Public Safety and Human Services Committee Meeting 92623

Thank you.

The September 26th, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee will come to order.

It is 935 AM.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair Herbold.

Here.

Five present.

Thank you so much.

Before we review and approve today's agenda, I do want to just say a few words around the recent stranger reporting that Seattle Police Officer Burton Hill and his wife harassed a Chinese American woman using racial slurs and sexist language.

I appreciate the reporting on this issue.

I think it goes without saying that this act of anti-Asian hate from a Seattle officer is both disgusting and it undermines the Seattle Police Department's ability to provide basic public safety.

I think many of us are asking ourselves how our communities, specifically our APIDA communities, can feel safe calling the police, depending on SPD to respond to anti-Asian hate crime or home invasion robberies targeting Asian elders, which we know is going on now, when a police officer has engaged in such vile anti-Asian hate themselves.

As we know, this incident comes less than two weeks after we learned of vile comments by Daniel Auditor, the vice president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, devaluing the life of I just want to lift up the Seattle Police Commission's call and those of my council colleagues for SPD, Chief Diaz, and the executive to develop an action plan to address issues of racism in the department and meet with the police accountability organizations to discuss how to address urgent concerns over SPD culture.

It is not enough for us to call to stop Asian hate.

We must actively support and protect our AP, IDA communities, and that includes accountability for individual officers, as well as acting to root out racism in the department.

On today's agenda, we have one, two, three, four, five, six items.

The first is a resolution declaring the council and mayor's intent to recognize the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings in compliance with the city's URM retrofit technical standard.

We'll be hearing an appointment to the Community Police Commission.

We'll also be hearing a resolution affirming the city's good faith intent to enter into the collective bargaining process with the Seattle Police Management Association contract renewal and consider specific accountability proposals that have been identified by the public and the police.

oversight agencies.

We'll be hearing an ordinance related to funding for housing and community development programs and authorizing submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a plan, the five-year plan, consolidated plan, and we'll also be including in this item a separate public hearing, separate from the regular public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.

We'll be hearing connected to that action an ordinance related to CDBG funding.

And then lastly, we'll be getting a short briefing on ongoing discussions on a network company fee proposal.

This discussion is before the introduction of any legislation related to the proposed fee.

The meeting is scheduled to end at 1230 and I want to facilitate council members being able to attend the mayor's budget speech at 1230. So I appreciate that we have a lot of public comment here.

We have 20 minutes on the agenda for public comment.

We have I think 37 people signed up.

So, we'll extend the public comment period 10 minutes to accommodate 30 speakers speaking one minute at a time.

That is going to result in some people who are signed up potentially not being able to speak.

I do see a number of people showing as not present.

But again, given our schedule today, I can only extend the calendared, agended public comment period from 20 minutes, which is what's on the calendar on the agenda, for an additional 10 minutes.

And that will allow for a total of 30 of 37 signed up public speakers to speak.

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

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

We'll move into public comment now, and each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

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 website in the sign-in form.

Once I call a speaker's name, if you're using the virtual option, you will hear a prompt, and once you've heard that prompt, you need to star six To unmute yourself, we ask that you begin speaking by stating your name and the item on the agenda which you are addressing.

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

And then once the speaker hears that chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If you do not end your public comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's mic will 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 encourage you to do so.

via the Seattle Channel or the listening options on the agenda.

Again, there are 37 people signed up for public comment, 17 virtual, and 20 in-person.

I am going to start with the in-person public commenters, and we'll start with Julie Rubenstein followed by King Witkoff.

And I would request that people please hold their applause because applause takes up time.

I'm going to have to limit the number of speakers because, again, we have 30 minutes, and your applause takes up time and will reduce the number of speakers who can speak.

Thank you.

Mike and Dan's dehumanization and devaluation of Jahnavi and her life in the moment of her murder at the hands of the co-conspirator Kevin, Dave, is not a bug but a feature of the policing writ large.

Do not hide behind the imaginary mandates of your drug war to justify this brutal system, this brutal disregard.

Nothing can justify what we have all seen SPD and SPOG and this council commit.

The U.S. is not safe because police like Kevin can terrorize and imperil, murder women of color, and it takes global uproar for this council just to convict him, if it's even enough for you.

The most minimal gesture you could show is to convict Kevin Dave.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is King Whitcoff and King will be followed by Michael Tay-Taggart.

I am not here to mince words or offer forgiveness.

Kevin Dave is a murderer, as are his brothers in arms that hold his safety above that of innocent women of color, and to ascribe to a woman of color low value is to directly reflect the slave-catching roots from which police were born.

There is blood on your hands that stirs your vocal cords to cowardly falsehoods that fail to convince us.

We do not believe you.

We comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and right now, you all look too comfortable with the things you have done.

Conviction is the least you could do, so do it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael May Taggart, followed by Nova Morningstar.

That's Mick Taggart.

Is this on?

There we go.

Yes.

Convict Kevin Dane for the murder of Janavi.

It is far too common for the police to get away with that, obviously, and it is unacceptable.

Cops get to have this much say over our lives and deaths because the city council designs the city with that mindset, too.

I recognize this is the public safety, so you might not have control over the streets, but as far as the police go, why are the cars so big?

Why do they have bull bars that are designed to deplete the crumple zone of the car.

Why do these cars not have speed governors?

There's no reason for a car to go 70 miles an hour in the city.

There's no reason to design the city so that police chase people down when...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nova Morningstar, and Nova will be followed by Valerie Schloret.

And just as a clarification for those of you who are asking for charges against the police officer, that is a decision that the King County prosecutor is making independent of any action that the city is taking to separately investigate the charges.

Thank you.

My name is Nova.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to to prevent accountability and justice.

While SPOG argues it's worth, remember the price tag they gave Genavi.

Remember, Solon and the contract, the end of the contract, the FBI backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all of the victims of police violence you have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Solon and Daniel Auderer for their inhumane and unacceptable comments and for Kevin Dave to be fired and convicted for the death of Janavi Kundula.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Valerie Charrette, and Valerie will be followed by Robert Gagel, I believe.

Seattle's police accountability system is not working.

And the latest two police outrages are an example of things that if we had a working accountability system might have been prevented because all these years under the consent decree, we might have actually been Getting rid of the really bad officers and changing police culture, the oft-quoted goal of changing police culture, we're not doing that.

That is not happening.

You know, if the community were truly part of this reform process, we might have a much better system.

But we're systematically shut out and shut up.

A good example of that is what has been happening to the affected persons program, a pilot project Address the survivors and victims of police violence.

It's been absolutely suffocated by the system by the accountability system and City Council we've spoken to all of you about this in person and to your aides and in writing and in this chamber multiple Thank you, our next speaker is I believe it's Robert gaggle followed by Dawson McGrath

Hi, yeah, so we're not asking you to be the ones to fire them.

We don't care how it works, but you have power, and we're asking you to leverage that power to apply pressure.

You are not in isolation from those people, from these killer cops.

You are not in isolation.

You have power.

We're asking you to do everything you can to convict Kevin Dave.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to prevent accountability and justice.

While SPOG argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave John V. Remember Solon ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember, all of the victims of police violence you have shut down and left behind.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dawson McGrath.

And Dawson will be followed by Prithiva Shanagam.

Hello, Dawson McGrath here to speak on police misconduct.

Having belittling smog leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to prevent accountability and justice.

While smog argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave Janabi.

Remember Solon ended the contract for FBI backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all the victims that you have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Solon and Daniel Auderer for their inhumane and unacceptable comments, and for Kevin Dave to be fired and convicted for the death of Janabi Kandula.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Prithiva Shanigam.

My apologies if I'm mispronouncing your name, followed by Suresh Shanigam.

I move to Seattle about a year ago.

I live near the central district and generally use public transportation or walk to my destinations.

Even when I drive, walking is unavoidable due to the parking situation.

All of us are in great danger pedestrian deaths casually.

I strongly recommend that the police officer who drove at high speed without sirens and killed a pedestrian, as well as those who joked about it, face serious consequences.

Otherwise, none of us will be safe on Seattle streets.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suresh Shanmugam, followed by Vic Amol.

Thanks, Mom.

Hi, my name is Suresh Chanmugam, and I'm here to comment on police misconduct.

I moved to Seattle 25 years ago to work in the tech industry.

So many of us here in Seattle, and sadly throughout the world, were shocked to hear the leaders of Seattle's police union laughing about and belittling Johnna B.' 's precious life and her tragic death.

But I noticed that some of you on the Council were not surprised.

Strangely, those of you who've campaigned heavily on a platform of hiring more police officers to improve public safety have never tried to earn the police union's endorsement.

Why is that?

For decades throughout America, politicians, including former Mayor Ed Murray, won the endorsement of their city's police union when running for local office.

You already knew that the culture of the Seattle Police Force is racist and violent and heartless.

That's why you never sought their endorsement.

You have a simple choice.

If you want to continue basing your policies on hiring more police officers, hold a police press conference and stand next to Mike Solon and Dan Auder and accept an endorsement from them.

Otherwise, join us in calling for them to resign, just as many of you called for Mayor Ed Murray to resign.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Vic Amole.

And then after Vic, we're going to move to virtual public speakers, starting with Howard Gale.

My name is Vic Amole.

I'm with the Seattle Alliance.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to to prevent accountability and justice.

While Spog argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave Johnvie.

Remember Salon ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all of the victims of police violence who have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Solon and Daniel Autor for their inhumane and unacceptable comments and for Gavin Dave to be fired and convicted for the death of John B. Candula.

If you're serious about stopping hate and protecting victims, like you said at the beginning of the meeting, you'll listen to the demands of impacted people and communities.

Thank you.

Howard Gale will be followed by Castille Hightower.

Good morning, Howard Gale with seattlestop.org.

As a society, we recognize that crimes of hate and abuse, while shaped and perpetuated by culture, still require clear societal sanctions, including the loss of a job and criminal sanctions.

We understand that this is a requirement for any cultural change.

Culture can only change when the rewards that have created that culture stop being rewards and become punishments.

Culture cannot be fired or jailed.

Individuals can.

Yet when it comes to policing, you reverse this equation.

In recent months, with revelations of Seattle officers showing a disregard for human life, racial animus, and misogyny, council members are calling for cultural change rather than an accountability system that actually works.

Today, you will appoint yet one more attorney, prosecuting attorney, to the CPC while never having appointed a victim of Seattle police violence.

Today, you will discuss priorities for negotiating a new police union contract without any discussion the absurd practice of police investigating police, a standard which the state firmly rejected in 2021. The cultural change we need is with you and your beliefs and actions.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Castille Hightower and Castille will be followed by Lauren Fay.

My name is Castille Hightower.

My brother Herbert Hightower Jr. was murdered by SPD officer Steve Herjack.

Like Janavi Candula, who was murdered by SPD officer Kevin Dave, he was given a slap on the wrist and lip service was paid to the life-changing loss by elected officials.

Roy adds another layer of heartlessness with a mockery of her precious life and the lives of all victims of police violence that was made by what should now be former SPD squad leaders Mike Stallone and Daniel Udinger.

However, here we are again with more false promises and gaslighting to cover up for murder, brutality, and the senseless mockery of it.

And thus the continuation of the disregard for life continues.

Police, if you all cared about victims of police violence and community trust like you say you do, you would stop obstructing already passed legislation for a program dedicated specifically to victims of Seattle police violence, the Affected Persons Program.

If you care, you will call for the firing of Gennady's killer and for actual accountability.

If you care, you will call for the firing of Michael Stallone, and Daniel Auditor, and Burton Hill.

But we all know the truth.

No matter how you try to hide it, you don't care.

Justice for Gennady, justice for Herbert, and all victims of police violence.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Shameful.

Our next speaker is Lauren Fay, and Lauren will be followed by Tony Benaya.

Good morning Committee Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Lauren Tse and I'm here today to speak on a different topic representing CESC and strong support of the agenda items regarding plans to authorize use of $7 million for funding housing and community development, specifically for facilities that intend to meet the needs of those living with severe substance use disorders.

Our community needs more low-barrier places for people who are seeking treatment for their substance use disorder.

The ESC has long provided low-barrier treatment options for individuals to use opioids and other substances, and it is our hope to significantly expand these efforts by creating an overdose prevention and recovery center that can serve as a landing place for people who have just experienced an overdose and need a place to recover and receive care.

The ESC staff members of all kinds are responding to functional overdoses in the community at unprecedented rates.

While use of Narcan to reduce reversion overdose can save a life in the moment, it also immediately sends the person's body into painful withdrawals, driving the need to use again.

DSC is working with U-Dub's Addictions Drug and Alcohol Institute to design and create a new center that Seattle Fire will be able to bring people to receive medical and social service support to successfully recover.

Please pass Council Bill 12066.

Thank you.

And just before we move into the next group of public commenters, starting with Tony Anaya, followed by Catherine Holm.

I just want to, because I see how you, the topic that you signed up, the agenda item is referred to as delivery tax.

I just want to let folks know that that's an error on the agenda.

The topic is a delivery fee, and the presentation that is found on the agenda reflects a fee, not a tax.

With that, move to Tony Anaya, followed by Catherine Holm.

Thank you.

Sure.

And members of the committee, my name is Tony Anaya, and I am head of government relations for DoorDash.

I am here today to testify in opposition to the proposed tax or fee on the delivery of food and other essential goods.

The proposal, coupled with the cost of other pending regulations, will make delivery services less and less affordable for Seattle families.

Seattle residents are already facing significant cost increases for these services as a result of the council's recently adopted delivery worker regulation.

In fact, without operational changes, we estimate that the average delivery cost for Seattle families will be more than four times higher than the average delivery cost in neighboring jurisdictions if the full cost of pending Seattle regulations are passed on to consumers.

Increased cost for consumers, whether because of new regulations or the proposed tax, Also means fewer orders and lost revenues for Seattle restaurants and small businesses.

We urge the council to reconsider this unnecessary effort and reject any new taxes fee that makes delivery services less and less accessible for Seattle families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Holm and Catherine will be followed by Kelly Fukai.

Good morning Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Catherine Holm and I am the Western Region Deputy Government Affairs Manager.

for INSCART.

We are here today to oppose council's consideration of a delivery tax.

The tax being considered is not a tax on app-based platforms.

It is an illegal tax or fee on food in violation of the Keeping Groceries Affordable Act.

The voters approved the act in 2018 precisely because they oppose taxes and fees exactly like the one being considered here today, which will drive up the cost of healthy, essential food.

Even with mixed baskets, food is still being taxed, which defeats the purpose of the exemption of groceries.

This illegal tax is only being introduced as an excuse to fund, to find funding.

Unnecessary law, the city council passed last month.

Even then it is triple the amount requested for enforcement.

We ask that the committee not move forward with this pact on food.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kelly Fukai, followed by John Engber.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Kelly Fukai.

I'm the Vice President of Government and Community Affairs for the Washington Technology Industry Association, respectfully offering comments opposed to the proposed delivery fee.

WTIA is a nonprofit with over 1,000 member companies in Washington State with a mission to build a robust and equity-centered technology sector that empowers thriving communities.

The tech sector accounts for over a quarter of all jobs in Washington state and 30% of the local economy here in the city of Seattle.

One of our pillars is to enable innovation and growth throughout the technology sector.

Since 2020, there have been six temporary and permanent ordinance enacted by this council addressing app-based innovation.

We're concerned that the current regulatory environment for this segment of the technology sector will chill innovation and drive current and future innovators to consider other locations to develop and grow their businesses.

While we await further details on this proposal, we have initial concerns regarding data privacy.

There are many considerations regarding if and how network companies will be able to or should know whether an individual's order to exempt groceries from the.

Thank you.

Our next speaker and if you have additional comments please send them send them in.

Lisa.Herbold at Seattle.gov.

Next speaker is John Engber followed by Darlene Ruiz.

Thank you chair her bold and distinguished members of the committee.

I'm John anger and I'm testifying against the proposed delivery fee on behalf of the Washington retail Association.

It is members in Seattle.

Wra opposed to the out of concern for the impact will have on seniors people with mobility challenges and low income families.

These families are often heavily dependent on food deliveries and even a 10 cent delivery fee will add up and negatively impact those families.

Washington Retail Association is also very concerned about the grocery exemption.

How many of us fill our grocery carts with only qualified food items?

WRA is very concerned that this limited exemption will result in a fee being added to virtually every grocery delivery.

For these reasons, the WRA respectfully asks the council to reject this proposed delivery fee.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Darlene Ruiz, followed by Marcos Juanles.

Hi.

My name is Darlene Ruiz.

I'm president of the Justice for Trevor Foundation.

I'm calling on behalf of Justice for Janavi Candula for the firing of Kevin Day for killing Janavi.

in a crosswalk going 75 in a 25 with no lights or sirens.

The firing of Daniel Otter and Michael, Mike Salone, the president and vice president of the union.

Those are the police union.

They set an example for the police officers and they're allowed to mock and make fun of Johnna B that her life was a limited life and was only worth $11,000.

You, City Council, it's your job to stand up for the people and your community.

You have the power.

It is up to you to stand behind and be our voice.

Stand up for Johnson & Goodman.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marcos Wainless, followed by Michael Wolff.

Thank you, Council Member.

My name is Marcos Wainless.

I am the founder and the president of the Seattle Latino Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

I am here today to strongly oppose the new delivery, either fee or tax, being considered by the council.

With this new tax, city leaders once again are asking those who visit and live in Seattle to pay more.

I can tell you firsthand that adding a delivery tax is the wrong way to solve the city's budget challenges, especially given the growth in Hispanic-owned businesses.

Many of whom rely on deliveries to grow and sustain their customer base.

So when I hear about the new city tax aimed at delivery services, it concerns me greatly because I know this will have an adverse impact on our chambers, members, businesses, their employees, and their families they support.

Right now, it feels like the city needs to reevaluate its priorities rather than looking for new tax revenues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Wolfe, and then we'll be switching back over to in-person, followed by, Michael Wolfe will be followed by Jeffrey Freitag.

Good afternoon, Council.

This is Michael Wolfe, Executive Director of Drive Support.

I'm calling about the fee on deliveries being proposed here.

I want to urge the Council to have caution when approaching this topic.

Your budget is $7.4 billion last year, with $1.6 billion in the general fund.

The tax would raise less than one-tenth of 1% of that budget.

I challenge you not to increase costs in the City of Seattle, increasing displacement and having more affordability issues, and to find programs that are not being successful within your budget to fund this enforcement.

We've participated very much in these stakeholder meetings and appreciated the collaboration council and other stakeholders have had around these issues and wish to continue these discussions as they come up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Again, switching to in-person public comment, we've got Jeffrey Freetag followed by Kale Freerich.

Jeffrey Freitag, Seattle Alliance.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to to prevent accountability and justice.

While SPOG argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave John V. Remember Solon ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all of the victims of police violence you have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Solon and Daniel Ottawa for their inhumane and unacceptable comments and for Kevin Dave to be fired and convicted for the death of John B. Condola.

Community control of the police now.

Our next speaker is Kale Freerich followed by Lindsay Burgess.

My name is Kale Freerich here on behalf of the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

While SPOG argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave Jean V, less than a year's salary for police officers here in Seattle.

Remember Solon ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all the victims of police violence you've shut down and left behind.

We see how the city treats victims of police violence.

We see how the city treats everyday workers here in Seattle and we will not stand for it.

Police accountability now.

Community control of the police now in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lindsay Burgess will be followed by Ray Mitchell.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Burgess.

I am a hairstylist.

It takes 1,600 hours to become a hairstylist in Washington State, and it takes at least 720 hours to become a police officer.

Why is it that there is more hours that I need to take to do hair than for a police officer to do what they're supposed to be doing?

One other example, one example of a difficult time that I had was I was walking through a crosswalk, middle of the day, police officer was stopped at a stoplight, I had the crosswalk, he starts driving, no lights, no sirens, nothing, looks at me like I was doing something wrong.

But did I feel like I had the power to say or do anything about that?

No.

I thought, oh, well, he didn't hit me.

There's no problem, whatever.

But that shouldn't be okay.

You shouldn't be allowed to just drive wherever you want, however you want, just because you're a police officer and get away with everything and qualified immunity.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ray Mitchell, and Ray will be followed by Cleo Jansen.

Hello, Ray Mitchell with the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that you, our elected officials, simply haven't shown any interest in anything more than flowery words.

You say it's not within your direct control, but you're entirely capable of exerting pressure to ensure accountability.

The police are ostensibly supposed to keep us safe, and they're not, and our elected officials are supposed to do something about it if they become a danger to the public, and you haven't.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild represents a danger to public safety, and the officers we've been protesting represent a more direct threat to public safety.

And it is far past time for something to be done about it.

They'll use nice words, and they'll act like they care, but actions speak louder than words, and Spog doesn't care.

We demand the resignations of Kevin Dave, Daniel Otterer, Mike Solon, and Burton Hill.

We demand the conviction of Kevin Dave for the death of John V. Candula.

These are bad men, and your continued inaction protects them.

Your complicity with an unjust law enforcement system has caused an international incident.

And it's not going away until you do your jobs and protect the people of this city from their own law enforcement.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Cleo Jansen and Cleo will be followed by Jonathan Toledo.

And then I think we're gonna close out.

We'll see.

We might be able to squeeze another couple people in.

Going back to virtual, we'll have Kim Pesquito follow.

My name is Cleo Jensen, and I'm with the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of our public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the length they will go to to prevent accountability and justice.

While SPOG argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave John V. Remember, Salone ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all of the victims of police violence that you have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Salone and Daniel Arderer for their inhumane and unacceptable comments and for Kevin Dave to be fired and convicted for the death of John V. Candula.

Thank you.

Jonathan Toledo will be followed by Kim Pasquido.

Hello, my name is Jonathan and I am part of SARPR.

Having belittling SPOG leadership that works to protect themselves from public and federal accountability is a violation of public safety.

The leadership of the Seattle Police Officers Guild has shown the world the lengths they will go to to prevent accountability and justice.

While Spog argues for their worth, remember the price tag they gave Genavi.

Remember, Solon ended the contract for FBI-backed body camera analysis because they fear accountability.

Remember all of the victims of police violence you have shut down and left behind.

We demand the immediate resignation of bigots Mike Solon and Daniel Auditor for their inhumane and unacceptable comments and for Kevin Dave to be fired and convicted of the death of Janavi Kandula.

Thank you.

And moving back to virtual public commenters, we're going to close out public comment today with Kim Pesquito.

Yes, good morning.

My name is Kim Pesciuto, and I'm here representing proactive, persistent people for progress to speak to resolution 32112. Parameters setting both guides and limits the subjects for discussion in the upcoming police contract negotiations.

Items that are not part of the resolution are off limits, which prevented the 2019 SPA contract from including the landmark 2017 accountability ordinance.

Clearly, there are significant local and national conversations about where discipline and accountability belong in terms of police contracts.

While Judge Robart in the recent hearing on the consent decree acknowledged the limited role of the court in this regard, he did share his observations that after 12 years of working with the city and DOJ, he does not believe that accountability and discipline should be the subject of bargaining.

SPD is suffering a crisis in perceived legitimacy in our community and accountability is at the heart of it.

Any recommended improvements might result will be stymied until the next negotiation cycle.

We specifically ask the parameters included discussion of the proper place for police accountability and discipline measures to reside.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, so that closes public comment.

Thank you everybody for being here with us.

I'm sorry we didn't get to everybody.

We did still have some folks both online and here with us.

As mentioned, we need to have this meeting wrapped up by noon.

We're already over time.

The mayor's budget speech is at 1230 and many of us are planning to attend.

So with that, we again close public comment and move into the first item on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read the agenda item?

Agenda item one is resolution 32111, a resolution declaring the city council and the mayor's intent to recognize the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings in compliance with the city's URM retrofit technical standard.

Thank you Mr. Clerk.

Let's see so we'll start with some introductions before we kick that off get the introductions off I just have a few remarks setting some background here.

Back in 2017 Seattle's unreinforced masonry policy committee released final recommendations noting over 1,100 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city posing a public safety risk.

In the four years following that report, I worked with a previous administration, this administration, the state legislature, Office of Emergency Management, and Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to build toward our 2021 resolution.

That resolution represented a joint commitment by council and the mayor to work on developing a phased mandatory seismic retrofit program.

This year, Seattle Department and Construction Inspections released new technical standards that they will discuss in a presentation on the resolution before us today, 32111. This resolution continues the work of the 2021 resolution by identifying both the draft URM retrofit technical standard and as acceptable standards for future legislation in order to promote voluntary seismic retrofits all before the mandatory program goes into effect or is legislated to go into effect.

We're joined by representatives of SDCI and ASAP.

The discussion of the resolution as well as Council Central Staff Yolanda Ho is available to answer questions if needed.

Go right ahead.

If you can maybe start with a line of introductions and then kick into the presentation.

Good morning, council members.

Nathan Torgelson, Director of SDCI.

Good morning.

Amanda Hertzfeld, URM Program Manager, SDCI.

Good morning.

My name is Kai-Ki Ma.

I'm the Principal Engineer with SDCI.

Good morning.

I'm Peter Nitze, Co-Founder of ASAP and a Principal at Nitze's Dagen.

Lisa Nitze, co-founder of ASAP and with Nitze Stegen.

All right.

Who's going to kick us off?

So I will kick it off.

I want to thank the Public Safety and Human Services Committee for your support on this issue.

And I especially want to thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your enthusiasm on this issue from the very, very beginning.

So thank you.

Obviously, we had a bit of a pause on progress on unreinforced masonry buildings with a global pandemic.

But with recent extensive outreach to our engineering and design and property owner community, with the hiring of our URM project manager, Amanda Herzfeld.

And also with a forthcoming hiring of a URM engineer to focus on plan review, we feel like we've taken great strides in making progress on this issue.

We're here today to talk about the resolution that's before your committee and will provide guidance for those property owners who are ready now to make the necessary improvements to their unreinforced masonry buildings.

If we look at STCI's purpose statement, helping people build a safe, livable, and inclusive Seattle, I think unreinforced masonry buildings is written all over that.

And also wanted to point out that we know that many of our URM buildings are in neighborhoods with unrepresented populations, and addressing that issue is a strong part of our unreinforced masonry program going forward.

So I'm going to turn it over to Amanda, who's going to talk in detail about proposed resolution 32111.

Thanks, Nathan.

So again, we are here today to discuss proposed resolution 32111, and there are three primary goals of this.

One is we want to celebrate the milestone that is accomplishing this draft URM retrofit technical standard, and we want to thank Councilmember Herbold for really leading this initiative.

We'd also like to thank ASAP, who's here with us today, as well as SEAW.

That's the Structural Engineering Association of Washington that helped to contribute to the development of this standard.

The proposed resolution has two additional goals.

One is to provide transparency and predictability to building owners of URMs.

Our intent is to use this draft technical retrofit standard to inform future legislation.

Finally, we would like to use this resolution to formally add to SDCI's work plan.

I'd like to highlight this is a budget neutral addition to our work plan that will add a voluntary URM retrofit ordinance.

This will also include the recognition of a process to recognize buildings as retrofitted, and we'll explain in a little bit more detail on slide nine.

I wanted to go over just a few things that we want to cover in our presentation today.

So one is I want to give a little bit of background on where this resolution comes from and how it is connected to Resolution 32033 that was adopted in December of 2021. I'd like to spend a little bit more time on the proposed legislation we're here for today.

And then I want to provide a brief update on SDCI's continued progress in implementing Resolution 32033. So existing resolution that was adopted December 2021, that is, again, that was brought forth by Council Member Herbold and supported by central staff.

It was a joint resolution.

And that resolution really comprehensively addresses the complexity of the URM retrofit issue.

Within that resolution, it asks SDCI to define what an unreinforced masonry building is, to identify a retrofit standard, as well as to establish a timeline for compliance and enforcement of a URM retrofit standard.

Finally, it asks for the identification of financial opportunities and incentives to support building owners in retrofitting and reinforced masonry buildings.

Today we're going to focus on the bolded text that is bringing URM retrofits into compliance.

That's the intent of our published draft URM retrofit technical standard, and completing that update is a significant milestone in Seattle's efforts to increase earthquake resilience.

In fact, there's actually interest by the Washington State Seismic Commission to use the standard to help guide the development of URM programs in other cities throughout the state.

So to implement the request of Resolution 32033, we've taken two primary approaches.

The first is a technical track, which is focused on the update of the URM retrofit technical standard.

And we'll talk in just a moment about Director's Rule 6-2023 and our proposed resolution.

And I know this gets a little confusing.

Slide 9, I've got a graphic that I will help walk you through how these pieces of legislation connect.

And then the second component is our multiple stakeholder-driven working groups and the recent enlisted support that we've obtained from Congresswoman Jayapal.

So I want to dig into the focus of our briefing today on the technical standard.

Kai Qi, our principal engineer, is going to discuss the URM Draft Retrofit Technical Standard and the Alternate Method.

Good morning.

I'll briefly recap the progress that we have made over the past year and a half on the technical track.

The most significant task of the technical front today is to update the draft technical standard that was originally published back in 2012 by the URM Technical Committee.

The original retrofit standard built off of the work that was working in California at that time when it was first drafted.

As a recap, we officially began this effort back in mid-2022 as a response to Resolution 32033. and re-engage the structural engineering community.

We then officially formulated a URM technical standard task group and kick off our effort in July of that same year.

As a reminder, the update is necessary to better align with the latest building code and design standards.

that incorporates research and science as it relates to our ground motion hazards and structural retrofit methodology.

The task group met regularly over the past year and made gradual progress throughout the process.

Most importantly, we kept our external stakeholder informed throughout the entire process.

They include structural and geotechnical engineer, architects, and members of design community, and also members of the working groups that Amanda has put together.

There were multiple opportunities for feedbacks and public comments, and the task group has evaluated these comments and incorporated them into the final draft documents.

So we're thankful that we have met our original goal of publishing this in mid-2023, and we have successfully done that on June 30th of this year.

So what did we achieve with this update?

As mentioned, one of the most important reason for this update is to align with current understanding of our regional seismic hazard and building codes.

We believe we have done that.

Furthermore, we have developed a clearer scope of retrofit and testing with a more standalone document in contrast with the previous version.

We have also established criteria for recognizing previous seismic retrofits.

That is important to building owners, as we understand.

Lastly, we have reestablished an alternate method for eligible URM buildings.

And we have taken an extra step in adopting this alternate method through director's rule, pulling it out from the technical standards.

The reason why we're doing this is we want to create further predictability for building owners to encourage them to proceed with these retrofit voluntarily.

ahead of the ordinance.

Using the next slide, I just want to briefly remind the council what the alternate method is all about.

It is intended to prevent collapse and loss of life while minimizing design and retrofit cost.

These retrofit includes bracing the parapets, strengthening connection between the walls and floors, making sure they're anchored properly together, installing strong backs and other elements to prevent the walls from falling outwards.

There are criterias that these buildings need to meet in order to qualify for this alternate method.

Without going into details, they include building heights, existing structural elements and system layout, motor strength, and other low path considerations.

Now before I turn it back to Amanda, I want to take this opportunity to briefly and publicly extend our appreciation to the structural engineering community particularly those who voluntarily participated in the technical standard task group.

Their effort and dedication was extremely important to achieve this milestone, so we want to thank them.

And we want to continue to thank Council Member Herbold for your support.

Thank you.

Thanks, Keiki.

So we've mentioned a number of wordy title documents, and I want to draw your attention to the graphic on the screen to help explain how these are connected.

So we've been discussing the draft URM retrofit technical standard, and what this document does is, again, it's draft.

It's published on our website.

It establishes the alternate method for retrofit as well as the code-based retrofit method.

This technical standard has to be adopted via ordinance.

So as an interim step, we adopted Director's Rule 6-2023 that allows the voluntary use of that alternate method.

We're proposing today this resolution 32111 on the URM voluntary retrofit.

And what this will do is provide, again, that predictability for building owners that our intent moving forward is to use this technical standard to inform a voluntary ordinance.

Our goal is still long-term as a mandatory retrofit ordinance.

However, by adopting a voluntary retrofit ordinance, we can do this sooner, we can establish the standard, and we can provide building owners that assurance that they won't be held to anything additional.

This voluntary ordinance we hope to adopt in early spring next year, so that will really, really help building owners.

So I wanted to talk just briefly.

All of this is contributing to the implementation of Resolution 32033, again, from December 2021. And we are continuing to use our policy development working groups to identify supportive resources and financial mechanisms to support building owners in the reducing the cost associated with these retrofits, as well as with displacement associated with construction.

There's two primary tracks we're working right now when it comes to funding.

The first is a transfer of development rights program.

We are working to do three, a series of three public meetings, probably winter, late fall, early winter, to really get a better handle on what developers are willing to pay for these and make sure building owners are actually interested in this process.

So we're proceeding with that.

And then we also were very fortunate to have Congresswoman Jayapal visit us back in July to discuss a FEMA grant application.

Originally, we met with her to discuss a $20 million grant.

However, FEMA is currently running out of money and is delaying their grant application process.

changed our strategy and we are currently developing a $500,000 grant application to lay the foundation of a retrofit program based off of Berkeley's.

So I just want to highlight that it is incredibly challenging to get FEMA funding and we actually have a meeting tomorrow with FEMA to discuss the challenges associated with this and steps moving forward.

So, when it comes to next steps, we are, again, continuing to implement Resolution 32033, and that includes hiring of a new structural plans engineer that will help us develop the processes associated with this voluntary retrofit ordinance, hopefully to be adopted through 32111. Lastly, we're going to continue working with our policy development groups to get financial resources in place.

And we'll continue working with the mayor's office and other city departments to ensure alignment of programs and improved accessibility for building owners.

And the last thing I just wanted to get on your agenda, in April of 2024, next April, there will be an Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI, annual meeting.

It's essentially a big conference that will be held here in Seattle, and we're hoping to draw some attention on the progress that we're making here in Seattle and really highlight what we're doing in terms of leadership for URMs in this country.

So with that, any questions?

Just for clarification's sake, for the viewing public and my colleagues, this resolution basically creates an interim step towards, well, it creates, it states an intent to develop an interim step, which is towards the mandatory retrofit requirement.

And the resolution is intended to primarily state, for transparency's sake, that there is a technical standard and that SDCI is planning to bring forward next year an ordinance that would establish the voluntary program using the technical standard that has been adopted by director's rule.

At this point, at a later point, it will be adopted by ordinance.

more or less cover it.

Okay, great.

Happy to take questions from my colleagues.

I know we have folks from ASAP here, and there are no questions right now.

Maybe we could hear from Peter and Lisa?

Yeah, a few brief comments.

First and foremost, I think We want to thank the chair and the committee for its consideration.

I think as I mentioned in the introduction, Lisa and I represent the Alliance for Safety, Affordability, and Preservation, which is a coalition of stakeholders that have worked over the past five years to help catalyze action on behalf of the city government to make seismic upgrades on your own buildings mandatory.

I think it's hard to overemphasize the importance of this from a public safety and preservation standpoint.

We're really in a race against time before the next major earthquake hits Seattle.

I think we need to keep that foremost in mind.

And these buildings pose a significant threat to those living and working in them if they're not retrofitted.

And many of the people who live and work in these buildings are underserved communities or are from underserved communities.

So toward that end, we're here to urge passage of the resolution 32111. which is an important milestone, as has been noted by Amanda and others, in ensuring the future safety and sustainability of the many buildings here in Seattle.

And with that, I'll turn to Lisa.

But really, we want to thank CM Herbold, because you recognize the importance of addressing this issue, even though finding solutions to it are complicated.

You recognize the importance of the retrofit credit to getting this initiative funded.

and pushed hard to get this initiative launched and supported.

Seattle's in your debt, and we are all extremely appreciative.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for saying so, you guys.

Really, really appreciate the opportunity to work on this issue.

I tried really hard to see if there was a way to get the voluntary ordinance before us, before my departure next year, but with SEPA review and other elements, it just wasn't possible, but just please know that I wanted to, and in whatever role I am in, in 2024, I will be advocating alongside.

Councilmember Herbold, I do actually have one question.

Thank you so much, Chair Herbold, and thank you to the panel.

This is an issue that I care a great deal about as someone who represents quite a few unreinforced masonry buildings in District 7. First, I just want to say it was great, gosh, was it last month or two months ago, to I really have a big in-depth meeting with Congresswoman Jayapal on this issue, and for the first time I realized the climate impacts of dealing with this issue of unreinforced masonry that had not been an element that I had fully appreciated, but that the amount of environmental degradation and carbon released in the event of major earthquakes, as we have tragically seen these really horrible earthquakes in Turkey and Morocco over the last couple weeks that have a colossal loss of human life and also have just horrible impacts to the broader environment as well, has just further reinforced my commitment to this issue.

One question that I have, the Berkeley program was mentioned around having grants that are available to help with the process, this process of voluntary retrofitting.

I'm finding some information clicking through online, making reference to up to $13,000 of support.

I don't get a sense of how Berkeley or the state of California funds that program.

I just wonder if you have any insight into that.

Is it a line item from from the state that they just pay through their general fund or is there some other sort of source of that grant support?

Yeah, thanks for that question.

Berkeley pays for their program through a FEMA grant.

So they applied for FEMA funding and what they do is building owners submit their receipts essentially for retrofitting to the city.

The city submits that paperwork up to FEMA for grant reimbursement.

And it's only partial reimbursement for design costs and then for construction costs.

We're looking to recreate that program here.

And so the grant that we're working on developing right now for $500,000 is the benefit cost analysis that supports that.

So we're essentially picking three to four representative URM buildings that we can show are cost effective, so then any building that fits into that criteria could then submit for reimbursement.

So we're taking steps to implement that and we're hoping we can provide a little bit more funding than Berkeley was able to.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Yeah, the language on the website is a little confusing.

It says the program will reimburse eligible owners up to 75% of the total cost of the seismic retrofit, but then it says capped at $13,000.

I'm reading those two things together that those don't seem to be congruent statements.

So that clarification is helpful.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

All right.

Again, real privileged to work on this issue.

Really pleased with the work that has been done by SDCI working with community.

And I know in Amanda's able hands, this work will go far and come to fruition.

I move the committee recommends passage of Resolution 32111. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of resolution 32111. Any further comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Five yes.

Thank you.

Measure passes, and the item will go to full council next week.

Moving on to item number two.

Will the clerk please read in item number two.

Item two, appointment 02656, appointment of Phillip J. Sanchez as member, Community Police Commission for a term to December 31, 2025. Thank you so much.

As presenters,

are taking the table, taking their seat at the table, and just some background.

This is an appointment to the Community Police Commission made by the Community Police Commission.

As you know, there are different appointing authorities, the mayor, the council, and the CPC.

Each of the three appointing authorities have five appointments each.

Some of the CPC appointed positions are prescribed under the accountability ordinance to be for public defense, civil rights, and SPOG.

This is one of the appointments that are not so prescribed.

We're joined by CPC co-chair Merkel.

Would you like to introduce the appointment?

Good morning, Chair Herbold.

Thank you for having me here today.

Again, you know, I'm here to introduce Phil Sanchez to the Seattle Community Police Commission as a CPC appointee.

I'm an assistant attorney general and as a co-chair of the Seattle Police Commission.

I'm here to give some background on the current work of the CPC and also introduce Mr. Sanchez.

As each of you know, the CPC is one of the three accountability partners in the Seattle Police Accountability System, along with OPA and OIG.

And this has been a very critical time for the CPC, not only this month, but this year.

Currently, the city and SPD are working to complete the requirements of the consent decree, which helped create the CPC 12 years ago.

And importantly, The federal judge overseeing the consent decree recently held that the SPD has mostly satisfied the requirements of the consent decree, but he also found that there is more work to do in two critical areas, use of force and crowd control, and most importantly to the CPC right now is accountability.

The city is also in the midst of negotiating the next FOG contract, which the CPC has fought for years to ensure includes more accountability provisions.

The federal judge overseeing the consent decree has also said that he believes stronger accountability provision should be in that contract.

As the council is considering next resolution related to the SPMA contract, that indicates the city is also preparing to negotiate that contract as well.

And thank you for considering the CPC's input on that matter.

And of course, the CPC is prioritizing the necessary work of engaging with SPD along with the community on SPD culture in light of the revelations of recent disturbing, multiple disturbing videos from this summer and this month within SPD.

So there's a lot going on and that's one reason I am pleased to be introducing Phil Sanchez as a nominee to become a CPC Commissioner, as a CPC appointee.

Phil Sanchez is a senior deputy prosecuting attorney at King County.

He has served in the prosecutor's office for more than 15 years, handling a wide range of criminal cases, focusing on special assault, domestic violence, and economic crimes, often with vulnerable members of our community who are victimized.

And throughout his career, he's had the honor and privilege of serving victims and their families across a large spectrum of diverse communities in King County.

He's developed trusted relationships with members of the community and law enforcement.

And that's allowed him to better understand the challenges of policing, the cultural and community hurdles, as well as the value of collaboration.

And it's through this lens that I know Mr. Sanchez hopes to continue to serve the public through restoring transparency, public confidence, and accountability as a commissioner of the CPC.

And I'm pleased to be next to Mr. Sanchez and introduce him today.

Thank you.

Mr. Sanchez.

Hi, good morning.

Please do introduce yourself.

Let us know your interest in serving in this capacity on the community police commission.

Yes.

Good morning.

Thank you, Joel, for that introduction.

Again, my name is Philip Sanchez.

And as Joel has shared with you, I've been a King County prosecutor, senior deputy prosecutor now for just over 15 years.

And I've worked in nearly every corner of our office.

Over those 15 years, I've had the privilege and honor to work with families and victims of many different types of crimes, families that are often from underrepresented communities, marginalized communities, from all corners of the city, as well as the region.

And it's through those opportunities that I've worked with those families, and that I don't talk to them as if they're just a name on a paper, but a person.

And over the years, I've always taken the opportunity to get to know these families, to get to know what it took for them to get here, why they came here, and the challenges that they still face in staying here in this beautiful city of Seattle.

I've also had the opportunity to learn of their reluctance in engaging with law enforcement, their lack of faith at times with the judicial system, which is a system that I am equally a part of.

And that's why I think this is such a wonderful opportunity for someone in my position and experience to be able to sit at the table and to provide a voice for those communities at a table that is there to implement change, promote change.

and solutions to policies or practices that may inadvertently and negatively affect members of these communities.

What more can we actually be doing?

And to have that experience from those individuals and to bring those to the table is really important for me and why I very much ask for your appointment to this commission.

In addition to my experience, let me just tell a little bit more about my personal background.

My father is Mexican-American and he was a migrant worker where he worked in the fields of Eastern Washington as a child along with my aunt and uncles.

He was the only one to finish high school and the only one of nine to graduate college.

My grandfather died in a hop picking accident when he was accidentally electrocuted when my father was just three.

My mother is Japanese American.

She grew up in Milwaukee, Portland, Oregon area, where my grandparents relocated after World War II and the unlawful and horrific internment of my grandparents.

And that is where they sought to build their new future.

And as part of that, I was raised actually by my Japanese grandmother, who instilled in me very important things that I still use today as my compass, if you will, in the work that I do as a public servant.

And that is hard work, determination, and selflessness, a willingness to serve others.

And that's exactly what this opportunity is for me to continue to do in addition to the service that I've provided to the people of King County.

As Joel had mentioned, yes, I have served many different victims' families throughout a number of different crimes.

But more importantly, members of the community, from the Honduran community, the Guatemalan community, the Filipino community, the Vietnamese community, the African American community, the Ethiopian community, LGBTQ plus community, and so on.

And that's why exactly I'm excited for this potential opportunity and seek your appointment this morning to join the Seattle Community Police Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.

Any questions?

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and my thanks to Co-Chair Merkel for coming forward to present the nominee of the commission.

I just want to say on the record that I had the great privilege at the beginning of my legal career of serving with Phil Sanchez at the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and can personally testify to the strength of the nominee as someone with a deep and intimate knowledge of the criminal legal system, who shows the utmost professionalism in his work and dedication to public service, and really looking forward to voting in favor of Phil's confirmation, and also want to congratulate the Commission on their process in identifying and selecting a nominee of his caliber.

So, thank you so much.

Council Member Lewis.

So I have a question.

I really appreciate you actually covered a lot in your introduction.

I really appreciate that.

It took care of a couple of questions that I had in mind.

But just open-ended, what do you hope to accomplish in your time as a CPC member?

Well, I think what I hope to accomplish, obviously, is continued improvement and change in the policies and practices of the Seattle Police Department.

in not only addressing current issues now, but shaping the future of the department, because the appointment is obviously, I believe, through 2025. So it's identifying the challenges now, but also being proactive in, like I said before, developing the policies and practices for our future.

Because the communities here in Seattle are continuing to grow, continuing to be diverse.

And because of that, there will also be more challenges for our law enforcement in how they respond and how they address community needs.

And I think that's also part of being part of the CPC is also not only addressing community needs, but are we doing enough to help equip our law enforcement equally with the vision and clarity that they need to be able to carry out their duties and obligations in serving members of their community as well.

So those are the things that I hope to address and as being a member of the CPC as well as issues of just general accountability that allow not only officers on the street but also leadership above and being able to carry out their obligations as well.

Appreciate that.

Other questions or comments?

Council Member Nelson.

I have all these questions going through my mind of what changes would you call for right now, what do you know, et cetera, and wanting to take advantage of your expertise before the fact.

But I just want to say that I appreciate you throwing your hat in the ring and also being willing to serve the city of Seattle.

I understand that language barriers is just one of many challenges when it comes to better serving our ethnic communities in this city, and I'm interested in you elevating other challenges and getting to work trying to address them.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just want to really emphasize the role that the CPC has in playing not only advocating for policy change, but also engaging with our diverse communities to identify the policy changes, not just the folks who are the professionals at the table identify as important changes, but the changes that community identifies as important.

So that link between policy and the general public is really an important role that the CPC plays.

With that, if there are no further questions, I recommend confirmation of appointment 02656. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 02656. If there are no further comments, not seeing any, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Councilmember Nielsen?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you so much.

Congratulations.

The appointment passes and moves on to the full council on Tuesday, October 3rd.

Thank you so much for your willingness to serve.

Thank you.

Moving on to agenda item number three.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item three.

Agenda item three, resolution 32112, a resolution affirming the city's good faith intent to consider raising in the collective bargaining process for the Seattle Police Management Association, or SPMA, 2024 contract renewal police accountability proposals that have been identified by the public and the city's police oversight agencies.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

For this item, we are joined by Greg Doss of Council Central Staff.

The purpose of this resolution is only to memorialize the public comments The council heard from the public at the August 8th public hearing on Seattle Police Management Association bargaining as well as the comments received from our three police accountability bodies.

The council adopted a similar resolution in early 2020 before the current round of negotiations with SPOG.

That was resolution 31930. The public hearing itself is required under SMC 4.04.120 prior to bargaining with Seattle's two police unions.

In this case, we're talking about Seattle Police Management Association.

Again, this does not identify the items that will be negotiated.

It memorializes the items that we heard from the public and our police accountability bodies that they identified in the hopes that at the bargaining table, those items will be considered to be moved forward in bargaining.

With that, I'll turn it over to Greg.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Greg Dawes, central staff, here to provide you with an overview of Resolution 32112. As usual, the chair has provided a very rigorous overview and made my job a little easier.

I'm not going to read the resolution, but I am going to go through all of the components of it so that you're aware of what the community and what the accountability agencies have requested as part of the process.

So, At a high level, I want to underscore that the Seattle Police Management Association is a union that represents the lieutenants and the captains only in the Seattle Police Department.

So we're only talking about a small group of folks.

I believe it's about 70 or so.

It does not represent the line officers, the officers or sergeants in the organization.

And so they have a separate organization, Seattle Police Officers Guild that negotiates a different contract.

And I want to make sure that that for the viewing public they understand that this contract that we're going to be talking about today is only for the management association for the lieutenants and captains.

So, with that, the overview of the resolution.

The collective bargaining agreement between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association, the SPMA, will expire on December 31st of 2023, and the city and the union are expected to begin negotiating a new contract in December of this year.

As the chair noted, the Seattle Municipal Code prohibits the commencement of bargaining 4.04120.

prohibits the commencement of bargaining until the Seattle's Labor Policy Committee and the Public Safety and Human Services Committee holds a public hearing on the effectiveness of the city's police accountability system.

This meeting must be held at least 90 days before the negotiations begin and requires the city to consider in good faith whether and how to carry forward the interests expressed in the public hearing.

The City Council Committees held the hearing on August 8th and received input from the City's Police Accountability Agencies, the Office of Police Accountability, the OPA, the Community Police Commission, the CPC, and the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, the OIG.

The committee also heard from 11 residents that either provided personal testimony or represented community or nonprofit organizations that have a stake in police accountability and the SBMA contract.

Representatives from the police accountability agencies testified that the current collective bargaining agreement between the city and SPMA adopted in ordinance 126597 on June 14th, 2022 led to significant improvements in police accountability and that few issues remain that are problematic for police accountability.

The resolution before you notes that the city council recognizes the sacrifices and contributions of SPMA members who strive to ensure the city achieves its public safety goals while being strong partners in ongoing efforts to implement lasting police reforms and accountability structures that are critical to ensuring the security of Seattle communities and especially to those that have been disproportionately impacted by unconstitutional policing.

The resolution also highlights that many of the accountability improvements that were made in the last contract, they highlight the accountability improvements that were made in the last contract, sorry.

And at this point I'll stop and ask the chair if you would like me to go through those or to continue with the summary of this resolution.

Go through the elements already successfully negotiated in the last SPMA contract?

Right, thank you.

Sure, just a light touch.

Okay.

They're important.

All right.

So, light touch.

The additions in the last contract clearly acknowledge and adopt the philosophy and purpose that underpins the accountability ordinance, including prioritizing community trust and transparency and recognizing the role of proper discipline in police legitimacy.

They clearly acknowledge the preponderance of evidence as the standard for appeal.

They clearly repudiate de novo review and clearly describe what evidence may be considered in appeals with deference of decisions to the chief.

They provide that discipline review hearings will be made publicly available to the public for viewing.

They add language that acknowledges that the city may implement the accountability ordinance while reserving the right to bargain the effects.

They address a tolling loophole for crimes that are committed in other jurisdictions.

They allow any OPA staff to investigate SPA members.

They clarify and formalize the process for mediation and rapid adjudication.

And then finally, not finally, but another significant improvement is that they allow the OPA and the OIG the authority to issue subpoenas of those who may be involved in potential officer misconduct incidents and those who should fail to comply with a subpoena consistent with due process additions in ordinance 126264. Thank you.

And so I think what we'll find, Greg's going to quickly go over some of the elements that the accountability organizations flagged as improvements for the next contract, but I think what you'll find is every one of our accountability partners pointed to the gains in the SPMA contract.

as significant gains towards compliance with the 27 accountability ordinance.

Yes, that's absolutely true.

And in the hearing on August 8th, the representatives of the accountability organizations noted for the record that additional accountability improvements, some additional accountability improvements could be made in the next SPMA contract.

Noted common community concerns around language located in the police officer's bill of rights, which could be further explored to ensure that it doesn't hinder recent progress made on discipline review and reform, some of the things that I just mentioned.

The agency's also uniformly recommended addressing any remaining reforms, not that there are a lot, but there are some remaining reforms established in the city's police accountability ordinance, 125315. And representatives from the OPA noted in particular a request to retoll the 180-day timeline in cases involving the SPD Force Review Board.

The specific requests from the OPA can be found in a letter that is attached to the resolution.

Representatives of the CPC have recommended that the SPMA contract should make a number of changes.

It should express in its purpose statement support for a strong accountability system, include a subordination clause that allows the city to prevail over contract terms, use the American arbitration rules to the extent only that they do not hinder a robust accountability system, immediately implement indefinite suspensions for serious misconduct without consultation of the union, eliminate a statute of limitations for any party that is involved in concealing misconduct, and create greater authority for the OPA to investigate with entities that may be concurrently conducting criminal investigations.

And those CPC requests are also enumerated in a letter attached to the resolution.

Finally, representatives of the OIG have recommended that the next SBMA contract include components that would strengthen mediation and rapid adjudication and potentially change current practices that allow for accrual of overtime by SPD members who are serving disciplinary suspensions, also in a letter attached to the resolution.

Finally, the oversight agencies have supported changes to align the contract's record retention provisions with state law and providing for additional civilianizations in OPA and throughout the agency and allowing for alternative police responses.

The public testified at this hearing, and the testimony largely echoed the requests of the accountability agency representatives.

It also included support for full implementation, all elements of the police accountability ordinance, support for additional police training, including de-escalation and mental health training, support for bringing the city into compliance with the consent decree.

Opposition to racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system, support for new citizen review process, support for rights for complainants, hiring of additional police officers, support for more outreach to the community on police accountability issues, and support for requiring officers to have a closer relationship to the communities they serve.

After concluding the recitals on the hearing, the resolution notes that on May 21st, 2019, the court had found that the city had fallen partially out of effective compliance with the consent decree, specifically with concerns due to the disciplinary appeals process and on police accountability.

The discipline review process that is established in the current SPMA contract strengthens accountability for lieutenants and captains.

However, the court continues to show interest in the full implementation of the city's police accountability ordinance and has, per an order issued in September this month, requested a report on the status of the ordinance's implementation when the city reaches a tentative agreement with the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

And so that covers all the recitals in the resolution.

There's a couple operative sections.

The operative section one says that the City of Seattle will consider in good faith how and whether to carry forward the interests referred to in the recitals through various means, including but not limited to enactment of appropriate legislation, development of collective bargaining goals and objectives, and facilitating community police dialogue.

To the extent that Washington law requires any changes to be bargained with employee representatives, the city will seek to discharge such obligations in good faith.

Section 2, the final section, says that the city has made significant improvements to the most recent SPMA and SPOG bargaining processes.

including expanded roles for the city's police accountability partners and city council staff.

Designated accountability representatives show, provide input throughout the process now, including technical representation on the council's labor policy committee.

And the council is represented at the bargaining table through participation of a neutral central staff observer.

The council requests that the executive and labor relations director continue these practices to ensure ongoing transparency and the provision of critical input from the council and its accountability partners.

And that about sums up the I shouldn't say about it, it was kind of long.

Thank you so much, Greg.

I really appreciate the inclusion in the resolution to memorialize the process created under the Durkin administration to involve the accountability partners throughout the bargaining process.

I do think it is important that it be memorialized somewhere.

so that the people who remember that role, that it won't just live in their heads, but that it will be carried on.

in future practices, so thank you so much.

And just again, to be very clear, this resolution does not say, does not commit the council to carrying these things forward in the bargaining process.

It doesn't say that you agree with any of the recommendations.

It simply is a way to memorialize those recommendations because many of us who are here for the public hearing will not be part of the bargaining process.

once it starts, and so just having a place to memorialize what we heard from the public 90 days before bargaining starts is what is required under municipal code.

Memorializing it in the resolution is not required, but it is a good practice that this council has used before, and I hope it does in the future.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

All right, seeing none.

Madam Chair, could I clarify one thing?

Oh, yes.

I just want to be clear.

I think I might have misspoken.

I didn't mean to characterize the SPMA contract as having implemented all of the police accountability recommendations.

It certainly has not.

But it has implemented what I think the accountability agencies would agree are the most important provisions.

And I think many of the items that have been flagged are items that are yet to be implemented.

Yes, that's correct.

One thing it would be great if you addressed is something that we heard from public comment, which I think was an error.

Somebody in public comment suggested that this resolution will represent the only things that can be considered in bargaining and that things can't be added later and I think that's incorrect.

That is absolutely incorrect.

The city's Labor Policy Committee, made up of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, will determine its bargaining parameters.

And as Section 2 of this resolution says, the accountability agencies, the CPC, the OIG, the OPA will also be involved in that process.

And the CPC will be hearing from the community when they are reaching out to do their constituent work.

before helping to develop parameters.

So yeah, there's going to be quite a bit more process before that happens.

Thank you.

All right, if there are no additional comments or questions.

Seeing none, I move the committee recommends the passage of Resolution 32112. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Resolution 32112. There are no further comments.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Councilmember Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Five in support.

Thank you.

The resolution passes and moves to the full council meeting on Tuesday, October 3rd.

Moving forward to agenda item number four.

Agenda item four, Council Bill 120668, an ordinance relating to funding for housing and community development programs.

Adopting the 2024 to 2028 consolidated plan for housing and community development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Thank you so much.

We have a slight change in plans.

Our friends from the Human Services Department will be presenting online.

And just a few quick brief introductory remarks, also recognizing that Jen Labreck with Council Central staff is here with us in person.

The legislation that we have before us would adopt the Human Services Department's 2024-2028 consolidated plan for housing and community development This is also known as the Five-Year Consolidated Plan.

It would also authorize its submission to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Five-Year Consolidated Plan also includes a draft of the first of the HUD-required annual plans for 2024. We're going to start today with a staff briefing from the Human Services Department and Council Central staff.

Then we're going to move into a required public hearing before the discussion and possible vote.

Again, the approved five-year consolidated plan must be transmitted to HUD in November.

which means that today is both our first and last chance for this committee to vote.

I want to thank my committee members for their willingness to engage with the Human Services Department early on in the legislation, as well as the bill that follows.

Because the submission deadline is during budget deliberations, we've been really concerned about having it on the agenda for the last committee meeting before the budget as a way to limit some of that risk.

I asked the department to offer briefings to all committee members ahead of time.

Again, really appreciate my colleagues' work with HSD and HSD's work making sure that everybody was well briefed.

Normally, this legislation would be heard in the Finance and Housing Committee.

However, due to their packed agendas, Chair Mascada asked if I would hear the legislation in my committee.

Given the subject matter and the lead department, I think we all agreed that that made sense.

If the viewing public would like to testify in the public hearing, the sheet for virtual testimony is available as listed on the agenda.

With that, Director Kim, please do kick us off.

Great.

For the record, I'm Tanya Kim, Director of the Human Services Department.

and to your name.

Good morning, for the record, I'm Deidre Meaney.

I'm the Chief Financial Officer for the Human Services Department.

And I want to thank Chair Herbold, of course, and committee members for the opportunity to present the five-year plan, which spans the 2024-2028 period and for entertaining the corresponding legislation.

I'm going to ask Kevin to please go ahead and pull up the presentation, I think we're going to need that visual perfect.

And I want to also just acknowledge my colleague and subject matter expert, Dee, who is going to be speaking on the next legislation.

It's a little under the weather, so thank you for your grace as we work through the presentation and the agenda today.

with that is, of course, along with introducing this first piece is a quick overview.

And then with the consolidated plan, highlighting the goals, there is, you know, this multiyear plan that each year we have a specific annual action plan.

And so we'll take a preview of the 2024, the overall timeline, and then next steps to get this over the finish line with an opportunity for question and answer.

And so with that, I just wanted to pause for a moment for the viewing public.

We are the Human Services Department here at the City of Seattle and our mission is to connect people with resources and solutions during times of need so we can all live learn, work, and take part in strong, healthy communities.

And we have six different impact areas, which you can read here, everything spanning from youth success to healthy aging.

Some might wonder, why do we have the consolidated plan?

And you will quickly learn that it very much touches all of these different spaces.

And so we have the privilege right now of being the city's administrator of this audiobook.

And so with that, I'm going to hand it over to Dee and introduce her.

She is our CFO.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Director Kim.

I will just give a very quick highlight of the funding sources that are included in this consolidated plan.

Just by way of a quick background, the city has received HUD grants for plus or minus 30 years.

HUD reallocates these grants every five years.

We are in the consolidated planning process for the period of 2024 to 2028. This plan update is really intended, it's the national grantees opportunity to address emerging needs and high priority issues.

And then of course, I referenced that HUD also requires that this plan be informed with community engagement and hopefully some of the comments that we might receive here today and also during our open public comment period.

Next slide, please.

The consolidated plan contains, addresses four primary funding sources.

The Community Block Grant, also known as CDBG, is a program specifically to improve economic, social, and physical environment, and to enhance the quality of life for low- and moderate-income residents.

We also have the Housing Opportunities for People Living with AIDS, the HOPWA, which is the only federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV and AIDS, the Emergency Solutions Grant, Uh, that assists people to quickly regain stability and permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and or homelessness.

Uh, the majority of these funds are allocated to our partner at the regional homeless authority.

And then we have the home investment partnership program also known as the home grants.

That provide grants to create affordable housing for low income residents.

Next slide please.

Excuse me.

This next slide is to give you a proportionate sense of scale in terms of the dollars.

The community block grant funding, it represents about 60-65% of the total funding here.

Over a five-year period, that will be approximately $88 million in funding across all four funding sources that HUD will allocate to the City of Seattle.

Next slide, please.

This is just a very high-level visual to show you proportionately by program and partner where the funding is being used.

You'll notice we have a significant proportion of the CDBG dollars also with our partners at the Regional Homelessness Authority.

We also have some Housing rehab funding with the office Seattle office of housing and then a lot of additional emergency work that happens that's managed out of the human services department.

Next slide please.

Yet another different slice to show you by proportion and dollars, how the funding is distributed across our partner agencies.

Next slide, please.

This slide is just really touches very lightly on some of the performance or the results of the funding and how it has been used.

7,200 people assisted with homelessness services, 500 seniors and persons with disability, homeowners assisted with repairs, 22 rental units constructed, 26 rehabilitated parks, accessibility projects, and 220 individuals trained through our partners for refugee and immigrant job training.

Continuing on with 2022 specifically, Some of the projects that were funded with the community block grant dollars, there are approximately 38 projects.

Three of them were the public services, so direct services through the Regional Homeless Authority for folks for communities and residents experiencing homelessness.

Eleven for projects for housing services, employment services, housing repairs, and upgrades activities.

Next slide, please.

Uh, just a little bit more specifically on the community block grant, as that is going to be, I suspect the primary focus of of interest is that just reiterating that HUD's statutory.

Requirement is that these funds be used to benefit low to moderate income persons and in the aid of elimination of and I apologize for the archaic language.

slums and blight and also meeting a need, having a particular urgency also referred to by our federal partners as meeting urgent need.

Next slide, please.

For the public services projects that are funded by HUD, they must address a new and significant need.

Just want to highlight going into the budget process as well.

uh, this, the, uh, a specific requirement that the CDBG can't supplant budgeted and or existing resources.

And, um, and just also noting that, uh, the city, uh, has currently met, um, its public services cap, um, HUD caps, uh, the total annual grant grant amount at 35%, um, for, uh, specifically for, uh, addressing public services.

the City has met that cap through the programming that we are funding through the Regional Homelessness Authority.

Next slide please.

This slide is a very high level overview of the five main goals going into the consolidated plan.

Four of them are continuing and ongoing Increasing services and preventing people from experiencing homelessness.

Providing equity and access to community infrastructure and recreation opportunities.

Increasing economic development and job retraining opportunities.

And increasing affordable housing options are all.

Areas that the city has previously prioritized and continues to prioritize.

in this next round of the consolidated plan.

The new goal that has been added, policy goal by the mayor's office is addressing the needs of people impacted by mental health and substance abuse issues, specifically opioid and fentanyl abuse crisis.

We will speak more specifically to how the city is planning to address this specific goal with these funding sources later on in the presentation.

Next slide, please.

Also included with the, the HUD has a annual planning process where all of the partners are required to present their spending plans.

Because we are at the start of the five-year consolidated period, the annual plan for the 2024 is actually incorporated into this draft five-year plan.

It anticipates that the Entitlement Grants Awards and prior year unspent CDBG balances will be included, and a separate ordinance that finalizes the 2024 action plan will be introduced next year following HUD's final grant allocations for 2024 to the national grantees.

Just a quick view here of where we are in the consolidated plan development timeline.

We are at in the third bullet in the middle of the public comment period.

which ends on October 6th.

We are hoping for a full council vote in order to meet the HUD national statutory deadline of November 15th.

Next slide, please.

If the legislation is approved by this committee, We are hoping for full council vote next month prior to the HUD statutory deadline, but our next step is to finalize the consolidated plan.

That also includes incorporating all of the feedback from the 30-day public comment window and council hearings, and then the consideration by full council with, again, meeting the HUD deadline of November 5th.

And with that, that concludes our first presentation for this legislation on the five-year consolidated plan.

And we're happy to take any questions.

We'll reference, as Dean mentioned, the $7 million piece of legislation in the next presentation.

What questions do you folks have?

Thank you, Director Kim.

I appreciate the presentation.

I want to just also thank the Human Services Department and the Executive for adding to the consolidated plan goals, a goal that is specifically focused on responding to our crises in mental health and overdose deaths.

And I also want to just clarify that the implications of not implementing this legislation will result in the city foregoing about $80 million of grant funding in federal assistance and potential program income.

So it's really important that we move forward with this legislation.

It also allows us to consider the following bill as well.

Before I open it up to questions, I just want to ask Council Central staff if you have anything to add.

I just have one thing to add actually around timing.

So this particular bill, if it was approved by committee today, would be held for a few weeks so that essentially this contains proposed uses of 2024 federal funds.

So it would be held for a few weeks so that council can evaluate those proposed uses within the context of the entire 2024 budget, which will be transmitted later today.

Again, recognizing that it does need to be approved by full council in order to make that November 15th deadline.

Great.

Thank you, Jen.

Any questions or comments from my colleagues?

All right, seeing none, I'm not seeing any virtual hands or in-person hands.

I will move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 12. Oh, wait.

I'm sorry.

I have to open up the public hearing.

All right.

Let's move backwards.

We will now move into the public hearing.

Each speaker is given two minutes to speak.

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

I will call on each speaker by name and in their order.

And if you are using the virtual option, you'll hear a prompt.

Once you've heard that prompt, you'll need to hit star six.

We ask that you begin by stating your name and listen for that chime when you hear the chime.

We ask that you begin to wrap up your comments.

If your comments aren't wrapped up within 10 minutes of your time being up, we will have to mute the mic to move on to the next speaker.

We've got no people signed up for in-person public comment.

We do have some folks.

We have three people signed up for virtual public comment, unfortunately.

They are not showing as present.

We have Talyn Davis, Shaquilla Brown, and Allison Isinger, all signed up to speak at the public hearing on Council Bill 12068. Calling once, calling twice, and calling three times, not seeing a change in status.

and the public hearing is now closed.

Moving on to recommending passage, I move that the committee recommend the passage of Council Bill 120668. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120668. If there are no further comments, seeing none, Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Councillor Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Four yes.

Thank you.

The bill passes and moves on to the full council on a schedule to be determined as explained by council central staff.

And we have one more voting item on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item number five.

Agenda item five is Council Bill 120669, an ordinance relating to funding from non-city sources amending Ordinance 126725, which adopted the 2023 budget, including the 2023 to 2028 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the budget, revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2023 to 2028 CIP, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you so much.

So as mentioned, this is companion legislation to the bill that we just recommended for approval.

It cleans up previous year's underspend of federal CDBG dollars across multiple departments.

It appropriates $7 million towards the mayor's announced capital investments in post-overdose treatment facilities.

And with that, I will turn it back over to our friends at the Human Services Department.

Thank you so much, and Kevin will pull up the deck.

Meanwhile, I can introduce myself again.

I'm Tanya Kim, the Director of the Human Services Department.

And I'm Dee Lamini, Chief Financial Officer of the Seattle Human Services Department.

Once again, we're going to introduce the meat of the legislation, provide some background, go over some next steps and questions.

I will just say very briefly that here today we're talking about the legislation itself.

We're not talking about the substance of what will be in the request for qualifications or about substance use and the necessity of it.

So I just wanted to clarify that we do not have a matter experts here at the table.

It's very important, but I know that this council has talked extensively about that.

And so with that, I'm going to hand it back over to Dee to walk us through the substance and then we'll pause for questions.

Thank you, director Kim again, just reiterating.

That the city budget office did transmit this is the companion legislation.

That reconciles, it's essentially reconciling balances.

Across the previous consolidated plan period.

These are the affected grants that.

where we've identified the 7Million dollar underspend are cost reimbursable grants with no expenditures against them.

Next slide please.

Just a little bit of background here.

The meeting, the color of the compliance requirements associated with the community block grant program has proved challenging for the city departments and partners over the years.

Some of the common compliance challenges are listed here below.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, just some of the common ones, requiring environmental review, prevailing wage, federal procurement requirements, timeliness and expenditure monitoring deadlines.

Some of these can and have been perceived as driving down.

Increasing cost and or causing project delays.

The reconciled balances here reflected in this prior consolidated plan period also show a significant covert pandemic delays either from.

shifting priorities, construction project delays, and or some of the significant staff turnover and vacancies that were experienced not only at the Human Services Department, but amongst some of our partner agencies, departments as well.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

The 7Million dollars appropriation that was identified for the opiate RFQ was originally allocated between the grant periods of 2019 to 2022. Departments that will be abandoning appropriation, inclusive of the Human Services Department, are Parks, the Office of Economic Development, OPCD, Office of Housing, and Alliance.

the Office of Immigrants and Refugees.

So here for next steps, we just wanted to note that not only as you are aware that these funds are a part of the executive's planned capital investments, in facilities and there is a brief listing of the type of services that we are seeking to initially invest in through the capital portion of their work.

It's outlined here.

Everything from the post-overdose care to drop-in support.

So it's really, truly a range of services and some fulfilling a current gap.

And I do want to note that on the Human Services Department website, we do have a Notice of Funding Availability, or NOFA, and that was recently updated.

So we made an announcement.

Our intention is to release this Request for Qualifications on November 1st.

And it, again, more or less describes what the intent of the RFQ is.

November 1st lands, we will have a full description, including the guidelines and application.

And so that will be readily available.

And then all the things that go with it in terms of information session, technical assistance, et cetera, particularly because these are CDBG dollars.

And so just wanted to note that, but we don't have additional information to share at this time.

Thank you.

Are we opening it up for questions now?

Oh, no, Dee, do you want to finish up?

Sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

I just wanted to note that the reconciliation, it needs to be part of our regular process over reviewing and monitoring expenditures across the profile of the grants and that the Human Services Department will be partnering with the budget office to incorporate consistent budget tracking across all the federal grants during the biannual budget development process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And now Chair Herbold.

We return the mic back to you.

Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

I want to first off thank the Department for taking steps to proactively update the 2023 Notice of Funding Availability to reflect the expected availability of this funding for a post-overdose stabilization and and also a outpatient treatment facility, RFQ to be released on November 1st, assuming council's approval of this legislation.

My, just moving forward to some of the issues that were identified in the council central staff.

My recollection is that the city has eight years to spend CDBG.

once once it's been appropriated and just wondering one of the elements that you mentioned Jen, is that we might want to consider practices or policies to ensure that there's transparent and accountable use of the funds and that we could request that the executive prepare legislation to create a separate fund or funds for these reoccurring HUD grants as well as financial policies for the fund as appropriate.

Just wondering, is this something that we could do as part of council budget deliberations?

Yes, this is something that could be considered as part of budget.

OK, great.

And then another question for you, Jen, following up on your memo.

You had referenced that you'd received some clear information about the use of the authority accepting the $167,000 in appropriation authority.

Wondering if you received an answer to that question?

I haven't as of this committee hearing.

Okay, well maybe we'll turn it back over to HSD to see whether or not there's any additional information you can provide at this time.

And maybe, Jen, I may have misstated the outstanding question.

If you want to clarify it for HSD, that might be helpful.

So, Dee and Director Kim, there were $7 million of appropriation authority added to the public health BCL, budget control level.

And we're all clear on what that's for.

You went over that today.

And then there was also, I think, $167,000 that was added to another budget control level.

And I was just curious if you could provide some more information about what that additional appropriation authority was for.

I don't have specific information on that amount.

However, I do want to note that the reconciliation uh, is, is, uh, that took place is ongoing.

Um, and, uh, we are, uh, going all the way back to, uh, 2017, uh, to, uh, 2022. And so, um, some of the, um, uh, work includes, uh, just sort of cleanup, uh, of appropriation, uh, versus actual, um, uh, uh, underspend against, uh, grants, uh, that is available for, uh, future spending.

Um, this is a, a bit of an exercise.

Uh, it's a quite, quite complex going, reconciling across, uh, multiple, uh, financial systems, the HUD, uh, system, uh, the city's financial system, the city's budget system, and, uh, understandably, uh, work that hasn't been done over years.

there are also just frankly errors that need to be corrected.

And so I can get, we will get back to you with that specific amount, but I do just want to be clear that we are confident that the 7 million is actual available appropriation to be spent against the grants in their available period of performance.

Thank you.

Yes, I think we understand where the $7 million is from and where it's going.

The question is about $176,000 that will be, under the legislation, added to the Supporting Affordability and Livability BCL.

And we'll just count on getting that information from you before the Council votes on this at full Council.

I also want to just flag, this is another question for Jen.

The issue of the steps that the Human Services Department is taking to improve annual monitoring regarding expenditures of CDBG and other HUD funding across departments and the policies and procedures to inform counsel if funds are not being expended as anticipated.

Is that something that is included in the issue ID that you flagged that we just a moment ago discussed we could take up during budget?

I do think establishing a separate fund for these four federal fund sources would be the first step in terms of being able to do ongoing monitoring and tracking of those.

It provides the kind of high-level oversight that allows us to see if funds are being expended at the rate that would be expected.

And then, yes, happy to discuss if there are other options as well.

As Dee had mentioned, I think incorporating this more as part of the annual action plan and the review process of the annual action plan is an important way to evaluate on an annual basis how funds are being expended and if there's an opportunity to use them differently.

Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

Are there other questions from council members?

Looking virtually and in person.

Not seeing any, thank you so much.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120669. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120669. And looking to see if there are any further comments.

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Four in support.

Thank you.

The council bill passes and moves to the full council meeting on Tuesday, October 3rd.

And now we've got agenda item six.

I recognize it is 11.43.

and I know we all want to be out the door by noon.

Can we stay for another 15 minutes?

I'm going to head to the office.

I'll view it from the office.

Okay, great, thank you.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item six.

Agenda item six, network company tax pre-introduction discussion.

Okay, so quick introductory remarks.

Over the last three years, this committee has worked to pass protections for app-based workers in order to protect a vulnerable and fast-growing population of Seattle employees.

Most recently, that includes the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance.

During discussions of that ordinance, I made a commitment to the mayor's office to bring forward potential answers to the questions of funding the enforcement of this and other app-based workers protections.

As the Office of Labor Standards noted in their September 11th annual certification on OLS functions and resources memo, the office is responsible for enforcement of a wide web of worker protections that cover 54,000 employers and almost 600,000 employees with a team of 34 full-time employees.

In that memo, they touch on Seattle's leadership in building protections for app-based workers.

Just a quick quote from that memo, much of the policy team focus has been on advancing labor standards, for non-standard workforces, especially gig workers, domestic workers, and independent contractors.

This work is time-consuming as few jurisdictions have tackled such initiatives.

Consequently, OLS must create the road map rather than relying on the experience of other jurisdictions.

Today, we are joined by Karina Bull, and let's see, I think just Karina today, and let's see here.

They will be presenting, or Karina will be presenting a presentation on a proposal for a per-transaction fee to help the Office of Labor Standards continue to create the roadmap.

Committee members and the public should know that this presentation has been updated, as mentioned, since posted until last week.

I think we have been collectively investigating the implementation of a tax.

The mayor's office and external stakeholders have shared that there's a strong preference for a fee.

I'm appreciative that Council Central staff has quickly changed course to prepare a presentation for a fee as opposed to the tax.

And I think you all received the updated PowerPoint yesterday.

There are still some outstanding questions between today's discussion on a proposal and the development of legislation to be submitted as part of our budget process.

But since this committee has had the most discussion around app-based worker protections I thought it was important to have this presentation before we pause our committee calendars for the budget.

With that, hand it off to Karina.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

My computer here at the table has had a mishap, and so I no longer have access to the presentation unless there's an ability to enter in a passcode.

So I'm wondering if maybe Newell can advance the presentation.

Mr. Clerk, can you drive?

Can you advance the presentation?

You can't?

Okay.

Oh, it's over there.

OK.

I think we've figured out the problem.

So if you don't mind holding on a few more moments.

Okay, we're ready.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

I am Karina Bull.

I'm with City Council Central staff, and I'm going to be presenting a draft proposal on a network company fee to generate revenue to pay for regulatory cost of implementing app-based worker labor standards.

As Councilmember Herbold noted, this policy is still in the process of development, so there are a number of questions to be determined over the course of the next month or so.

The presentation will comprise a background, the actual fee proposal, the filing dates for when it will go into effect and when network companies are expected to start remitting the fee, estimates of the amount of revenue from the fee, a spending plan, and a timeline.

Well, to begin, as Councilmember Herbold gave us notice of, there have been a variety of labor standards covering app-based workers.

We are most familiar in the current moment with the labor standards that actually include app-based worker in the title that are part of the pay-up campaign.

That's the app-based worker paid sick and saved time, the minimum payment, and the deactivation rights.

But there are other labor standards that also cover app-based workers, including the domestic workers ordinance if those workers are receiving or accepting offers for services through an app, and also the independent contractor protections ordinance, which explicitly states that it covers platform gig workers, which are app-based workers.

Notably, not all of these regulations apply to all network companies, and as noted here, the paid sick and save time and minimum payment regulations do not apply to marketplace network companies such as Rover or TaskRabbit.

The proposal is geared to have a dedicated funding source to cover regulatory costs of app-based worker labor standards, and the revenue would pay for the administration of a network company license and fees, and then implementation of the labor standards, which would be conceived of broadly to include enforcement policy development, outreach and education, including contracts with community organizations to support those services.

The fee would be required on network companies operating in Seattle.

And the amount would be $0.10 per online order for the delivery of goods or provision of other services in Seattle.

And the wording of this charge is deliberately intended to encompass the full range of app-based services that are performed in Seattle.

And those app-based services would be the same ones that are subject to the pay up regulations for minimum payment, paid sick leave, and also for deactivations.

The director could adjust the fee based on consideration of projected cost, regulatory needs, fee revenue, and other factors.

The key point about a fee as opposed to a tax is that the expenditure of the fee revenue needs to directly relate from the activity that is being regulated, which in this case would be network company activity and their treatment of app-based workers.

There would be an exemption for online orders solely for delivery of grocery items.

Under state law, there is a prohibition on imposing taxes or fees or other assessments on groceries.

The way that would play out in this fee is that orders solely for groceries, such as someone ordering only fruit and vegetables, would be exempt from the fee.

And then orders that include a mix of groceries and non-grocery items would be covered by the fee.

So, for example, you see here fruit and batteries.

Groceries would have the same meeting as under state law, which is defined for you on the screen.

The fee would come effective in the beginning of next year on January 1. The first filing would be in the fourth quarter of the year to allow time for the city to develop software and systems to collect the fee and also to do outreach to the network companies.

And then after that, subsequent filings in 2025 and beyond would be quarterly.

As far as revenue estimates go, there is limited online data for the number of online orders that are resulting in services in Seattle.

So these fee estimates are based on a possible analog related to transportation network company trips originating in Seattle and the number of TNC drivers operating in Seattle.

So again, these are estimates.

These are the best that we could do at this time.

The fee is estimated to generate somewhere between $2.1 and $3 million per year.

The low estimate is based on 21 million online orders, and that number derives from the average number of TNC trips for 2018, 2019, and 2022, several years omitted due to reduced trips during the pandemic, and that would be 21 million online orders.

And then the high estimate is based on 30 million online orders per year, based on average TNC trips for driver for those same years, multiplied by the number of estimated app-based workers, which is about 40,000.

And again, that brings the estimate up to 30 million online orders, which would be about 3 million per year.

The city and county are able to and are required to collect information on TNC trips and drivers.

So we do have firm data on that information, just not on the online orders.

That data would become available however when the fee is being collected.

Another way to think about the revenue estimates and whether those calculations seem reliable are thinking of it in different ways.

For example, thinking of the number of households in Seattle.

There are about 340,000 households in Seattle.

And those estimates, $21 million to $30 million online orders per week would average out to about 1.2 to 1.7 online orders per week per household, knowing that some households may not order anything from an app-based service in a week, and some may order more orders than just two per week.

Same thing for the app-based workers.

Estimating the number of online orders per week, that could average out to about 10 to 14 online orders per week per app-based worker.

That might be a lot for some app-based workers providing marketplace network company services.

It might be less than what an app-based worker is doing if they're delivering restaurant food.

The allocation of the proceeds would be deposited into the OLS fund, the Office of Labor Standards fund, which already has been in existence since about 2017. And right now, that fund is funded through revenue from the business license tax revenue.

It is insufficient to meet the kind of funding that the OLS director is indicating in the annual certification for the office.

The fee proceeds would be spent according to a spending plan.

First priority would be paying for the city's administration of the network company license and collecting those fees.

And the next would be implementation of OLS app-based worker labor standards.

The identified amounts would be adjusted annually to reflect the rate of inflation.

And as it's conceived of now, use of the fee proceeds would be in addition to funding levels that OLS is receiving right now in the 2023 adopted budget that could be adjusted to reflect the 2024 proposed or adopted budget.

The spending plan has identified amounts for the administration of the license and fee that would be up to a total of $366,000 in 2024, and then dropping down to $106,000 to pay for one FTE beginning in 2025 and beyond.

And then the app-based worker deactivations ordinance would be the first priority for funding.

You see here what that funding would be.

about $1.35 million in 2024, dropping to $1.15 million in 2025 and 2026 for procedural enforcement, and then going up to about $1.5 million per year beginning in 2027 when the deactivation ordinance requires that the city have ongoing procedural and substantive enforcement.

And then next, any remaining funds would be for at-base worker labor standards and outreach contracts.

The timeline for this would be to consider the legislation during budget.

And so budget legislation would need to be introduced by November 7th, can be introduced earlier, but this will be a topic of conversation in the next month or so.

Thank you so much, Karina.

Really appreciate your work on this.

And I also wanted to state publicly, I really appreciate the collaboration with the mayor's office on this item.

I think we are all Unified in our goal to ensure that OLS is sufficiently resourced to enforce the city's laws, laws that specifically have an excess to the pay up labor standards.

And again, my interest in pursuing a fee over a tax is informed in part by ensuring that the funds are protected for OLS to dedicate to pay up labor standards.

I know that as a tax, there are ways of creating a fund, creating a payment plan, but it also creates a scenario where the funds could be we could receive an ordinance or our future council could receive an ordinance every budget year reallocating the funds from the special fund into the general fund and with a fee that as I understand it that cannot occur and I'm just wondering Karina if you could speak a little bit to how a fee better secures the revenue in OLS's sub fund in a way that a tax might not.

By law, a fee can only be spent on the regulatory or activities relating to the regulation that the city has established.

So that would be anything related to the expenses of administering the fee and also to what Office of Labor Standards would be doing to implement those network company laws, the app-based worker labor standards.

So there would be no ability to spend it on other items than that.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I have a couple questions.

The first one is that, Karina, you mentioned that come June 2027, the city will be required to enforce the deactivation bill, but the legislation itself says may, not shall.

So is there an assumption in this?

expenditures that, in fact, OLS will be doing full enforcement.

Thanks for your close reading, Council Member Nelson.

You are correct.

I should have said the city will have the authority to engage in procedural and substantive enforcement.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, that was a substitute that was offered on June 27th, and there was a floor amendment.

The original said shall not have the power to enforce, and then there was a conversation, and it was changed to may.

Thank you.

Thank you, absolutely thank you.

Good I. So again, this will be taken out.

Councilman Peterson.

Hi there, thank you.

Thank you chair herbal.

Yes, since we we just seeing the presentation today, just some preliminary questions.

and I wanted to know the marketplace network companies, are they, they're also included in this fee?

They'd be paying the same 10% or 10 cents as everybody else on each transaction?

I think the idea is there's a tiered fee because the marketplace companies are regulated by the deactivation ordinance, but not minimum.

compensation.

And so I think what I've seen reflected in memos is that there would be a fee of one size for the marketplace companies, because they're only covered by deactivation.

And the food network delivery drivers would be Because there's enforcement of both the deactivation ordinance and the minimum compensation ordinance, there's a larger enforcement responsibility associated with those industries.

Is that correct?

Or is that something that you're looking at just for the tax?

The way the tax was conceived was a $0.10 tax on all online orders.

The fee is right now conceived of as a $0.10 on all network company activity.

I would have to think about structuring it as a tier and thinking about how what that tier would be and how to parse out the cost for marketplace network companies as being separate and different from other network companies.

I'm sorry, I may have misspoken, but I thought I read materials that said because the ordinances that are to be enforced are different, the fee also has to be different.

But I may have...

I wonder if you're referencing where the fee revenue would go to as far as funding only the pay up at base worker labor standards versus also being used for the independent contractor protections ordinance and the domestic workers ordinance.

parsing out the fees that are only spent for network company activity for those ordinances, domestic workers, and independent contractors could be difficult.

Is that maybe what the memo was referring to?

I don't know.

I think we're going to have to return to it.

All right.

Yeah.

This is an important issue to consider.

And, Sheriff, if I may, you were going in the direction I was, and that was going to be my follow-up question, was if only two of the three recently, or only one of the three recently passed ordinances were applying to marketplace network companies, why would they be paying the same amount of the full 10 cents?

And so that's an important thing I'd be interested in seeing if there is a way to Charge it according to what's being enforced.

I think that.

That's 1 of the things I'm struggling with is that these.

I mean, I did not sponsor these ordinances.

I voted for the 1st, 2 and not the 3rd, but I had questions about all of them.

And and so then.

we're then saying, okay, we sort of, the council passed regulations that it can't afford to enforce or that it needs help, financial help enforcing, and then we're then turning around and having those companies, and potentially their customers, because these fees could be passed on to their customers, having to pay for that, the city government enforcement.

Thank you.

I appreciate the identification of some issues that will be, I think, important to developing legislation.

Council Member Mosqueda.

I had continuing questions, too.

Okay, I'll come back to you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry to not be on camera and council member.

I'm still in commute here, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate this conversation and the importance of this legislation.

You know, I had a amendment earlier in our committee and colleagues who are on this committee.

Are also part of finance and housing in governance and native communities.

We had a similar discussion about the importance of having fiscal notes.

So we could look out a few years.

You know, our process is still in the, in the moments of being.

Enhanced and improved with our fiscal note, but we all knew that there was a cost when that was passed.

It's not just the council that passed legislation.

It was signed into statute by the mayor as well.

And I think this is just good follow through to ensure that there's additional funding for the very ordinances.

That were codified by the council, no matter who voted for it, the majority voted for it and sign into statute by the mayor's office.

It's going to be important that we have additional funding in the future to ensure the enforcement and education components that are necessary with any policy, but specifically labor standards.

It's critical that we do education to both employers and workers and to make sure that the general public also knows.

Why policies are being put forward so in order for us to have sufficient funding for this and other aspects of public policy that we pass throughout the year.

This is a core component of how we ensure that there's new revenue to advance policies that this council has approved on various levels.

This is not the only 1. There are others that will require additional funding to ensure their success.

So I appreciate the good chairs teed this up.

And I think it's good recording in progress.

Conversations and it's too bad the recording didn't capture all those amazing remarks, but thank you madam chair for bringing this forward.

Thank you very much madam budget chair for engaging, even though you're feeling poorly and under the weather comes from Nelson.

So I do think that we do, we should have a further conversation about the, whether or not the city will be enforcing, cause that does impact whether or not this fee is needed, but just assuming that it is on page eight of the central staff memo for deactivation, the May 19th memo, it does lay out some of the one-time costs and then the ongoing costs and the one-time costs are 195,000.

in 2024, and the ongoing cost is $1,302,000.

And so what I am wondering when I see the FTEs required to implement and perhaps investigate new labor regulations, Is it logical to assume that in the beginning when a new law is put on the books that there is more activity and more FTEs needed and so OLS hires up and then over time when companies become aware of these regulations that the FTE needs decline?

In other words, are we just always adding on new FTEs to implement new labor regulations and then perhaps they're not investigating that particular regulation and so the need for those FTEs declines or they can be repurposed for new ones?

Yeah, thank you.

So there are two questions there, or two issues that I noted.

And one of them was the amount of funding needed for the Office of Labor Standards Authority, not requirement, to engage in both procedural and substantive enforcement.

And what Office of Labor Standards has done has assembled the estimated cost to perform what they think is a reasonable level of implementation of both procedural and substantive enforcement.

And so that's where they came up with the 1.56 million per year funding estimate.

I think if I think they could augment that, but they believed that that was the reasonable amount that they could engage in that type of enforcement.

As far as time passes and there perhaps being a need for fewer FTEs, so there's like a ramp down rather than a ramp up, I think over time with the labor standards that actually the opposite has been found, where there's either a study or a ramp up, because I think Office of Labor Standards might say that they could use more staff and more resources for all of their labor standards right now.

They're operating as best they can with what they have.

There are many businesses that are still learning about the responsibilities as employers or as hiring entities, and many workers who are still learning about the rights that they have.

I wouldn't, I don't want to speak for Office of Labor Standards, but I doubt that the need for FTEs would go down.

I see it remaining steady or actually increasing.

Okay.

It would be, I appreciate that you can't speak for the office, so if anybody is listening, I'd appreciate them to respond and get some input on how that cycle of FTE needs proceeds through time.

And then I have another question about the expenditures, if I may.

Can you repeat that, please?

Oh, I was asking if you could.

Yes, absolutely.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

So the expenditures will on the third priority is for outreach.

And I have noted that right now the OLS budget for outreach to different organizations, let me back up.

I believe that the best way to ensure compliance with our labor regulations is to make sure that employers know about them and have a lot of information.

So education and outreach to businesses is necessary to, you know, hopefully ensure compliance over time.

Right now, though, the OLS has six people on its business outreach team compared to 30 people on its enforcement side.

And when it comes to outreach funds to organizations, less than half of the dollars allocated to outreach are for businesses.

And that's mostly for ethnic chambers, et cetera.

So is there...

Any thinking about how to rebalance or make the balance to weight the business education side a little bit more strongly with these funds going forward?

Okay, well, for the amount of funding for business organizations to perform outreach and education, just for context, that used to be as high as $800,000 a year, and then it was reduced to $600,000 a year.

A number of years ago, that's in contrast to the $1.5 million per year for the Community Outreach and Education Fund, which has stayed flat since 2017. In the context of the fee, any allocation to business organizations for revenue collected from a fee would have to be related to app-based worker labor standards.

And so thinking about maybe there's about 30 network companies that would be covered by this fee, one would just need to think of how much What are the resources OLS would need to do outreach and education through contracts with business organizations for about 30 network companies?

I think maybe what you're alluding to or referencing is the business outreach and education fund for the employers operating in Seattle.

This fee could not be used for that purpose because this fee would have to relate to the regulatory functions or the regulations of the network companies.

So any increase to that business outreach fund would be separate from this fee.

That could be a budget consideration or revenue generated from a different kind of dedicated funding source.

Thank you, Karina.

Definitely a lot more to discuss here.

I did want to just lift up that if a family is getting a delivery once a week, a $0.10 fee would cost a total of $5.20 a year.

A minimal impact on the family.

ordering the delivery, but a big impact on workers who benefit from these protections.

I want to just underline the comments from OLS in their memo, their pre-budget memo.

They write to say, with growing concerns about the health of the city's general fund in the coming fiscal years, now is the time to think creatively about dedicating funding sources to support OLS operations.

So just again, flagging that as a important goal of this effort.

And again, more conversations to come.

I do still see a hands up by council members, Nelson and Mosqueda.

Let's, I hope they're old hands.

We need to wrap up.

We have 10 minutes to get to the mayor's speech.

The budget speech.

I had a question about the fourth item, discretionary financial reserve.

I'll take it offline.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Yeah.

So thank you so much, Karina.

Again, we'll work on collecting questions that folks have.

That's the last item on our agenda today.

The next Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, December 12th, 2023. This is the last Public Safety and Human Services Committee meeting with the full Team Herbold on board.

And just want to thank you for all that you've done to support me. over the years and supporting me outside of this committee and within the committee.

We are tentatively having another committee meeting, but we know that Christina Kotsouvas and Sunny Nguyen will be off to, I won't say greener pastures, but other pastures.

Thank you for all that you've done to serve the City of Seattle and its residents and myself as well.

If anybody anticipates being absent from that meeting, anybody meeting committee members, please let me know in advance.

And seeing that there are no additional comments from my colleagues, it is 12.17 p.m.

and we are adjourned.

Thank you.