.

My name is Jason.

I'm a resident of B2, and I'm here to call on council to unequivocally say no to CB 120645, this new war on drugs.

While I was a master's in public health student at the University of Washington, I worked with Snohomish Health District to develop a substance use disorder treatment matrix.

The county wanted to improve connectivity of health services and get people into treatment, not into cells.

I learned that substance use disorder grew out of poverty.

It grew out of pain.

It grew out of trauma.

I learned that as we decrease health care options and conversely increase the penalties for use when you choose to criminalize substance use, this perpetuates poverty.

It increases stigma.

It increases trauma.

It increases harm, which can lead to increased substance use.

Criminalization doesn't break the cycle.

It perpetuates it.

So what is your real charge here as a council member?

What is your mission?

Is it to serve others or is it to sentence them?

Substance use disorder is an illness and we treat illness with health care, not handcuffs.

No to a new war on drugs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brandy Flood, and Brandy will be followed by Catherine Stanford.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

My name is Brandy Flood.

I'm a resident of the Rainier Beach neighborhood and a homeowner.

I'm also Director of Community Justice for the REACH Program, and I manage the contract for LEAD, and I work with LEAD, Co-LEAD, to work in this population.

My case managers serve folks that are being diverted to care.

I agree with Reverend Walden, this is not the war on drugs.

This is something different.

This is their version to care, and I appreciate the mayor's approach.

In order for this to actually work, there has to be sufficient resources to divert people to, which is why I appreciate Councilmember Herbold and Lewis's Behavioral Health Task Force and the Fentanyl Task Force that is coming up.

My staff and I walk the streets of downtown all the time.

They're riddled with black and brown people struggling from drug use that need to be connected to services.

but we don't have adequate services to connect people to.

So I urge the council, if they're going to push this for adequate resources to connect people to adequate treatment, housing, shelter, mental health, better crisis services.

If I had somebody in my office right now who needed to be in treatment or crisis, it would almost take me two months to get them in because there's so many systematic barriers to doing that.

It shouldn't be that way.

When people need and ask for help, we should be able to do it immediately.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Stanford and Catherine will be followed by Brian Cannon.

Hi and thank you to her board and committee members for the opportunity to speak and speaking on behalf of the building owners and managers of Seattle King County BOMA.

I also would like to note that personally I have been engaged in downtown Seattle both at the market and with my own business for over 30 years.

and BOMA has been significantly engaged in public safety issues since before the pandemic.

It is critical to vote this bill out of committee and onto the full council.

The delay has cost us inhuman suffering and continued issues with open air drug dealing on our streets.

The commercial real estate industry has been working hard to help revitalize downtown.

Public drug use is one barrier to attracting tenants, leaving us with less foot traffic and more empty storefronts downtown.

It's sort of this endless cycle.

We support the fact that we'll include measures to provide services and treatment options and diversion programs.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, speaking remotely, is Brian Cannon, and Brian will be followed by Nicholas Jeffries.

Hi my name is Brian Cannon.

I oversee the Community Safety and Hospitality Ambassador Program for the Metropolitan Improvement District.

My comments today are in support of the ordinance.

As we've seen the fentanyl crisis has continued to worsen and cause harm to individuals and the community.

Over the past year our ambassador teams have administered Narcan to people over 180 times and in the past week alone they've administered it seven times.

One key component of this ordinance is the focus on diversion.

I also believe that this is an opportunity to increase resources for existing programs such as LEAD and CoLEAD.

My team has worked with LEAD for the past decade and we've seen the LEAD program have a high level of success by providing stability for many people who've suffered with addiction and behavioral health issues.

Their approach has become a national model.

Unfortunately the program is at capacity and currently has to turn away many candidates who would be a good fit.

I ask you to pass the ordinance and to provide resources needed to scale the LEAD program to meet the increased demand for diversion and services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nicholas Jeffries, and Nicholas will be followed by Randy Green.

Hey, how are you doing today?

My name is Nicholas Jeffries, and I currently work with vacating and expunging criminal records.

And I vote to vote no on this legislation because the money spent implementing this program can be used to create upstream solutions versus looking at the downstream impact.

It's time to start funding programs that actually help people get into housing, help people access resources, and help people manifest their greatest self.

From firsthand experience, I could see that criminalization of drug users, more specifically giving people gross misdemeanors, really helps put barriers in place of getting help.

It puts barriers in place of accessing employment, And as we know, with the rent hike and how much everything costs in Washington, if you don't have stable employment and don't make a livable wage, we're continuing to perpetuate this vicious, vicious cycle.

And I think it's time for the community that we work together to help everybody in this city, to help everybody in this county manifest their greatest self.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Have an amazing day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Randy Green.

Randy is showing it's not present right now, so we'll move down to Matthew Offenbacher.

And Matthew will be followed by Isabel Nguyen.

Hi, Council.

My name is Matthew Offenbacher.

I'm a homeowner in District 3 and a small business owner in District 1. And I really can't believe that we're here again just a few months after you heard hours upon hours of testimony about the harm this legislation will cause.

Adding drug possession and public drug use to our criminal code will be an ineffectual, racist, expensive, and deadly response to a horrifying public health crisis.

Now, I can hear some of you thinking, but this bill is different.

It's all about harm reduction and diversion and case management.

It even says somewhere in there that the war on drugs was very, very bad for Black people.

We are not fooled, and don't fool yourselves.

This is a bad legislation.

So much of it is hand-waving promises and magical thinking.

Just trust us.

While at the actionable heart of it, it will permanently add to the city code a path for SPD to arrest and jail people with substance use disorders and for the city attorney to prosecute with a predictable effect of accelerating the already devastating loss of life the epidemic has caused.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Isabel Nguyen followed by Andrea Suarez.

At the January 6th insurrection at our nation's capital, six of our sworn officers were in D.C.

attempting to tort our legal proceedings for the 2020 president of the United States.

You are saying that you want these same individuals and that same department to combat our drug crisis?

That same department where the VP of SPOG on a hot mic invalidating the significance of life, Giovanni Cadula, who was a grad student set to graduate with her master's in information systems was not worth more than, quote, 1,000 and a limited value, end quote.

If we have members of a department behind closed doors invalidating the life of a grad student, how much more do they invalidate the lives of those they're supposed to help and aid during these drug interactions?

Are you voting to imbue and empower a department and more resources to murder Seattle residences?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrea Suarez.

And after Andrea speaks, we'll move back to in-person public commenters.

Good morning.

This is Andrea Suarez, founder of We Heart Seattle.

I have three years of practical experience, boots on the ground, providing outreach and cleaning of encampments, removing a million pounds of debris, 20,000 dirty needles, and actually nine now passed bodies and hosting dozens of vigils, and I don't have a lot of numbers today or studies or committees, but only to urge the council to pass this ordinance to save lives now.

No more lives should pass because we're in this meeting.

A death toll is on all of our watches right now as we talk about this.

I'm not here for political reasons or ideological reasons.

I just want to save lives.

In Belltown, we had another shooting last night at an open-air drug scene on 3rd and Blanchard.

where open-air use of drugs are permitted.

If we would stop permitting that, we could reduce the loss of lives, and we need to stop treating people like hospice patients by barely keeping them alive through failed harm reduction efforts.

We need intervention outreach.

Okay, our next speaker is Teresa Lamb, and Teresa will be followed by Julia Buck.

There are no facts to support that this will do anything but deeply harm marginalized communities and you all know this.

There is no budget to support this and there is no plan, no care, compassion or commitment to do anything other than imprison our most vulnerable citizens.

If you really want to make positive changes in the city, stop pushing for inhumane laws like this.

And show the citizens, all citizens of Seattle, that you are looking for real solutions, not pandering to businesses and election cycles.

Work with the organizations that know what the needs are and know these vulnerable communities.

Instead of putting your efforts into gaslighting everyone and passing something that you know will cost lives.

If you do support this inhumane law, don't pretend to support the efforts of these organizations that are honestly working to end homelessness and working with people with substance use disorder.

You can't support this law and claim to support these compassionate efforts at the same time.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck and Julia will be followed by Peter Condit.

Good morning, Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I am here because I am not in favor of the bill currently under consideration.

And I wanted to just briefly place it in a bit of a larger context because similar bills are happening all over the country in all 50 states.

The red state of Texas and the blue state of Washington are having special sessions about the need to increase criminalization.

And I think that there is an economic purpose to that.

The market of consumer goods made from prison labor is $11 billion.

And I think that there is the opportunity to re-industrialize this country using involuntary labor because American workers are very expensive, which is a result of American housing and healthcare being expensive.

I would like to encourage you not to pursue this economic policy.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

Our next speaker is Peter Condit, and Peter will be followed by Reza Marashi.

Hello Council Members, my name is Peter Condit and I live in District 6. I ask that Council reject the new War on Drugs bill.

Do you all know how to identify structural racism?

Despite lavish use of the word diversion, the bill would create a new law that can be enforced.

And despite purported good intentions, the War on Drugs, and SPD in particular, have a record of racist and deadly outcomes.

That's structural racism.

If you need more, just yesterday we heard a police conversation that took place after an SPD officer killed Janavi Kandula while speeding to an overdose.

Detective Auditor was laughing at Janavi's death.

SPD is full of harmful people who prioritize their oversized paychecks over the very lives of Seattleites.

Stop involving cops in public health.

Stop giving them money and power.

Council members, if you're discouraged by that recording, stand against this legislation.

Be a force for good instead of supporting this malicious bill.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Reza Marashi, followed by Joy Abbott.

Hello, council members.

My name is Reza Marashi.

I'm Director of Government Affairs for Kilroy Realty Corporation and Board Chair of the Metropolitan Improvement District.

I'm here to urge you to vote in favor of this council bill, a critical public safety measure for the City of Seattle.

My request to you today reflects the strong majority opinion of Seattleites.

We know from multiple rounds of public opinion polling that over 80% of Seattle voters believe that restoring a safe and welcoming environment downtown will bring back residents, workers, and visitors and create the momentum needed to put downtown on a sustained path to recovery.

Since August of 2022, the MID program has administered Narcan to 191 people.

July 2023 has been our highest month so far with Narcan being administered to 25 people.

Sadly, the crisis is only getting worse.

That's why I believe this legislation is a critical step in addressing these issues by providing much needed resources for treatment and diversion programs.

To that end, please make sure that community-based resources that have demonstrated success are renewed and expanded.

Those programs include Third Avenue Project, LEAD, and CoLEAD.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

And I would just like to say that these chambers are a place for the democratic process to work for everyone.

So please, your comments are for public comment.

I do not want any disruption of speakers because that hurts the ability of all of us to participate in this process.

Our next speaker is Jay Abbott.

And Jay will be followed by Susie Morris.

Do we have a Joy Abbott or a Jay Abbott?

If we do not, a Jay or a Joy Abbott.

And in the topic, I'm sorry.

Okay, somebody who wanted to address issues about, I'm assuming, public safety and the ID?

Not seeing anybody.

She's not here.

Go ahead, Susie.

She had to leave.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Susie Morris.

I am a resident of District 2 and I've lived in the Mount Baker neighborhood for 25 years.

I am also an EVP for Lowe Enterprises, which is a housing developer in the Seattle area.

We have a 550-unit project in Yesler Terrace that was recently built, and we are under lease-up right now.

We have, of that project, 26.5% is affordable, and the rest is market rate.

Yesler Terrace is a great example of what the city is doing to provide housing, but it's getting really hard with crime that's happening in Little Saigon.

There's been such a, you know, there was such a great effort by the police department, lots of things cleaned up, and then it went away again.

It's really bad.

We're losing residents, people are afraid to move in, people are moving out, and something needs to change.

I'm in support of this movement.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anne Lyons, and Anne will be followed by Marianne Christie.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm a retired teacher, and I'm here as a mother.

I have three friends who have lost children to drug overdose.

Our state leads the nation in increase in overdose fatalities.

I urge the council to act.

I think we all want the same thing here, which is for people to be able to pursue a happy and healthy life.

But what we're doing now is not working.

And I support the bill.

I know it's imperfect.

But we need change.

I've lived in this city for almost 30 years.

And I'm really excited about what is happening in our community.

And I just am begging you to act.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Ann Christie.

My name is Mary Ann Christie.

I live downtown and I'm here to support this public safety ordinance.

As a resident of downtown, I'm deeply concerned about public safety issues.

I walk by and through drug markets every day.

I'm away from my house to the drugstore, which has got everything behind bars and locked up because of so much theft and the danger of just being working in that place.

I think this legislation is a critical step in addressing issues by providing much needed resources for treatment and diversion programs.

I want to make sure also that the council supports community-based resources that have demonstrated success And those programs include the Third Avenue Project, LEAD, and CoLEAD.

So I urge you to vote in favor of this legislation, which will make our city a safer and healthier place for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving back to virtual public comment, we'll hear next from Ramon Hernandez, followed by Nick Jeffries.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

My name is Ramon Hernandez.

I work for LEAD.

I am a South Precinct Project Manager working with community members, business organizations to resolve public safety issues.

We're excited about the Mayor's and the Councilmember's efforts to continue to guarantee information gathered on racial disparities and arrest, looking for prosecution.

The only way to guarantee that people who have historically at harsher responses to drug-related problems are included and benefit from the greater use of diversion is to do this.

The drug use policy, possession policy has a potential to be one of the best policies in the nation.

And it can only fulfill its promises if we allocate the sufficient funds for services to be provided for care for those who are diverted.

Lead diversion services, they're evidence-based, highly effective, sufficient funding to increase diversion programs such as this These encouraging statements are empty.

They can only frustrate and disappoint the community members who are here today in response to some of the public safety issues that they're encountering.

Enacting this legislation alone is not sufficient.

We must adapt as the drug supply

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Nick Jeffries, is showing as not present.

If that changes before we're done with public comment, I will come back to Nick.

Similarly, with Shavonna Gaylor, also showing as not present.

We'll go down to Liam Nold, and Liam will be followed by Cody Zalewski.

Hi, my name is Liam Knowles and I'm calling to urge you to vote no on this ordinance.

You've already heard testimony regarding how forcing people into drug treatment without addressing the underlying conditions that let them there does not work and increases overdose deaths.

Beyond this, it gives police increased discretion to harass and enact violence against BIPOC and unhoused people.

We know this bill will disproportionately be enforced against BIPOC people.

So please reject this bill and instead invest in harm reduction that is not attached to the deadly criminal punishment system.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cody Zalewski, and Cody will be followed by Chris McKay.

Hello, Council.

This is Cody Zalewski, resident of District 4. Recriminalizing drugs will push the fentanyl crisis out of sight of the general public, but it won't save lives.

I get that voters want to see you doing something, but this is sweeping the problem under the rug at the behest of right-wing talk show hosts who live on the East Side.

You know this, and I know you know this, because we've both heard the same stories from the same people struggling with addiction on the OEIR task force.

Please don't make life worse for people already struggling with substance abuse after being a progressive leader on drug law in the past.

Vote no on passing this out of committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris McKay, and Chris will be followed by Aiden Carroll.

Chris McKay?

I see you're with us.

Does it look like you're on mute?

Can you hit star six if you haven't already?

Star six, please.

There you go.

Christy, we might need to come back to you.

We'll give you one more try.

We're not hearing you.

Star six.

All right.

I'm going to take another.

There you go.

There you go.

We got you.

Oh, sorry.

I kept hitting it.

Sorry about that.

Good morning, council.

Thanks for allowing me to testify.

My name's Chris Mackay.

I'm the executive director of the West Seattle Junction Association.

For the past year we've seen escalating drug use in our small pocket park called Junction Plaza Park.

Pretty much been taken over by a handful of men who hang out there threaten people and do drugs openly.

I have seen them offer drugs to teens yell at people and vandalize the park.

Just last Saturday I saw a man in the bus stop smoking up.

There were families everywhere.

Also the apartment complex next to it is occupied by seniors who literally call me regularly to tell me what they're seeing and to let me know that they're terrified to use the park.

Merchants call me regularly to describe how open drug use has negatively affected their businesses in a variety of ways.

I received calls from residents as well, who are still scared and threatened.

It's shocking to me that in an effort to support percentage of struggling individuals, we hold the rest of the city hostage I'm asking the council to support this legislation addressing this chronic issue, and more importantly, to support organizations such as Lead and Reach, who work closely with my organization to help people who are struggling and make our public spaces safer.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aiden Carroll, and Aiden is showing is not present.

So, our last virtual public commenter that is showing is present.

Is B.J.

last?

I will, after going, returning to the in-person public commenters and finishing that list, I will go back and check to see if any of the folks who have signed up virtually but are listed as not present are present.

But we'll hear from B.J.

last, next, and then going back to in-person, we've got Suzanne Kotz next up on deck.

B.J.?

Hi, my name is B.J.

Lass.

I'm a homeowner in Ballard, and I'm calling once again to ask you once again to reject CB120645, because there's absolutely no such thing as a gentle war on drugs.

This bill will kill people and destroy lives without actually having any impact on rates of substances.

This bill will not house a single person.

This bill will not get a single person into treatment.

This bill will not even get a single person into a diversion, because there's absolutely no funding for any of that in this bill.

If council actually did want to increase funding for those items, they probably would have waited to do this bill until after budget instead of trying to push it through now and then hope everyone has forgotten about these promises when budget comes up.

For council members, Council Members Peterson, Nelson, Strauss, and Lewis are already talking about finding efficiencies and austerity in next year's budget.

That is not going to actually increase the funding that this bill pretends it will do, which we all know it will not.

And also, drug possession is illegal.

It has been for every single day in Seattle for decades.

Any overdoses you've seen, anything that makes you feel unsafe in public, that has happened while drugs are illegal.

This is nothing new.

This is continuing the same status quo that has gotten to us where we are today.

What this bill does is it just gives our Republican city attorney, Ann Davison, full discretion on who to go and prosecute.

And we know who her office prosecutes.

She prosecutes BIPOC community members and poor community members at massively disproportionate rates.

Thank you.

Returning to in-person public speakers, we've got Suzanne Kotz followed by Bradley Doche.

My name is Suzanne Kotz.

I'm a longtime resident of Capitol Hill and my comments are in support of this public safety ordinance.

I and many other people are deeply concerned about public safety in the city.

People need to feel safe riding on transit without worrying about the air being tainted by harmful or not harmful amounts of drugs.

People need to feel safe patronizing restaurants in Little Saigon, which no longer can operate because people are afraid to go to that neighborhood now.

People need to be able to shop on 3rd Avenue and enter a store.

Businesses need to know that their customers can come into their stores without having to negotiate an open-air drug market.

There has to be some point of compromise between what residents and visitors to the center need and expect and what people who are in need, who are on the streets, obviously in great distress.

So I urge you not only to pass this, but to make sure that there is funding allocated at a meeting level for diversion and support.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bradley Dosh, and Bradley will be followed by Megan O'Hara.

Hi Seattle City Council members.

My name is Bradley Dosh.

I'm a constituent of Seattle Council District 1. I'm urging you to again reject the proposed legislation that would expand the city's criminal code to prosecute drug possession.

At Ruth's Young Adult Shelter, I spoke with many young people struggling with drugs.

These people need care, support, and community, not more interactions with the police.

These folks are human beings just like you and me and deserve to be treated as such.

Instead of focusing on Band-Aid solutions, we should attack the roots of these issues.

As others have already stated, these include, but are not limited to, housing and food security, health care, and education.

There is a multitude of evidence that incarceration does not prevent overdoses, nor give people the help they need.

It makes me angry that the city is considering a law that would increase overdoses, deaths, and racial disparities, and arrests, jail time, and overdoses.

This proposed bill will bring us back to racist war on drug policies.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Megan O'Hara, and Megan will be followed by Christina Mann.

Hi, my name is Megan, and I'm with the Solidarity Budget.

Growing up, I had an aunt, Lori, and I spent a lot of time with her because she and my mom used to run a local business together.

Unfortunately, she became addicted to opioids after a surgery, and eventually, fentanyl became a primary drug.

And I will never forget the day that I was on the phone with my mom, and she found her dead from an overdose.

And I'm sharing this with you all because I want to ask the council, have you ever shared a home with somebody who's addicted to opioids, particularly fentanyl, or had a truly close relationship with somebody addicted to opioids?

Because the most painful part isn't just losing somebody, but it's watching the battle of trying to get clean.

And I've learned so much since her death about what could have worked, and professionals here will share with you evidence-based solutions, and that's not my role.

But one thing that they know definitively does not work, and one thing every family member of somebody addicted to fentanyl knows doesn't work, is incarceration.

And if you don't know up close the struggle of trying to get clean, you can't pass this legislation because you don't know what you're up against.

This legislation sentences someone else's family member to death.

And it's too late for my aunt, but it isn't too late for somebody else's family, so vote no because we can't waste any resources on making this problem worse.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Christina Mann followed by Aretha Basu.

Hello, I'm Chris from the south side of Seattle.

I'm in three separate organizations that work directly with individuals dealing with substance issues.

And to be honest, I joined three different organizations.

I know it sounds like a lot, because I believe in the community coming together to create solutions that are backed by data.

I believe in seeing the young people that are with me in these organizations come together and look at data to go about this different community policies.

And there are plenty of angry, angry young people here today because we're sick of our public officials not listening to data when they create policies.

We're sick of having to come to things like this to tell you directly, hey, this isn't gonna work because you don't have data to back it up.

And so here we are again, doing this again.

months later, again, because you're still not listening to data to back up policies.

Young people are sick of it and we're here to take our future.

We're here organizing.

We're here to talk to you.

We're here to take your jobs.

We're running for office.

We're here.

Our next speaker is Aretha Basu followed by Dominic Driscoll.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

Aretha Basu, Political Director of Puget Sound SAGE and SAGE Leaders.

On behalf of my organization, I ask you to vote no on the bill before you today.

This bill creates another inroad to incarceration because involvement in the criminal legal system does not heal people, does not house people, nor does it address the root causes of substance use.

I appreciate Councilmembers' efforts to place guardrails within the bill towards diversion and detailed language on SPD conduct.

However, people's access to treatment and resources should not have to come through contact with police and the system in the first place.

What scares me most about this bill is that it places an enormous amount of authority and discretion in the hands of SPD, a department we just spent the last three years saying that very discretion didn't belong in.

I have the gray hairs to prove it.

I'm not even 30. This fear is exacerbated by the story just this morning where officer Daniel Arter said that the life of Jehannabi Kandula who was killed by SPD had limited value and that the city should cut a check.

Is this who we trust to divert people and connect them with resources instead of arrest them on day-to-day interactions?

No.

Vote no today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dominic Driscoll, and Dominic will be followed by Christopher Aureliano.

Hello.

First off, I would like to thank the housing developers for showing up today, the folks who created the housing crisis, and thus are a major contributor to the public health crisis in Seattle that is drug use, or rampant overdoses in particular.

I'm here today in particular to remind you all that this bill is going to backfire because when the stuff is banned in public, people do it in private, and you're going to see a spike in overdoses that are untreated.

When that happens, it increases the fatality rate in Seattle, and by the time that happens, it's going to be the time for the next election, and the people who are going to be blamed are the City Council.

I would advise you, if you want to keep your seat, to vote against this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christopher Arellano, followed by Colin Scone.

My name is Chris Arellano.

I'm a representative to UFCW members in Seattle and King County and a constituent of D6.

Council members, We've been here before, not just in this room and on this bill, but in this war on drugs.

Since the 60s, our government has taken a punitive approach towards drug use and addiction.

If punishing people for drug use works, why are we here 60 years later?

Punishing people for addiction doesn't work, period.

If you want to see less suffering in our streets, you all should focus your time on the root causes of homelessness and addiction.

Do something about the soaring price of housing and runaway inflation.

That would be a great place to start, and it would positively affect the constituents you deem clean or worthy as well.

Louis, Strauss, if you're listening, do what we at UFCW 3000 endorsed you to do, which is the right thing for our members, for your constituents, for the people of Seattle.

Vote no.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Collin Scone, and Collin will be followed by Lisa Marcus.

Is Collin Scone?

Okay.

Moving on to Lisa Marcus.

Do we have Lisa Marcus in the room?

Okay.

And then followed by Lisa Marcus, followed by Stephanie Tidholm.

Hi.

I'm Lisa Marcus.

I'm a constituent.

I live in Green Lake for the last 25 years.

I actually have a close family friend who died of a fentanyl overdose in his bed in a Green Lake home.

This is not a problem of just some people.

This is a problem that needs addressing at a mental health level, at a societal support level.

People need to have the resources to go and get help.

If it's stigmatized, if it's criminalized, people will die.

This is not a solution.

Any money going toward solution needs to go toward the organizations which provide the support to housing, which gets people what they basic needs, not to criminalizing, not to the police.

Please vote no.

Our next speaker.

is Stephanie Tidholm and Stephanie be followed by Luca Howard.

Hello my name is Stephanie Tidholm.

I'm a longtime resident of District 1 as well as the case manager on the LEAD program.

I want to say that I do appreciate the efforts of the mayor and a few of our council members in enhancing some of the diversion services but I will say working previously the substance abuse counselor that the housing first model is paramount.

This I know that the language is criminalizing drug use, but ultimately we're criminalizing homelessness.

And not having the allocation of resources to be able to house these people in sustainable housing at that and affordable housing is a huge issue.

And if we don't do something to enhance the funding, not only for the Lead and the Reach program, but all social services programs that are serving this population, we're going to continue these same cycles of people being on the streets.

I would urge you to consider where these resources are being allocated and allocate the funds accordingly so that we can actually resolve this issue and not keep going in this crazy circle.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luka Howard and Luka Howard will be followed by Renfans.

Hello.

I'm Luke Howard, a D5 resident, and I'm here speaking against the drug war that everybody here is pursuing.

I'm going to read you an excerpt.

I think she went up on the hood, hit the windshield, and then when he hit the brakes, she flew off the car.

But she's dead.

It's a regular person.

Just write a check for $11,000.

She was 26 anyway.

She had limited value.

This was the police reaction to them killing somebody.

Do you really expect this police force to fairly and equitably enforce the legislation you propose, especially considering that nobody here has created enough police alternatives to actually support the bill in the way that you want them to?

Please vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Renaissance, and this is our last speaker signed up for public comment in person.

My name is Renaissance.

I'm the co-director of campaigns at 350 Seattle.

I'm also an organizer with Seattle Solidarity Budget and an organizer with Who Streets Our Streets.

And today I brought a book because oftentimes it seems like we are blowing smoke at the council and this book is called No More Police.

It was authored by Mariam Kaba and Andre Ritchie and everything that has been discussed today about why to oppose this bill and this piece of legislation is contained in this book and many others.

And something that I've heard over and over today in this council, inflammatory language around open air markets and a great author, Michelle Alexander, who authored the New Jim Crow, talked about this, the comparison between open air markets and closed house markets.

And what we're actually discussing is the difference between who is selling and doing the drugs as opposed to just where the drugs are being sold at.

And then over and over, we've heard about Daniel Honduras, the SPD officer, who was talking about John V. Candula.

And when he said her life had little value, he was talking about young, BIPOC, migrant folks, and those are not the kinds of people that we can trust to enforce these kinds of laws.

So vote no on this legislation.

Thank you.

There's one more person who's signed up online, and that is Reed Olson.

Reid, if you're with us, we can hear from you now.

Hello, can you hear me?

Go ahead, Reid.

Thank you.

Where do I begin?

Yeah, this is my third time calling in to say no against this racist, racist classist stupid, dangerous, war on drugs, which is really just a way to brutalize homeless people.

This is about some people are uncomfortable seeing unhoused humans in the streets where they do business.

And I'm upset about that too, but for different reasons.

We need a housing first model.

We needed it yesterday.

People like Tobias from Real Change have done great reporting on how verbiage like open-air drug markets allow for sensationalization, pro-clutching, and allows a certain set of people to wash their hands and consider our unhoused neighbors less than humans.

This is not something that was written by caregivers.

I work in healthcare.

I work with many of the people you are trying to criminalize.

I think it's dangerous.

Please find it in your hearts to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a couple of folks still signing up for in-person public comment, so we'll return to that.

We've got Aiden Carroll followed by Shannon Newsom.

And this bill is as wrong as it was in the spring.

I appreciate, I guess, some of the attempts to increase diversion, but unless there's a treatment to go to, it doesn't really mean anything.

And as long as there is drugs being confiscated or people being arrested, that's going to increase overdoses.

The myth of refusing help is typically intertwined in these things.

And the fact is that people want treatment, but the treatment system we have needs to be fixed qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of insurance, in terms of Suboxone, in terms of the length of time, before and after.

And the outpatient treatment is the kind that works best for people who are not going to be housed anytime soon.

Please keep all of that in mind and do not vote for something that is going to kill people.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Shannon Newsome.

Hi, I'm Shannon Newsome.

I am a constituent in Capitol Hill.

I have grown up in the Seattle area in Bellevue and now in Seattle.

I am a Professionally, I'm trained in social work.

And personally, I'm a member of the peer recovery community.

I'm also a history geek.

I know that in the 1700s, King George, at the time of the American Revolution, had a mental illness.

And he got the most, the best treatments around, which were for his stuff, bipolar disorder, exposure to nature, time with a therapist, a consultation.

And another person during this time was locked up for her mental illness and did not receive treatment.

The King George recovered from his pressing crisis.

The person that was locked up was not, she was in, she was criminalized for the rest of her life.

In the recovery community, we have the knowledge that criminalization just doesn't work.

Thank you.

Shannon is our last in-person public speaker.

Returning to the online speakers, none of the folks who were showing as not present are showing present.

So with that, we will conclude public comment and we will move into the single item on our agenda.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item one.

Agenda item one, council bill 120645. an ordinance relating to controlled substances, adding the crimes of knowing possession of a controlled substance and use of a controlled substance in a public place, amending section 128.09.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding a new section 3.28.141 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you so much.

I have some introductory remarks and my co-sponsor on this bill may have some as well.

work on hearing from central staff and getting the substitute in front of us and hearing some of the amendments.

So, just as background, this committee hosted a briefing from the mayor's office on this bill back on August 14th.

I want to say publicly that I appreciate that the executive has taken a nuanced approach in this proposal.

to implement the authority granted by the state legislature, consistent with the role of the mayor as head of the executive branch of government.

I appreciate the delineation within the bill of how the authority is intended to be used in practice when deciding whether to pursue a diversion or arrest, and providing clear, practical direction to officers on how to use the authority.

I further appreciate the findings in the bill itself and the recitals, stating, for instance, that diversion is the preferred approach in the city of Seattle.

Unlike the previous version of the bill, when we say diversion is the preferred approach in the city of Seattle, this includes what is called pre-arrest diversion that will be used for many, that this bill directs officers to use their discretion to not choose to arrest because they are not meeting the definition in the bill of committing harm to others.

Then there's another kind of diversion that we refer to as pre-booking diversion that will be used and prioritized for others.

This is language that was neither in the state law nor was in the previous version of the bill.

And it really, I think, does a good job of Implementing the mayor's approach of a desire to balance public safety objectives with the mayor's own experience with the war on drugs.

We know that a law enforcement only approach won't work.

not only because of the limited number of officers and the limitations on jail capacity, but because enforcement only is not an approach that works for everyone.

And we really need to work to get the resources that we have available for pre-arrest diversion and pre-booking diversion to assist people in in living more productive and healthy lives.

The recitals also recognize that prior federal, state, and local drug enforcement and policies, including the war on drugs, has disproportionately impacted black, indigenous, and people of color, and that causes trauma and pain that still linger in these communities today.

And the bill states that the city of Seattle is committed to not repeating the errors of the past, and will work to have the implementation will have the implementation of this ordinance to balance public safety with the well-being of individuals using controlled substance.

Clearly stating that commitment to a balanced approach is vitally important.

Again, state law applies everywhere throughout the state, so the state law making possession in public use gross to misdemeanors applies in Seattle, whether or not we act on this bill or not.

This bill, I believe, does meet in the middle, as we heard from some public testimony.

I want to give a little bit of background on...

Excuse me.

We cannot have any disruptions while the council is debating the bill.

The time for public comment is over.

In a August 14th committee meeting of this committee with a panel discussion with providers such as LEAD, REACH, We Deliver Care, on 3rd Avenue, the Public Defender Association, and the Fire Department, we heard from frontline workers to identify the gaps in diversion services.

This briefing made very clear to everyone on this committee that we have much work to do.

Key points that were made were the importance of stability for people trying to access addiction and related issues, things like sleep, food, and safety.

This ties into the lack of availability of housing and barriers to access housing and long-term care.

We deliver care, for example, reported that they can regularly get people into detox.

But often, there is nowhere for persons coming out of detox to go afterwards.

Another presenter in that committee meeting shared a story of a client who the court determined needed substance use treatment.

This person had high medical needs.

Their health was so compromised that there was no treatment facility in the entire state that would admit this individual.

This client had, again, very high medical needs and needed substance use treatment, had no options to get care, And what happened after this client sat in jail for four months was that the city prosecutor dismissed the case and this individual's release.

released to the street with no care, again, after sitting in jail for four months.

Representatives for the fire department's HealthONE division spoke to the difficult cycle of withdrawal from Frentenel and the importance of stability.

Coming out of the mayor's April executive order, HealthONE established a new specialized unit to respond to overdose calls.

We learned that between January and July 31st, 2023, First responders and bystanders have, on average, responded to 11 overdoses a day in a public place.

Again, that's 11 individuals who had their overdoses reversed, either successfully or not, each and every day between January and July 31st.

After a successful overdose of a person living unsheltered, HealthONE saves a life and then has no other option but to leave the person whose life they've just saved exactly where they found them.

The panel spoke to the need for a post-overdose diversion facility where These frontline workers, these first responders, can bring people after a non-fatal overdose to recover, get stabilized on medications, and access resources.

In my next committee meeting coming up in September, I believe it's the 26th, we will discuss the mayor's funding for this post-overdose recovery facility.

appreciate working with co-sponsor Lewis and the mayor's office on both the underlying bill and the substitute that we'll be discussing today.

But I'll turn it, hold comments on the substitute until we get to it and we'll turn it over to Councilmember Lewis as co-sponsor to make introductory remarks.

Thank you so much, Chair Herbold.

I'll be brief, given your comprehensive overview of the legislation.

I do want to thank, at the front, Andrew Meyerberg, who's sitting in the gallery, who has really shepherded this policy process over the last several months, working closely with Mayor Harrell, and thank Mayor Harrell for his very direct and hands-on attention to this policy.

to really make sure that this issue, which I think everybody can agree is one of the biggest and most pressing issues in the city, is getting the attention that it deserves, is getting the focus that it deserves in how to have a practical on-the-ground policy to implement it, and that What we are really focusing on here is how to take full advantage of our provider community, the resources that they bring to the forefront to facilitate warm handoffs from law enforcement to providers.

In many cases, as was mentioned in the public comment, to have providers just do the initial outreach without the involvement of law enforcement.

That is still compatible with the enforcement of this legislation.

and to keep these public health crises to the greatest extent possible outside of the slow and ponderous criminal legal system where cases can drag on for months, for months, for years, where things can be dismissed without a person ever getting access to any kind of help or assistance.

And to have a policy put in place that triages, prioritizes, and takes full advantage of a ecosystem that we have developed to an extent that is an international best practice, where law enforcement assisted diversion will go around the world to give seminars on the work that we have done around harm reduction informed care.

To take full advantage of those systems to make sure that wellness and best practices in public health are the things that are highlighted in our approach while also reserving the ability and the leeway and the discretion to hold people accountable in situations where that help and assistance is not always taken advantage of.

This legislation strikes that balance.

It'll be followed on by executive actions that complement it that we have been working on through Mayor Harrell's task force.

It will be followed on by budget additions that have been foreshadowed and that will be part of our budget discussions this fall.

And with that, I think I'll hand it back over to you, Chair Herbold, and thank you for your leadership in really helping to marshal the council's resources to produce this legislative product, and look forward to discussing amendments from colleagues and the underlying legislation.

Thank you so much.

To procedurally allow us to begin to discuss the amendments, we do need to move the underlying bill.

I intend to do so and ask for a second.

And then after that, I will do the same for the substitute, but I will also ask that council central staff help walk us through that substitute.

So council members, I move the committee recommends the passage of council bill 120645. Is there a second?

Thank you.

Council Bill 120645 has been moved and seconded.

We can now move on to consideration of amendments.

Again, I will first ask for a motion, then after the motion and second, we'll ask central staff to describe the amendment and ask the sponsor to add any comments they have to the amendment themselves.

So, first up is Amendment 1, sponsored by myself and Councilmember Lewis.

There is a revised version of this amendment that was shared this morning by email.

Is there a motion?

Move the substitute Amendment 1.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I will second it.

You motioned, I will second it.

So the revised version of substitute amendment one is now before us and we can move forward with council central staff describing to us the changes in the substitute as compared to the introduced bill.

Good morning, committee members, Asha Venkatraman of your council central staff.

As council member Herbold mentioned, there is a revised version of the substitute for your consideration.

There were just multiple technical updates that we made to this version two, but I'll go through this version two and describe each of the changes as they come up.

And so first, as you'll see on the amendment, we added a recital.

That recital says, whereas while pre-booking diversion and community-based care are preferred, there may be unique articulable circumstances that are so acute or problematic that they make pre-booking diversion alternatives an ineffective response to the situation.

The second is a reference to the crimes covered in the state bill.

It adds a new subsection 3.28141A.

It's mostly a technical change.

It's just so the short or abbreviated versions of what crimes are covered by this ordinance.

So things shorthand like possession of drugs or public use of a controlled substance.

It creates just one reference to the crimes covered so that we can repeat that reference throughout the section.

The next would add a new subsection E3 to 3.28141.

And it makes clear that if diversion rather than arrest is the appropriate response to an individual, the lack of availability of diversion should not mean that an arrest should occur instead.

So the added language in there, is a lack of diversion, opportunities shall not be a reason for arrest.

The next change refers to the same policy in 3.28.141E, that pre-booking diversion is preferred even when a person poses a threat of harm to others.

That addition goes in the threat of harm to others section, and it's intended to make clear that diversion is the preferred response regardless of the outcome of a threat of harm assessment.

The next item changes references to the threat of harm to others and threat of harm to self sections, just to be consistent in saying that a threat of harm assessment is not an element of the crime to be proved during prosecution.

The next item clarifies that in the threat of harm to self section, that if an individual is not determined to be a threat of harm to others, then they only pose a threat of harm to themselves.

The next change clarifies that officers are exempt from complying with the requirement that they make a reasonable attempt to contact and coordinate efforts towards diversion, outreach, or other alternatives to arrest if the most appropriate or viable care strategy appears to be transport to a diversion point of contact, a medical care facility, a crisis care center, or a diversion facility.

The next change specifies that officers may not arrest a person when they are only a harm to themselves without additional articulable facts and circumstances that would warrant arrest, and details that SBD policies should identify what those additional facts and circumstances are.

The next change adds a new subsection that would ask SPD to try and use officers with 40 or more hours of crisis intervention team training to respond to these crimes.

where operationally possible.

And then the next change adds a new section four, and that section establishes a behavioral health advisory committee intended to advise the city about the needs for change in police protocols in this legislation or any other policies related to this legislation, as well as an ask to provide data that is recommended for collection by the state's substance use and recovery services plan biannually.

And those are all the changes that were included in version one of this amendment.

As you'll have seen, as we've been scrolling throughout, there are highlighted changes, and those are the changes that make up this version two.

So starting at the bottom here, you'll see there's an additional section five that lays out the authority for the city to create this legislation and lays out some express purposes for the legislation itself, as well as some pieces about specific intent.

Moving backwards from there, you will see highlighted this new section J, and it makes clear that an officer's failure to comply with the sections around threat of harm or anything else in this legislation is not intended to be a basis to exclude or render evidence inadmissible.

Going back up from there, you'll see highlighted in subsection two there, a clarification of what reasonableness is when talking about the officer's discretion and just making clear that reasonableness is determined from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing similar circumstances.

Then going up from there, just a clarity added to subsection G, which is the threat of harm to others assessment, that the assessment itself will occur after probable cause has been established.

So just making sure that the timeline on that is clear.

And this last piece is just including that nothing in the ordinance mandates that an arrest should occur.

So we're not taking away any of the officer's discretion to arrest.

If they choose to do so, there's no requirements for arrest that are described in the legislation.

I think that is all of the additional changes made to this version of the amendment.

Thank you so much, Asha.

I just want to also take a moment to thank Council Member Mosqueda and her staff for their work on this substitute.

Much of what we heard that I should go through on the substitute.

We're clarifying sections in a way that is consistent with the mayor's proposal, the introduced version of the mayor's proposal, but there are some substantive additions, and I thank Council Member Mosqueda for some of those substantive additions, including the efforts to prioritize officers with 40 or more hours of crisis intervention team training, as well as the creation of the behavioral health committee to advise the city on needs for changes in police protocol legislation or this particular policy after having an opportunity to see how the police policies and procedures are working on the ground.

and making sure that we have folks who have expertise in addressing these, the needs of individuals and have them in the driver's seat in making recommendations to policy.

So with that, do we have questions or comments about the substitute?

Just looking both.

virtually for a virtual council member as well as in person.

Not seeing any.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

I do have a few comments.

I'm sorry.

I'm not seeing your hand here.

That's okay.

Put a different screen up.

All right.

Go for it.

Might have blended in with my background there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you for your comments as well about the work that our team has done, led by Melanie Cray and the incredible work that she has done literally round the clock throughout the recess.

Unfortunately, she spent many of her days and nights trying to do additional research on the legislation in front of us.

So I do appreciate the note of appreciation for her.

Melanie on our team and in partnership with and Greg and Lauren Henry and and Gorman and all from central staff who similarly spent tireless hours over the break working on this.

I just have a few comments on the substitute bill, madam chair and a match of the substitute bill, as you've noted, has been informed by conversation with the community.

So.

I'll just say, thanks to those folks right now, since the substitute will form the basis for the legislation that we'll consider here in a minute.

So thanks again to folks from lead and Lisa Dugard and Tara Moss for consulting with us along with Anita condo wall.

Director of King County Department of public defense for her partnership and advocacy and reaching out and the folks that reach a 9 to 5 King County Department of community and harm services.

And, of course, the folks that the Washington for their help in thinking through some of the complex issues that we are trying to address in in our city here, and to build on the state legislation.

Councilmember Herbold, as chair of the committee, you have just been an incredibly accessible leader on this issue, along with your staff member, Newell Aldridge.

So I want to thank you and your team for your engagement with my team, specifically ongoing conversations with Melanie over the break on this bill.

I do want to express my support for the substitute bill.

I really do appreciate the panel that you live with Madam chair in our previous committee meeting.

I believe that the substitute bill really leaned in heavily as you noted on trying to make sure that there is a.

array of community partners out there that want to have more services and want to have more resources to assist people.

And this legislation, I think what the substitute makes it clear that arrests and charging should be an extreme last resort and not the first resort.

Only when a person cannot be deescalated by lead to prevent booking and go into charging.

I think that this makes a lot of good strides in making that clear.

I'm glad to support this because I think that it makes clear that pre-booking diversion is a priority for people as we try to also reduce the harm to themselves or to others.

And pre-arrest diversion is a priority for people who pose a threat of harm only to themselves.

So I think that there's good clarification in here.

And it creates really solid data collection requirements.

I will note my concerns with the underlying bill that are still embedded in the substitute, even though I am going to be supporting the substitute vote here at this point in the committee, it still involves police.

in what is a public health crisis, despite the decades of data that show us that police and arrests only exacerbate harm when we are trying to force them to serve in this role and force people into a system when they really need public health services.

It still allows for people to become entangled in the criminal legal system, and it still perpetuates a system of beliefs that was debunked decades ago.

I'm specifically concerned with the addition that we saw from yesterday's version that says, An officer's failure to comply with subsections 328.141G and 328.141H or any other provisions of this legislation will not be a basis to exclude or render inadmissible any subsequently obtained evidence.

My concern is that this removes an important component of the substitute that we had previously seen.

I think that it significantly disadvantages people who face criminal charges under the law.

I am worried that it limits defendants potential defense if police don't follow the guide guardrails that we set out clearly in this legislation, and they will end up in jail.

And as we've seen from reports and headlines and.

Public health data, sending people to jail only exacerbates the chances that they will have an overdose or they will die either in jail or when they come out of jail and begin consuming again.

So my concern is that the framework on this still allows for.

A system that is not backed by public health data and the guard rail, the guard, but the guard rail link guard rail language is good that we worked on.

I think it makes it much clearer that diversion should always be the 1st approach.

And I do hope that this is. a signal of our support for arrests being the absolute last resort before booking and going to jail.

So I'll be a yes on the sub today.

And I thank the chair for including many of the amendment and policy ideas that our team and community had been suggesting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Much appreciated.

Any other?

Yes, Councilmember Peterson.

Chair Herbold, can you talk more about the Behavioral Health Alternatives Committee?

And is that something that would need to be permanent or is it something that we're after time it'll be clear what direction we're heading and it doesn't need to be in perpetuity and advisory committee?

Yeah, I think the thinking that I have expressed to the executive on this item is given that there is a fentanyl users task force that is made up of many of the same individuals that we would want to be monitoring the use of this ordinance, that it would make sense for the responsibility here to sort of morph into the work of the Fentanyl Users Task Force.

That's what's been discussed with the executive.

We've intentionally kept it loose, because I think this is a piece that we still need to work out.

There was some consideration of much more formalized language about who should, you know, whether or not the council should appoint some members and the mayor should appoint, whether or not we would be following our normal procedures for formal commissions.

And I didn't think it was a good idea to go that route because there's still more to be discussed with the executive about the formation of that group.

Thank you very much.

I'll look forward to that discussion.

Any other comments on the substitute?

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

So it took two years and a special session for the state legislature to come up with a Blake fix.

And now we have a law, but the city of Seattle is about to break it by imposing several conditions that will restrict officers' ability to make arrests, even though they have probable cause.

And that's tragic in itself because the drug crisis is the most crushing public safety, public health issue of our time right now.

Let me replete.

Excuse me.

We need to hear from the council members on the dais.

I cannot have disruptions to our process, our democratic process.

Please keep your comments contained and allow the council members to speak as I've recognized them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me repeat that past paragraph.

That's tragic in itself because the drug crisis we see playing out on our streets is the most crushing public health and safety issue of our time, with Washington having the highest number of overdoses in the US and the vast majority occurring in Seattle.

And restricting arrests means people will not be diverted into treatment, which is the goal It's the goal that we've been stating all along here and is still my fundamental goal.

And I'm also very concerned about the legal risks presented by these proposed modifications to state law.

In the August 14th special meeting, I expressed concern that requiring officers to assess a threat of harm to others, however that's defined, and we haven't seen the EO yet, the executive order, inserts officer discretion directly into the law and could open the city up to allegations of bias policing and or be used in a motion to dismiss by the defense.

And since that meeting, none of the information that I've received, which has been extensive, has allayed those concerns.

And this substitute, despite the changes that have been made that I've seen only this morning, only increases my concerns about legal risk because it adds a whole bunch of more conditions and complexity.

And so that is why I put forward two amendments.

Hopefully we'll be able to talk about those after all the other amendments, but I'm getting the sense that this is, that if we, that this is the passage of this substitute is sort of the deal breaker for the sponsors to vote on the whole bill.

Is that the case?

This is a bill that Council Member Lewis and I are sponsoring.

So this is, and the substitute that is before us largely clarifies the intent that was in the underlying bill.

As I mentioned, there are only two substantive differences, and that relates to the officers that are used for enforcing the law, having, preferencing, prioritizing, that they have CRT training and the committee.

Everything else that you see before you in this substitute is a clarification of the original introduced bill proposed by the mayor and sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and I.

Councilmember Lewis.

Yes, the thing that I would just clarify is I don't think the phrasing of whether this substitute is contingent for my vote is the proper phrasing.

I would rather say the substitute is the result of a long and comprehensive collaborative process with Mayor Harrell and expresses Mayor Harrell's clear preferences in how to take this law into practice in the city of Seattle.

So I don't think the characterization comports with the collaboration that the council has had with the mayor's office over the last several weeks in putting this together.

This substitute is supported by the mayor's office and was extensively crafted in consultation with them.

So I just want to make that clear on the record.

And again, thank Mayor Harrell for his leadership in promulgating these policies for our consideration.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

I just don't.

My question is, should Are the additional amendments on here, are they amendments or additions to the language that you put forward in the substitute?

I just don't know when to suggest that we consider the amendments that I distributed this morning.

The parliamentary procedure is after we vote on the substitute, then we will go through the amendments to the substitute.

Okay, thank you very much.

Absolutely.

Seeing no further questions or comments, Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Four yes, one no.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries, and the amendment is adopted.

We can now move on to the next amendment.

Next up is amendment number two, sponsored by Councilmember Mosqueda.

Again, let's get it in front of us with a motion and a second, and then we'll talk about it.

Is there a motion?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move that the committee consider amendment number two.

Thank you so much.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 2. Could Council Central staff please describe the amendment?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Greg Doss, Council Central staff.

As you're aware, in the substitute, Section G talks about a threat of harm to others and has officers, when considering making an arrest of an individual, determining a threat of harm to others through their actions, conduct, as to whether or not that individual presents a threat.

What this amendment before you would do is to ask that when defined in SPD policies, The threat of harm standard shall be comprised of factors that are related to a potential that physical harm will be inflicted upon a person by another as evidenced by behavior which has caused such harm or which places another person or persons in reasonable fear of sustaining such harm.

Additionally, such factors may not include the mere use of drugs in public absent additional factors.

Thank you, Greg.

Can you also just touch upon how state law relates and where it doesn't?

Yeah, thank you.

So there is a, there is under state law, officers are able to determine when individuals are presenting a likelihood of serious harm and they are able to take into custody an individual to receive a behavioral health evaluation under the Involuntary Treatment Act.

And there is specific language in the RCW and it's reflected in SPD policy that determines when individuals are displaying behavior that would allow officers to do that.

This language mirrors that language in the sense that these characteristics and these behaviors would be identifiable by the individual who would be using or possessing drugs in public.

The difference would be that this person would not be rising to the level of needing custody or a behavioral health evaluation.

Thank you so much.

Are there comments from the sponsor, Council Member Mosqueda?

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

Thanks for seconding this amendment here.

This amendment, as central staff noted, is really about attempting to safeguard against implicit racial bias.

This is an attempt here to ensure that there is a true threat of harm and that where we have a defined way to assess that threat of harm that doesn't default to an individual's bias.

We know that people of color are much more likely to be seen as a threat for the same behavior as their white counterpart.

This amendment also tries to ensure that people are not becoming involved with the criminal legal system unless they are putting another person's physical safety in danger and that the person cannot be de-escalated.

if that person cannot be deescalated with interventions by LEAD, and LEAD being the primary approach, and only in the very extreme and very rare cases that people are being booked into jail and offered another off-ramp to LEAD and pre-trial diversion.

So the attempt here is to ensure that physical safety and the physical danger of someone else is clearly defined and that we use deescalation and intervention strategies first before going to arrest and booking into jail.

And finally, this amendment attempts to protect against unnecessary interactions with the legal systems as well as safeguard against misinformation, serving as the bias for arrest under this statute.

And I want to underscore the importance of safeguarding against misinformation as serving for the bias of arrest under the statute.

For example, we all know that it is extremely.

Frustrating and.

Unhealthy for us to have the sense of breathing and 2nd hand smoke, but many people, including today have commented on 2nd hand smoke and fentanyl smoke being an example of where they felt their own physical health was in danger.

I want to point to the fact that our King County public health department has had a recent.

Uh, question and answer session with the director of the Washington poison control center to dispel this myth.

So, this amendment tries to help identify where there's misinformation that could be leading to someone's arrest because a person may feel that their physical health or safety is in danger when, in fact, secondhand fentanyl smoke.

According to the King County public health department continues to show that bystanders who breathe in second hand smoke are not physically at risk studies.

And I want to quote from public health insider and from the King County public health department quote, studies have looked at fentanyl concentrations in the bloodstream after someone has had second hand fentanyl exposure from smoke.

There is no risk for the everyday person being exposed to secondhand opioid smoke.

When someone smokes fentanyl, most of the drug has already been filtered out by the user before there is secondhand smoke.

And that comes and it's published from public health on publichealthinsider.com.

This is from April 5th of 2022, if you want to look it up.

under is it safe question and answer session about secondhand fentanyl smoke.

So yes, it is important for us to have a clear definition of physical harm so that people aren't making assumptions about what physical harm is and that individuals who are involved in arrests are not defaulting to any bias where they may perceive someone as being a threat when we don't have a clear way of defining threat to a person's physical harm.

I want to avoid compounding any bias, and again, I want to lean on public health data.

So that's the intent of this amendment here, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your explaining your policy basis, as well as your advocacy for the clarity of this amendment.

I will have some comments on it before we vote, but I'm going to defer to Councilmember Nelson.

Your hand is up.

It's an old hand.

Any other comments on this, Councilmember Peterson?

Thank you, Chair Herbold, and thank you, Council Member Mosqueda, for explaining this amendment.

You know, the big picture for me here is that the state government had a compromise that they crafted carefully, and I would prefer to implement that as is into our Seattle Municipal Code because it was already a compromise on public health and safety.

I think the mayor's additional Provisions of harm to self harm to others add Complicating factors for implementation.

I think that if we if we layer on to that this amendment it increases that complexity and potentially Legal risk for the city and so I'll be voting no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you councilmember Peterson other comments While my colleagues are considering whether or not they have comments, I'm just going to speak to why I'm a little torn about this amendment.

I really appreciate how we've been working hand-in-hand with the executive in good faith to create this sort of dual track that is different than what state law proposed.

It is not in conflict, but it is different because it assumes that a cohort of people who are not harming any others will not be arrested and will be helped with pre-arrest diversion.

I think, for me, the complexity is in the harm to self and harm to others definitions, which will be in future policies developed by the police department.

And historically, we've had some challenges with administrative policies that have been sort of overused or improperly used.

I think most recently we can point to what we refer to colloquially as the MDARs, which allow for encampment removals without without advance notice when they are considered to be obstructions and the ACLU has sued the city and the court has agreed with their findings that the city is over is defining too many things as obstructions.

And I could see something similar to that happening in this case, that the police policies may define too many things as harm to others, not just harm to self.

So I really appreciate the sentiment of this amendment.

But I also simultaneously am concerned that it may be too narrow.

And so I think what I'm inclined to do as it relates to this amendment is to abstain.

And between now and the full council vote on the legislation, have some additional conversations with the executive to get some further understanding and reassurances that The definitions that are yet to be created in the police department policies defining threat of harm to others are not so all-encompassing that they basically include everything and really make the intent of this ordinance, really undermine the intent of this ordinance.

I've been struggling with this one.

Council Member Mosqueda has asked me numerous times how I'm going to vote, and I'm deciding here on the dais that I'm actually going to abstain in saying publicly to the folks representing the executive in the audience today that I look forward to having more conversations with them before full council on this issue.

There are no additional thoughts or comments.

Council Member Mosqueda.

I think that it's probably unlikely that there will be a number of amendments on the final, the full council vote.

I'm hoping that won't occur as early as next Tuesday, given.

The work that's still to be done to see what is actually in the budget.

There was a lot of promises made about alternatives and diversion funding being included in the budget, which we don't receive for another 2 weeks.

So my hope is that we'll still have time to see that before a final vote, but I'm guessing.

That we probably won't have that information and if we don't do more amendments at full council, then then this might be our last time to vote on this.

I do appreciate, though, that folks are acknowledging that there does need to be a tough definition or a more refined definition to the threat of harm.

The language is in the bill at this point with the sub what this amendment does is just offer additional clarity to make sure that.

when we use the words and definition threat of harm, that we have a means to ensure that there is a base level of protection for true threats that is consistent with that state law.

And I think that it's especially important to remember that while the consent decree is being lifted, the city of Seattle still is receiving national and state and local headlines for having bias arrests.

And Seattle Times, 2021 in July, headline says, report Seattle police stop Black people, Native Americans at far higher rate than white people.

If that level of bias policing is occurring currently, and we add on to the fact that more people of color are more likely to be unhoused, and if this is really affecting mostly folks who are going to be unhoused and consuming in public, Then I think we are doubling down on the potential that there will be additional bias and who is then swept into additional arrests under this new law.

So, again, it is currently illegal to consume in public, but if we are giving further.

guidance to officers, we should be offering them guidance to not just default to a personal feeling of being unsafe and really have a clear definition of what threat of harm truly is.

That is why I think it's so important to put that in the legislation here today.

And obviously there's many more avenues that we need to continue to address that, not just with this legislation, but I offer that evidence as recently as July of 2021, as offered in the Seattle Times.

reporting on that watchdog report showing officers, despite nearly a decade of surveillance under the federal oversight entity, continued to stop and use force against Black people in the city and Native American folks in the city far more often than white people.

And that's a direct quote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nelson, is that a new hand?

Yes.

I want to note that I am not struggling at all with my vote on this amendment because it seems to be saying that being exposed and inhaling secondhand fentanyl smoke is not bad enough for officer intervention.

I know that it's, you know, it's It's being made to sound more complicated, but I don't think that that is a reason for not intervening in public use of drugs in a public place.

So here we have Reverend Walden here, who has spoken publicly about her exposure to fentanyl smoke.

I'm just going to have to say that when you're talking about grabbing headlines, I think that passage of this will grab headlines as well, because we're questioning whether or not that is harmful enough.

And that is not being what former representative Don Mason says, being a hero.

So I will be voting no.

This goes too down a complex rabbit hole for me to vote yes on this.

Thank you, I'm sorry, I just final comment if I might.

Councilmember, I'm sure that proves the point and that proves the point that this amendment is incredibly important that we can't rely on people's feelings of being unsafe.

We have to have a clear definition of what is truly a harm to 1's physical safety.

Public Health Seattle King County and the Washington State Poison Control Center have put out data on their public health sites, helping to explain to members of the public that consuming secondhand fentanyl smoke is not a physical harm.

I am not saying it is not something that any I wish on anyone, but it is not reason to arrest someone.

That is what we are trying to define here right now.

Whether or not physical harm is clearly defined is a very important component of this policy.

And whether or not someone feels uncomfortable is absolutely something I care about, but it is not justification for arrest when it is not yielding physical harm according to our own public health department and poison control center.

you have made my point about why this amendment would be incredibly important as a guardrail for offering sideboards to our officers for what defines physical harm.

The point has been made not only by me, but apparently other members of the committee who are going to be voting no.

So I appreciate, Madam Chair, that the conversation may continue in other venues, and I look forward to us all continuing to look at public health publications to remember what defines actual physical harm according to our own public health officers.

Thank you.

Hearing no further comment, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Vice Chair Lewis.

No.

Chair Herbold.

Abstain.

One yes, three no, one abstention.

Thank you so much.

The motion fails, the amendment is not adopted, and we will move on to the next amendment, amendment number three, which is sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda and myself.

Again, we'll get the amendment before us, and then we can speak to and debate the merits of amendment three.

Is there a motion for amendment number three?

Madam Chair, I move the committee consider amendment number three.

Thank you so much.

I second amendment number three.

And now that we have the amendment before us, let's get a quick description from Council Central staff, and then we'll speak to it.

Amendment number three adds three whereas clauses to the recitals in the bill.

And these recitals are intended to communicate that the city does support a framework of diversion.

And a substantial part of that framework, especially when we're talking about pre-booking diversion, is the Let Everyone Advance with Dignity, so the LEAD program.

And so as long as they have the ability to sufficiently support this population with diversion, and the city continues to prioritize referrals from police at the point of arrest for pre-booking diversion, that the city is supporting that framework.

It just makes the additional point that if at some point there are insufficient resources for pre-booking diversion, And this priority of referral through police is still prioritized, that there is a chance that what we call pre-arrest or social contact diversion could be compromised in that the number of resources are, of course, limited.

And so any prioritization of contacts through police, through law enforcement, if funding is not sufficient to support both kinds of referral could mean that referral into LEAD is more limited to contact with law enforcement.

Thank you so much.

So let's first hear from the sponsors of the amendment.

Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to speak to it?

Yeah, I'm sure I'm also happy to let you go first and then I can weigh in.

I know you've been a longtime supporter and advocate for funding for LEAD and appreciate your co-sponsorship on this amendment and maybe I can speak to it afterwards.

Sure, I just think- I can go now too.

I'll say a few words.

I think the most important part of this amendment is the fact that we are recognizing here today that our strategy for addressing substance use disorder in public places is really dependent on the ability of programs like LEAD who both are integral to pre-booking and pre-arrest diversion strategies, that if we do not make sufficient resources to support those programs, then very likely we will result in a policy where the primary entry into the diversion system is contact with law enforcement, assuming that the diversion system itself will be funded.

Because again, there are two types of diversion.

There's diversion that happens without arrest, and there's diversion that happens after arrest but before charges are filed.

It is incredibly important that we make sure that we are properly resourcing both of these strategies.

And it's really important that we go into into creating policy with our eyes wide open about the importance of these resources.

So really appreciate Council Member Mosqueda, both as the budget chair and the prime sponsor of this amendment, bringing this forward so we have the opportunity to speak about how important this funding is to our community safety continuum while we have representatives of the mayor's office in the audience with us today.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Great, thank you very much madam chair and thanks again for your leadership also as vice chair for the budget committee.

I think that with you and members of this council, we have had to lead on finding additional funding 1 time funding to source funding sources to plug funding gaps in the lead program.

We, I have been happy to try to do that with the vice chair and other council members over the last few years to ensure that the lead program led by our friends at.

To were previously part of the, we want to make sure that the various programs and strategies that they are deploying to reach people where they are at, and to make sure that.

that services are being delivered by trusted community partners whose relationships take time and investment, that they have the funding.

So we have spent the last three years finding one-time funding sources to plug that gap at LEAD.

Without seeing the budget before this bill comes forward, I don't have any assurances that there is going to be the funding gap filled again.

According to PDA and LEAD, They felt that they had to absorb about an 8Million dollar gap in the 2023 budget before we were able to find additional funding to to plug some of that last year.

And.

They are projecting that they will need to have somewhere between 6 to 8Million dollars more in next year's budget.

thinking that they can absorb possibly a $2 million gap to accept all of SPD's referrals.

But if the funding gap from last year is the same, it will start to impugn our ability to actually do what this bill purports that it will do.

If we don't fill this funding gap, it will harm LEAD and PDA's ability to accept referrals, which are the centerpiece of what supposedly makes this bill different from previous iterations.

And we have to have that funding accounted for to ensure that LEAD has the diversion capacity to ensure that people are not being arrested first.

The pre-arrest diversion component of this legislation is truly what makes it stand out and is unique, and that requires funding.

I look forward to working with members of this council and the executive to ensure that that funding gap is not experienced again this year.

But anywhere near the expected funding gap for 2024 will result in a cut in their ability to accept all referrals.

We have a big budget deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars coming up after next year.

Everyone knows that everyone should have that front and center.

And I know CBO and the executive do have that front and center.

That is why I'm concerned with any ability to add.

Millions of dollars to programs, and to especially ensure that we are doubling down on policy that assumes that money will be there makes me nervous about the ability to fulfill the promise that's being outlined here.

Given that we don't have an answer yet on the budget.

there is not room for someone in, sorry, given that we don't have answers on what happens when there is not room for someone in diversion, even though we've tried to guard against that by including language in this legislation saying that no, when there is no room in the appropriate treatment, that is not a reason to arrest people.

I'm still very concerned about the policy without the funding attached.

Lead has assured us that their current level of funding that they are prepared to prioritize their services.

They will prioritize all referrals so that no 1 needs to be turned away for lack of access to diversion programming.

However, again, it makes it so.

Effectively, that the only entry point to lead is by a police officer as they will need to scale down other referrals.

They accept to to ensure that there's proportional increase to referrals.

So, my hope here is that we can sustain and expand lead diversion capacity with this amendment.

But again, I want to emphasize the importance of this.

actually having the funding in the budget to make sure that this is not a false promise, and I would very much prefer to see the budget before we advance the policy.

I'm hoping that this policy amendment here helps to align our goals and future work on the budget.

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you so much.

I'll be brief on this amendment.

I just want to speak to my personal experience of working with Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion as a public safety partner, particularly in the downtown core of the city.

I really do think we have shown a way in Seattle to have this really fundamental leg of the stool as a public safety service that complements fire, police, and emergency medical technicians.

in a way that adds new capacity, that is harm reduction informed, that is focused on root causes.

Working during the COVID era on encampment resolutions with Just Care, a program of the Public Defender Association in partnership with other organizations, was a really eye-opening policy experience for me.

There are still hotel shelters that the COLEAD team is operating in the city of Seattle that have saved lives, that have gotten people into housing.

that have made our community safer and that they have kept those hotel shelters well run and with good relations with the surrounding community where the sheltering program themselves has also not been a contributor to perceptions of public order or public safety and they've been good neighbors and actually improved public safety demonstrated by 9-1-1 data in the areas where they have cited their sheltering.

I really think it's important to highlight and elevate this work because it is fundamental to the approach that we as a council and mayor are centering with this legislation and very enthusiastically support this amendment and look forward to moving on to the budget cycle where we can start talking about how to continue to adequately resource, lead, to have the impact that we want it to have.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Herbold, and I appreciate the intent of this because you need to have the funding backing these the alternatives.

And my my concern here is that we're calling out a single organization, which could imply a sole source award of funding in the future.

This is going to be where we're you know, we're referencing the Seattle Municipal Code update.

that we're doing.

And so I wonder if the authors of this would be willing, and maybe if it's not today at full council, but to basically just change, say, the let everyone advance with dignity lead program or similar programs, just so it's not just calling out one organization forever, as if that would be the only organization to ever receive this.

We may want to be growing that ecosystem, having more nonprofits doing this work.

on top of the great work that LEAD has done.

Maybe the Human Services Department will do some of this directly.

I just don't know and I just wouldn't want to call out just a single organization.

So, there could be an amendment just saying or other programs that would be, that would satisfy me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And just to respond to that, this is a common theme that we hear.

We're having similar conversations with King County.

The organization that is the project manager is the PDA.

But LEAD is not an organization.

LEAD is a program that has particular components of the program that have fidelity with the approach that we know works.

There are dozens and dozens of LEAD programs throughout the country.

PDAA doesn't run them all everywhere.

But again, LEAD is a model, and it is a model that that is dependent on somebody acting as program manager and several providers working under that program management to deliver care and services.

So given that we don't, LEAD does not have to be operated by PDA.

It can be operated by anybody.

Currently, King County has just done an RFP for LEAD, opening it up to other applicants to deliver the services in the program model that has fidelity with the LEAD program.

And so that fidelity with those principles is incredibly important, and that's why we refer to LEAD in the amendment itself.

And just to make a finer point on it, the RFP that the county recently did for the LEAD program was open to other people to apply, not just the PDA.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

Any other comments or questions?

Thanks madam chair.

Um, I would just also note that we're talking about recitals, right?

Places where we note findings, it is noted here as a finding that the framework of the lead program is efficient and effective and.

That is, I think, a difference than of of of the type of amendment we're talking about here.

Often when we do amendments in the budget, and we're trying to be prescriptive to departments about what needs funding, we will say programs such as.

Lead or entities such as.

So, I understand the point, I think it comes from Peterson and agree with you in concept on when we're dealing with the budget.

But here, I think we're talking about the type of programs that are required to ensure the effectiveness of the deferral of the of the referral program and the diversion strategies that are going to make this a different approach and.

I think it's appropriate in the whereas is to note lead as a program that has proven track record.

I also, though, want to again, underscore the importance here of us waiting on acting on this legislation until we have assurances that that funding is directed in the budget.

However, the executive decides to write that as.

some sort of assurances that the other half or the counter to the proposal here is truly funded.

But I think I appreciate the clarification, Madam Chair, that you offered and just wanted to offer that as well, given that this is in the recitals.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I'm not seeing any additional comments or questions.

Clerk, please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 3.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Councilor Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Three yes, two abstentions.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

We can move on to the next amendment, amendment number four, also sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda and myself.

Let's get it in front of us.

Is there a motion to move forward amendment four?

I will move Amendment 4. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 4. Could Council Central staff please describe the amendment?

Proposed Amendment 4 to Council Bill 120645 would add into the legislation reference to the RCW Section 10.05, which is a deferred prosecution statute.

The amendment adds a couple recitals just describing the addition and the reasons why.

But what this essentially would do would incorporate into 12A-09-020, which is the part of the bill that adopts RCW sections, the state legislature's Divert Prosecution Program.

In addition, it provides in that section additional guidance for offenses other than those referenced in RCW 10-05, which are domestic violence offenses, traffic infractions, and criminal mistreatment offenses.

And so this is intended to apply to all other misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors that specifically have a nexus to sorry, nexus to between defendant's conduct and an underlying substance use disorder and or a mental health disorder.

And it provides some guidance to the court about how to use deferred prosecution in those circumstances.

I just note that this is not mandating the municipal court to do any deferred prosecution cases.

It's just providing some legislative guidance about how to do things like treatment terms for deferred prosecution cases.

It matches the requirements for periodic reporting to the court.

prosecutor as well as the defense on the defendant's progress and it makes sure that admissions made by a defendant in the course of receiving deferred prosecution can't be used against the defendant in the prosecution's case.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to speak to the amendment?

Sure, thank you.

And again, thanks for your partnership on this, Madam Chair.

I just wondered as well for the viewing public if we wanted to pull it up on the screen to share some of the content of the amendment.

It was also published with the agenda, so thank you so much.

Um, to everyone who made that possible, I want to just know my interest in this, adding to what Asha said very briefly by resolving at least some cases more quickly than traditional prosecution and tailoring conditions to connect individuals facing charges who are suffering from substance use disorders and or mental health disorders with.

Services in a timely manner, this tool can help reduce recidivism and promote public safety.

The proposed deferred prosecution process would allow judges to set individual conditions for each person in front of them and then dismiss the case.

Once they determine a person has successfully met conditions set by the court.

And I know, madam chair, you've spent a lot of time working on this as well, or this concept.

So I appreciate your, your work on this.

Thank you so much.

Just a couple words to add to Asha's explanation and your words, Council Member Mosqueda.

You know, under this law, we assume that some people will be diverted without being arrested.

Some people will be diverted after arrest, but before booking, and some people will not be diverted.

And so this creates an opportunity for the use of an existing deferred prosecution program in order to again, reduce the negative impacts of the criminal legal system.

As Asha explained, the program does not mandate the municipal court to take any specific mandatory actions within a specific time frame.

And we recognize that the ability of Seattle Municipal Court to stand up a deferred prosecution program is contingent on resources, but this is simply proposed to allow for another approach to reduce the negative impacts of the criminal legal system of folks that there is a prosecution moving forward.

And it's specifically and narrowly focused on those individuals where there's a nexus between the individual's behavior and the substance use disorder with the underlying charge.

So, again, I appreciate Councilmember Mosqueda for being the prime sponsor on this one, and I'm also very supportive of, again, creating opportunities for diversion across the continuum.

Let's see if we have other comments.

Councilmember Lewis, I think you were first in the queue.

Thank you so much, Chair Herbold.

I think this is a really intriguing amendment.

When I was an assistant city attorney, I did have cases that resolved as a deferred prosecution.

Deferred prosecutions are not the most common diversion that we use in the municipal court.

I actually think that they're very uncommon.

because the terms and conditions of a deferred prosecution are very intensive.

Typically applied in DUIs as the description of the amendment implies, requires intensive outpatient drug and alcohol treatment, typically requires complete sobriety as one of the conditions of completing the program.

So it is not typically something that people who are charged in the municipal court seek to take advantage of for a DUI unless the evidence is pretty significant and they're willing to engage in that intensive program.

There's a high rate of failure for deferred prosecutions.

So from that standpoint, just for members of the public, just to state it, a deferred prosecution is a great opportunity for people to take advantage of, but it is not easy for people to do.

But I do think it could apply to cases like this, situations like this, where there is a nexus with addiction for folks.

That said, that is not currently what is allowed per the RCWs which control, the RCW which controls the applicability of how deferred prosecutions in Washington State work.

So, I am not really sure how through our municipal code we would be able to facilitate this.

But what I think that this does put before the council in an interesting way is maybe a conversation around how some supplemental work could be done at the state level.

to look at ways to apply deferred prosecutions to these cases as one of the tools or tactics that the state wants courts of limited jurisdiction to be able to provide in these cases.

Might be something to look into and talk to our legislative delegation about.

But there are other diversion and And other things short of going to trial that we do have as part of our practice locally that might be more appropriate, like pre-filed diversion, which in our supplemental budget we recently increased so I Given that this is this particular concept is kind of coming a little later in our process, too I'm gonna vote no one this amendment today, but I think it does invite a policy conversation We should engage with the legislature about for this being one of the tools that we can potentially use Thank You councilmember Lewis councilmember Nelson

Well, I actually like the Deferred Prosecution Program because it is rigorous, and despite what Councilmember Lewis just said about it not working for everyone, it worked for my dad, and that's how he got sober.

So, just wanted to note that this is an effective program for enough people to save enough lives for me to be in support of it.

On August 14th, I referenced a letter we had received from the Department of Public Defense and SEIU 925 stating their staunch opposition to aligning with state law and asking that it be amended, the proposed legislation, that it be amended to grant Seattle Municipal Court judges the authority to divert cases for treatment.

And back then, I said that that would be illegal because the power to create a judicial diversion program is vested solely in the state legislature under Article 4, Sections 1 and 12 of the Washington State Constitution.

And the Seattle Municipal Court jurisdiction and power is derived from the legislature per RCW 3520. And so basically, that was a way for me to say that we don't have the authority to do that.

Now, this amendment doesn't create a whole new judicial diversion program.

Instead, it expands an existing one.

But that, too, is an impermissible change to state law, which is beyond counsel's authority.

So I'm going to be voting no against this.

But I also want to say that from the get-go, I've been saying that I will oppose any attempt to interfere with the city attorney's prosecutorial discretion.

And this does do that.

It is an attempt to usurp those decisions.

And so that's, I'm maintaining consistency and we'll be voting no for that reason as well.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Are there any other closing comments on Amendment 4?

Madam Chair.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Yes.

Thanks so much.

I just, I wonder if there's any comments from central staff about the concern about the legality or the approach here.

Obviously, every amendment that we put forward goes through the law department.

This 1 has it has not been walked on.

This is not coming in late.

It's part of the normal process where it went through the law, legal review, and we have on central staff, our own legal analysis analysts also who assured us that it is consistent with state law.

So, just to make sure that.

We have clarification on the legislation or the amendment in front of us.

It might be helpful to hear from central staff if there's any feedback on some of the concerns raised.

Yes, and I think we do need to be careful about talking about legal advice, whether or not we're talking about legal advice from the city attorney or legal advice from the council, but handing it over to Council Central staff if they have anything to add.

Yeah, I just have to refer you back to the memos from the city attorney's office and any information from our legislative counsel that they've provided to you in privileged form.

I'm afraid I can't speak too much more than that.

Thank you, Asha.

Appreciate that.

All right.

Not seeing any further comments.

Pausing.

Still none.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

No.

Vice Chair Lewis.

No.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Two yes, three no.

I don't think you called all committee members.

Yeah.

Yes.

Sorry.

Just to get everybody's vote on the record.

Chair Herbold, yes.

Thank you.

And I don't know if you got Council Member Peterson, but I'm a no.

Oh, you skipped you too.

My apologies.

All right, well.

Am I that predictable, Noel?

Me too.

It's what happens when he's filling in the answers before the vote.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Let's move on to amendment number five, Council Member Peterson.

So this amendment, again, sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

Let's get it in front of us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I move to adopt Amendment 5 to Council Bill 120645 as shown on the committee's agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 5. Could Council Central staff please describe the amendment?

So Amendment 5 to Council Bill 120645 adds some recitals that speak to some of the proposed amendment language.

Essentially what this amendment asks is that the officer of the Inspector General for Public Safety or a research-based organization that OIG chooses to engage with as well as SPD, work with the City Attorney's Office, the Seattle Municipal Court, the Fire Department, and any other relevant departments to obtain data that I'll describe in this next subsection, and provide that data to the Council by January 1st, 2025, and for the next few years up until 2030. The intent for the data collection is for OIG to take a look at the data that's described in subsections 1 through 12 with the intent of using that data and any other data that they think is necessary to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of this ordinance.

The intent is for OIG to provide recommendations both about data collection to the extent that any of the data that SPD or other departments are collecting is operationally difficult and provide some recommendations about how to better operationalize that data collection to help the city to improve how it would assess the effectiveness of the ordinance.

A preliminary report is requested by June 30th of 2025, and final recommendations are intended to come to the council by the end of the year in 2025, and then annually again until 2030. Just a note about the timing there.

The intent is for OIG to be able to look at a year's worth of data.

And so assuming that this, if this ordinance were to pass, it would be able to look at the data collected throughout 2024 to be able to assess the effectiveness of the legislation.

As noted in the amendment itself, there's 12 different areas of data collection.

We're looking at the number of drug overdoses on a quarterly basis, the number of shootings in which drugs are present or an individual was under the influence of drugs on a quarterly basis, the number of 911 calls about the use of controlled substances in public, also on a quarterly basis, and all of those are intended to be data collection from between 2019 through 2023. The number of documented contacts between officers that includes community service officers and individuals encountered in enforcing these crimes.

The number of attempts by police officers to contact and coordinate efforts for diversion, outreach, and other alternatives.

The number of arrests for the crimes.

The number of individuals that are transported for booking at the jail, of that number, those who are actually booked into jail, those that the jail did not accept, those individuals transported to a medical facility instead of being booked into jail, and those released without being booked or being transported to a medical facility.

from the city attorney's office, the number of possession and public use cases that are referred for prosecution, the number of cases from the number that are referred that are dismissed before or during trial, and that would include pre-filing diversion, the reasons for dismissal of those cases, the results of any interviews that OIG conducts with SPD personnel who have experience in the field enforcing this legislation, and then any other information that OIG thinks would be helpful for the purposes of conducting this review.

The last piece of this addition is asking SBD officers to collect, to the extent that it's practicable for them, contact with individuals in pursuit of enforcement of these crimes, as well as the number of attempts to contact and coordinate diversion efforts.

If SBD can't collect that data, SBD and OIG will try and figure out collecting data from service providers.

I'll turn it back over to Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

I want to thank central staff and the Office of Inspector General for their hard work and collaboration in crafting this amendment for me so that it can truly be helpful for everyone.

Colleagues, this amendment requests our Office of Inspector General to lead the effort to collect and share data with the public and the City Council to assess the effectiveness of this new legislation, including how the mayor's unique provisions regarding harm and diversion impact SPD's ability to do its job.

This amendment asks for recommendations to approve this policy in the future if warranted.

And for better or worse, you know, this new legislation forges new ground and puts Seattle in a unique and untested situation different from the compromise the state government crafted four months ago.

So due to that uncertainty on whether that legislation will be effective in real life, I believe collecting and reporting this information is a sensible addition.

And as central staff noted, this would eventually sunset, so this does not go on forever.

So passing this amendment on reporting is very important for me to support this legislation overall, so thank you.

for your consideration.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson.

Looking to see if there are additional comments.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

I very strongly support this amendment from Councilmember Peterson.

I think as a general practice, We as a council should incorporate feedback loop amendments like this into more work that we do that triggers services from the Office of the Inspector General or for non-public safety related matters from the city auditor as a way to foster a climate of ongoing improvement and ongoing reflection on policies and priorities.

And this information around data collection and lining up that accountability comports with what I think we should be doing more broadly.

So I support this amendment and appreciate Council Member Peterson bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

I just want to speak to my support for the amendment as well.

I appreciate the focus on data collection and also want to reference that I did speak to the Inspector General.

And she is supportive of doing this work as well, which is important to my support so with that If there are no additional comments or questions with clerk, please call councilmember Muscata

Thank you so much and thanks to council member Peterson for the data collection amendment.

There is some work that we wanted to do together in the upcoming budget around data collection.

But this, this amendment, and I went back to look at it again after our conversation this morning.

This amendment is not just about the data.

I think that there's unnecessary, unnecessary language that tries to rehash the conversation that we had this spring in reference to the other bill that had 0 committee hearings, no opportunity for true community engagement.

And it just doesn't seem necessary to include that language in this.

What we're doing is just focusing on the data that needs to be collected.

So.

I think I'm going to be a no on this amendment.

It sounds like there's the votes there, but I do look forward to working with the sponsor of this amendment on upcoming language that we're collectively working on for additional data and other arenas as well.

Thank you very much.

There's no further comment.

I'd love to get to the vote.

Mr. Clerk.

Council Member Herbold.

Sorry, just one note on process.

I realize that this amendment is drafted to amend the bill as introduced rather than the substitute.

So when you're voting on it, if you could just have it be an amendment to the substitute, I can make all the appropriate reference corrections.

All right.

Will the clerk please call Madam Clerk?

Chair, I think that there has to be a motion to change the motion.

I don't know that there does.

I think if I call for the vote with the reference to the substitute, we're good.

I'm seeing nodding heads at the table.

Council Member Scada, there are nodding heads at the table.

Okay, thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 5, Version 1 as an amendment to the substitute?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

No.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Four yes, one no.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

And we have a couple of amendments that are walk-ons that were not on the agenda for today.

But we will definitely hear them if the sponsor is planning on bringing them forward.

All right.

So I think we'll I was uncertain whether or not you were intending to bring them forward, and if there's...

Yeah, I'll move them if you would like.

Okay.

So we will still move them and get them in front of us, because we do intend to vote on them, contrary to the uncertainty that you had expressed at the beginning.

Right.

All right.

Because I just wanted to, if you weren't intending to do so, but still wanted to talk to them, I was trying to create space to talk to the amendments without getting them in front of us.

But it's 12-15, so I don't think that any space needs to be created if I'm not going to try to vote.

So next up is Amendment 6, sponsored by Councilmember Nelson.

Can I have a motion, please?

I move adoption of Amendment 6 to the substitute.

Second.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment Number 6. Could Council Central staff please describe the amendment?

So amendment six, sorry, amendment six would make one change to the section about threat of harm to others and the assessment that the officer needs to make.

As you'll see reflected in the language, instead of officers will determine whether the individual through their actions and conduct presents a threat of harm to others, that will language is changed to may, and in moving it from mandatory to discretionary language, no longer mandates that the officer make such an assessment.

Turn it back over to Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Nelson, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yes, so thank you.

I indicated earlier that although the proposed substitute clarifies that the threat of harm assessment is not an element of the crime, the adequacy of the assessment may be raised at trial and could jeopardize the criminal prosecution or later expose the city.

That's what I was trying to get at.

I now have a script that I'm allowed to say.

I believe the present version creates an unacceptable level of risk for the city.

I'm not going to go into attorney-client privileged advice, but here are The practical concerns for officers and prosecutors that my amendments seek to relieve.

They include, one, burdens and confusion for the prosecution of criminal cases.

Two, time burdens and confusion for officers that are trying to enforce our laws.

And three, and generally bad consequences and risks for implementation.

I've talked to my colleagues and attorneys and believe these amendments reduce the challenges that I see.

And I'm referring to this one and the following one.

So basically, because the assessment of the threat of harm could lead to some unintended consequences, I am proposing, even though the new version of the substitute is better that you circulated this morning, I am proposing removing the mandatory directive to determine the threat of harm by changing it from will to may.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Lewis, I see your hand is up.

Thank You councilmember her bold I'm actually inclined I'll speak to both amendments six and seven which do similar things and in one set of remarks.

I'm actually inclined to support these amendments for two reasons.

The first reason is that, as has been well established, although it's not universally accurately reported, the city council cannot order the police to do anything.

The mayor and the chief of police direct the policy at the discretion of the department.

and not the city council.

So the language that we put into statute, whether it is will or may, is gonna have the same practical effect in terms of the feedback that we are providing to the department.

The second consideration is related to the first in that we know that this ordinance is going to kick off complementing executive actions that the mayor's office and the police department are going to be pursuing that we call out in the ordinance and that have been part of our process over the last couple of months.

So to the extent that more prescriptive language that we have been workshopping and working with constituencies on is warranted, that language would probably be better reflected in executive policy rather than in the ordinance itself.

So for those reasons, I think that this language helps to provide that flexibility given that we know in advance what the intent of the executive is going to be in these enforcement and in how they want to enforce the ordinance.

We know in advance What the strategy is going to be from Mayor Harrell and the more prescriptive language?

Could be included in those actions and that's probably a better place to put them.

So for that reason, I think that this Language better reflects what the role of the council should be in this and continues to complement the overall strategy that we're pursuing Thank You councilmember Lewis other comments

I have a few comments myself.

I feel like the language, I appreciate where this is coming from, but I think throughout this we have talked about the threat of harm standard being an exercise of discretion.

And we expect our officers to use their discretion and to make these determinations.

I'm just concerned that the message that this sends is that the use of discretion is discretionary and that is not my intention for this policy.

I appreciate that the policies, as Council Member Lewis say, may be the more appropriate place to define the discretionary decision-making that the executive is directing police officers to make, but I feel like Inserting the word may, where currently the word will is included, is suggesting that the use of discretion is discretionary.

And police officers make decisions based on their assessment of the totality of the circumstances including how the unlawful acts are affecting others and surroundings.

And I feel that inserting the word may here suggests that we don't actually want police officers to use discretion.

And I don't feel that that's the intent of the ordinance.

Looking for other comments or questions.

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

No.

Three yes, two no.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Next up is Amendment 7, also sponsored by Councilmember Nelson.

Is there a motion?

I move the adoption of Amendment 7 to the substitute.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 7. Could central staff please describe the amendment?

Amendment number seven to Council Bill 120645. Similarly, it moves language that would have required an officer to attempt to contact and coordinate efforts for diversion, outreach, or other alternatives to arrest from mandatory to discretionary, and strikes the reference to the reasonable attempt, and just leaves the language as an officer may attempt to contact and coordinate efforts.

It strikes language that was included in the substitute that would, excuse me, exempt officers from such a requirement if the appropriate or most viable care strategy is transport.

It includes language that adds an officer may arrest at their discretion to avoid additional self-harm.

And lastly, it strikes language that would have asked SPD policies or training to identify what additional articulable facts and circumstances would warrant arrest in the section in which the ordinance states that the officer would not arrest unless the individual poses a threat of harm to self absent those facts and circumstances.

Turn it back over to Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Nelson.

Again, same argument is above the...

I am changing mandatory to discretionary language with May and the other items in here are, I think confusing.

They confuse the officer's decision in the moment and they confuse what we are expecting them to do.

It just creates so many different options for actions that I think that it just makes this law very complex.

And so that is why I put this forward.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Other comments?

Seeing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

No. 3 yes 2 no Thank you very much.

The amendment is adopted and We now have the underlying bill before us We have considered amendments and now let's return to the main motion Are there further comments on council bill?

1206 45 as amended Councilmember Lewis?

That is an old hand, Chair Herbold, but you know I will make just a couple of closing remarks.

I appreciate the process this morning of going through a comprehensive array of amendments that touch lots of different aspects of this policy.

I'm really looking forward to bringing this conversation to full counsel and the subsequent conversations around the complementing executive actions that we have been discussing with our partners in the mayor's office.

I want to thank Camila Brown and my staff for staffing my office through this process I want to thank Mayor Harrell for his leadership in convening a broad array of stakeholders in law enforcement, public health, to hammer out this proposal.

And I want to thank Director Meyerberg for being the primary.

staffer in the mayor's office for working this policy through in a very engaging and collegial way with a very diverse array of people who don't always agree on things, and doing it with consummate skill.

So with that, I'll reserve the balance of my remarks for when we discuss this at full council, but appreciate the process.

chair Herbold this morning and look forward to final action.

Thank you Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

Colleagues, I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I wish the City Council had simply voted for the conforming legislation that Councilmember Nelson and I crafted with the City Attorney, Ann Davison, on June 6th, more than three months ago, to implement the public health and public safety compromise crafted by our Democratic governor and state legislature.

But our local effort to simply implement The state compromise failed by a vote of four votes in favor, five votes against.

And so here we are, even though cities across the state have adopted the state's public safety law.

I appreciate our mayor and his team stepping up to craft revised legislation.

All the people who served on the task force, who leaned into this.

so that we could earn additional support from the City Council because I believe it's not acceptable for the City of Seattle to remain an outlier on this public health and safety legislation.

We're overdue for getting these provisions into our Seattle Municipal Code.

I believe that the amendments adopted by our Public Safety Committee today make this legislation better.

I'm especially grateful for the adoption of my amendment to require additional data and reporting so that policymakers will have the information they need to assess whether the legislation is working or not.

So, I'll be voting yes today on this amended legislation and also open to additions during the debate at full council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

A few words for myself as the sponsor of this legislation.

I want to thank the mayor's office for the collaboration on the bill.

I want to thank council members on this committee for their work on the bill.

We, again, know that state law applies in the city of Seattle, and it has applied in the city of Seattle.

This law is in effect.

Well, the state law is in effect.

But this law, the law before us today, again, states that diversion is the preferred approach.

And this takes place before any arrest in many cases.

An earlier update.

states that the police department shall collect data on the racial composition of those arrested and diverted, booked and referred for prosecution.

Diversion services such as LEAD, REACH, and We Deliver Care are key elements to the success of this approach.

I do have some concerns with the late-breaking amendments to the bill, but again, since the bill states throughout that diversion is the preferred policy approach, and it refers both to diversion that happens before arrest and diversion that happens after arrest, The concern that I have about the change of the words will to may in several places and how that might impact officer discretion.

I look forward to discussing the impact of those changes with the executive and how they intend to administer the program.

Again, the fact that we have said throughout the bill in multiple places, that diversion is the preferred approach, and that in order to implement any type of diversion, officer discretion must be used.

I think, given that, that makes me feel like the changes in Amendment 6 and 7 are really functionally designed to address legal concerns that we've heard, as the sponsor said, and will not change the underlying impact of the bill, which is to create a framework for officer discretion that is necessary to implement any type of diversion program, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest.

So with that, I'm looking to see if there are any other comments.

Council Member Mosqueda.

I see your hand is up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I want to start with where I think that there's universal interest across the Council and across the community.

And where I think that there's universal interest and common ground is trying to help people who are in a moment of public health crisis and have addiction as a public health issue that they are addressing.

I think there's universal interest in making sure that people, whether they're living unhoused or housed, have access to services that they need to get sober and to get stable and to use the tools at our disposal to try to get more people into the healthcare they need.

I hear people say that.

I hear the universal concepts around that.

but that is not what we are doing today.

What we are doing today does not universally address this common ground to try to get us to get more people into the services they need.

It is doubling down on a state strategy that is already in statute.

It is already the law of Seattle and the law of the state that you cannot consume in public.

And officers already have the direction to arrest people for what the state has decided is illegal behavior.

What we could be doing instead today is investing in where it sounds like there's universal interest in supporting the public defenders association and the lead program to support more people getting into pre arrest diversion strategies to get into getting clinical.

Health services into getting into public health treatment programs.

We know we don't have the infrastructure currently to do that.

We could be spending our time working across community and across this council and with the executive to invest funds and stand up programs and to support the.

the crisis center levy that just passed to expedite the services that universally people say they want.

I want people to get access to public health services just as much as the people who testified in support of this legislation say they want.

But that is not what this legislation does.

And without the funding that is purported to come with this bill, We have no assurances that there will be the alternative structures and programs and diversion strategies to prevent people from going to jail.

We do not have to pass this legislation.

It is not a requirement that local jurisdictions codify with the state legislature already passed.

The conversation that we could be having with King County prosecutor's offices about how we could support them with additional resources and services they need instead of offering additional prosecutorial authority to our own city department.

I want us to be spending our time and investments on focusing on how we get people into public health services, not how we double down and recreate a punitive system within our own city.

to try to prosecute more people.

Without assurances that there will be funding for LEAD and organizations that support pre-arrest diversion strategies, we are putting the cart before the horse.

We do not know that these conversations that folks have had about the budget will materialize.

We cannot be voting on our hopes or rumors or What was the word that was used earlier from my colleague, the assurances that have been given without actually seeing the budget to ensure that funding will go into pre arrest diversion programs.

We do know the dangers of.

arresting people who are dealing with the public health crisis of addiction.

And the dangers include death within jails and higher rates of overdose and death when they exit jails.

We are going to see people suffer more from this public health crisis if we don't complement this type of policy with the known investments that are needed in public health diversion strategies.

We are going to see more, especially Black, Brown, and Indigenous folks arrested because we have taken away the sideboards that we worked on so hard over the last three to four weeks to try to ensure that bias and, you know, a known definition of harm to oneself or others was codified in here.

We aren't doing that.

We are taking away these sideboards, and we are also putting the cart before the horse before we know that any pre-arrest diversion strategies are actually in place and funded.

We don't have the language from the executive order.

We don't have the budget in front of us.

And now we've taken away the sideboards that were included in the substitute that the chair worked so hard on.

I was not part of these conversations that indicate that there's any foreshadowing that funding is coming.

I know because I've been involved in the conversations about how bad the budget situation will be in about 14 months.

We all should be collectively wondering and very curious about where any additional funding is coming from.

And to say that there's $27 million being associated with this piece of legislation, I again want to clarify for the record That 7Million of that funding comes from funding that is typically used in to fund community priorities.

I understand that there's under fund and 7Million dollars is going to be freed up to go to these efforts, but it is false to assume that 27Million dollars is somehow going to materialize in new programs and services being stood up and that there's.

resources at our fingertips when there is not.

Because 20 million of those dollars come annually.

And once you take out the funding that King County and the city holds back for administrative needs, it's more like $70,000 per year.

So 20 million as a lump sum is not what we're receiving.

It's actually more like $700,000 per year And that shrinks over time.

1.1 seen in some reporting is inaccurate because again, 20% of that goes to administrative management, both from King County and the city of Seattle.

And it doesn't begin to put a dent in the actual type of investments we need.

I am very proud of our county for supporting the crisis care levy.

We know that that's the type of investments that are needed.

I'm proud of this council for continuing to support programs like LEAD.

I'm proud of the collective work that we've done with the executive over the past few years to scale up investments into LEAD and CoLEAD and REACH in the past.

But right now, we're making policy decisions without knowing what the infrastructure for alternative pre-arrest diversions will look like.

That doesn't seem very wise when we already know that the outcome will be more people being arrested, more people who are Black and brown, more people who are living unsheltered.

And what the folks who are consuming outside need is access to services.

They are not at a point where they are making the cognitive decision to use outside because they are weighing the pros and the cons.

They are dealing with a public health crisis.

That is why they are consuming outside.

And threatening people with arrest does not mean that more people will make the decision to not use outside.

It means that more people will get arrested without that pre-arrest diversion program stood up.

I cannot support this program right now, or this policy right now, especially not knowing that the pre-arrest diversion programs are going to be fully funded.

I would like to see what the executive order looks like.

I would like to see what the full budget looks like.

And I would like those sideboards that we worked so hard to ensure that bias was taken out to ensure that we were looking at public health data is put back in and so that we can actually have a a known directive on how this policy will be implemented.

Again, this is not a requirement that local jurisdictions codify what the state legislature has done.

It is already the law of the land, including in Seattle.

If we want to do more to get people off the street who are consuming in public, we should be investing in those pre-arrest diversion programs.

It does not necessitate this legislation.

It does necessitate resources.

So I look forward to working with you all on ensuring that there's the actual resources to support pre-arrest diversion strategies, which does not have to complement this legislation.

And I will be voting no today with a hope to address the actual fundamental root cause of the problem that we're seeing, which is the public health crisis of addiction.

Thank you.

I want to thank you, Madam Chair, as well, and members of the central staff and Melanie Cray on my office, because I appreciate the work that you put into the substitute, and I don't want to diminish all the hard work that you put into this, including the hard work that my team members have done.

But with some of the amendments made today and without seeing that funding, I'm not able to support it.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda, I spoke already to my support for the bill, my intent to vote, yes.

The other co-sponsor, Councilmember Lewis, did.

I did not intend to make any closing remarks.

I don't know if Councilmember Lewis intends to make closing remarks.

I did After hearing your remarks, Council Member Muscata, I do feel the need to respond to one thing that you said.

I know when we were discussing Amendment 6 and 7, I was speaking out loud my thought process about the change from Will to May.

Actually, you characterized the impacts in a way that was consistent with what I was saying when we were discussing the amendment.

But after further consideration, after we voted on those amendments, I realized that the change of will to May does not undermine the direction of this legislation because the preference, the policy preference for diversion, both pre-arrest diversion, and pre-booking diversion is described in many places throughout the bill.

So that is what is going to carry the day in the development of the policies.

It is not possible for the police department to finalize policies before we vote on this legislation.

So that is one reason why I think We haven't seen those policies.

Department policies often derive from council legislation.

And so it would not be possible for policies to be written in advance of the legislation because we don't know, the executive doesn't know what kind of amendments might be made to the legislation.

So that's just...

a little background on the sequencing of events and why it is that we'll be seeing those policies later as it relates to the budget commitments.

A lot that we can do there given that the budget is going to be proposed very, very soon.

I'm hoping that the executive is talking with providers and giving them early assurances of funding commitments that will be in the budget that we'll hear on the 26th.

And I will be also looking forward to talking to both the executive and the provider community about how they intend to fulfill the commitments both in this ordinance as well as in the April executive order.

And so with that, I would love it if the clerk called the roll on Council Bill 120645 as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Four yes, one no.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended.

We'll go to, given that this was a split vote, our council rules say that it, unless there's agreement between the council president and the chair, the bill will be heard on September 26th.

We typically will skip.

a full council meeting in order to give other council members who are not on this committee the opportunity to familiarize themselves with why some people voted yes and some people voted no.

This expectation, when there's a split vote, is contained in our council rules.

But there is a permissive ability to amend those rules if the council president and chair decide to do so.

I will be discussing that.

But otherwise, our next regularly scheduled Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, September 26. This will be the final meeting of this committee before council begins its budget deliberations.

If committee members anticipate being absent for that meeting in advance of the meeting, we ask that you let us know.

And before we adjourn, unless I see other comments, seeing none, it is 12.45 p.m., and we are adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.