Seattle City Council Transportation and Utilities Committee May 19, 2021

The May 19, 2021 meeting of the Transportation and Utilities Committee will come to order.

The time is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Alex Peterson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Here.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Chair Peterson?

Here for present.

Thank you.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

On our agenda today, we've got four renewals of limited-term permits for pedestrian bridges and tunnels, a reappointment to the School Traffic Safety Committee, a property transfer to Seattle City Light, an update on implementing our Internet for All action plan from our Seattle Information Technology Department, And our second and final discussion at this committee of the three surveillance impact reports related to existing police technologies will be focused on the amendments to those.

There's several amendments that we'll be voting on today.

The first four items are relatively routine renewals, so I hope we can get through those quickly so that we can get to the more substantive items.

At this time, we will open the remote general public comment period.

I ask that everyone please be patient as we operate this online system.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process of public participation.

It remains the strong intent of the city council to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, the city council reserves the right to modify these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

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

It'll be 20 minutes, up to 20 minutes, and we'll give each person two minutes to speak.

I'll call on two speakers at a time in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not registered but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public comment period by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak and the speaker must press star six to begin speaking.

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

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda.

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

Once you hear the chime, please wrap it up so that we can move on to the next speaker.

And if you do not end your comments at the time allotted, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed the public comment, we ask you to please disconnect from the line.

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

The regular public comment period for this committee meeting is now open.

And we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six before speaking.

Looks like we've got about four people signed up, but just one person is present at this time.

So we'll go with the person who's present now, and that's Cynthia Spies.

Good morning, Cynthia.

Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Cynthia Spies.

My comments are on the three SPD surveillance technologies.

Thank you, Council Members Peterson and Horbold, for proposing amendments, even with the double legal review and restrictive charter.

I support all the amendments, however some of them could have gaps closed.

Amendment number two on the FLIR bill could be improved by removing an opportunity for vague policy language.

Improved wording might be including the specific incident types and circumstances of reasonable expectation of bodily harm in which SPD may request.

Amendment number two on the situational awareness cameras bill doesn't address capturing sound or the use of a cell phone to record the monitor feed of the camera.

Improved wording to address this could be restrictions on downloading, streaming, or recording images, video, or audio from a situational awareness camera.

With the situational awareness camera and video recording system bills, amendments number three use overly narrow wording focused on facial recognition.

There are many forms of biometric identification, not just facial recognition used by the U.S. government, Chinese government, and U.S. private sector companies, among others.

Since SPD describes only needing to use these cameras to view a physical area, there's no need for any biometric identification capabilities.

Improved wording for amendment number three on bill 120054 is situational awareness cameras equipped with biometric identification, comma, facial recognition.

And improved wording for amendment number three on bill 120055 is video recording systems with biometric identification, comma, facial recognition capability.

Lastly, none of the amendments have addressed SPD not having their video recording systems security hardened.

Not following the manufacturer's best practices is what led to 70% of the Washington D.C.

police cameras being hacked.

Please propose an amendment number four to Bill 120055 requesting that SPD conduct a security audit.

Please see my email.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cynthia.

I'm not seeing any other speakers signed up who are present.

Let me just double check.

I'll ask our information technology team.

Do you see anybody else who is present?

There are no other public comment registrants.

OK.

OK, then.

Folks, this will conclude our, that concludes our list of speakers who are present for public comment.

So now we will move on to the first legislative item on our agenda.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the first agenda item into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 120074, an ordinance granting Grange Insurance Association permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue, north of Cedar Street, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

We've got four items on our agenda today to simply renew these limited-term permits that allow continued use of the skybridge and then three tunnels.

So we'll go ahead and hear from, as usual, from our central staffer, Lish Whitson, if you want to introduce this for us before we turn it over to the department.

Good morning, Lish.

Good morning, Lish Whitson, Council Central staff, and as Council Member Peterson Discussed, you have four approvals in front of you for renewals of term permits.

These permits have been in place for decades, and these are fairly routine renewals as required under the code.

There's one change that's embedded in each of these, which is a shift from a 10-year renewal period to a 15-year renewal period.

Otherwise, these are very routine pieces of legislation.

And I will be available for questions, but don't need to talk to the other three items.

OK.

Thank you, Lish.

And now we'll turn it over to our Seattle Department of Transportation.

Good morning.

Hello.

This is Amy Gray, and I work for the Seattle Department of Transportation.

on the term permits before you today.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to have the time to present these and discuss them if you have any questions.

As list noted, there's four permits in front of you.

I just wanted to make some general comments about all four that apply to all four permits so that you're more aware of what's the situation.

So for the SkyBridge and the three tunnels, they are all fully accessible for people with limited mobility.

So there's no hindrance for any type of physical hindrance for people accessing the skybridge and the tunnels.

All the term permit ordinance also have standard language regarding structural integrity requirements.

Every two years, the ordinance require that the permit holder complete and submit a structural inspection report stamped by a certified engineer.

That is ultimately submitted to SDOT and the SDOT engineers review that for any questions and concerns and follow up with the permit holders if there's anything that they want more information about.

On the opposite two years, SDOT roadway structures goes out and does a visual inspection of all the structures as well to make sure that nothing substantial has changed from the last year.

Language in all of the ordinance also requires the permit holder to name the city as an additional insured, provide indemnification to the city and provide a bond in case the structure is abandoned and the city needs to remove it.

All these requirements are designed to limit the city's risk for private structures occupying the public right away.

So the first one in front of us is the Grange Insurance Association.

Next slide.

This permit was first granted in 1981. 10 years ago, it reached its final 30 years.

And at that point in time, it was reviewed as if it was a brand new structure.

And they were required to provide public benefit.

That public benefit is the plaza that you'll see in a few slides from now.

The Skybridge provides a connection between staff and visitors of the office building with the parking garage.

And SDOT is recommending approval for this term permit.

Next slide, please.

In these renewals, the ordinance renews the permit and details the terms and conditions of the permit, including the annual fee, maintenance obligations, indemnification insurance, and bond requirements.

The 2021 fee for this SkyBridge is $12,512.

Here's an area map showing the location in the alley at 200 Cedar Street.

Next slide.

So here's some images of the tunnel.

The two on the left show the interior of the tunnel connecting the two buildings, and the one on the far left shows the SkyBridge across the alley.

Next slide, please.

We are asking council approve the permission for the next 15 years, and it may be extended for an additional 15 years after that.

And so that's the end of the presentation for the Grange Insurance.

Thank you.

And council members, we'll be voting on each of these bills separately.

I should have mentioned at the beginning that Council President Gonzalez is excused from this committee meeting.

Council members, any questions on this bill before we vote on this and move to the next three?

I'm just checking the participants list here for any hands raised.

Okay, well, Council Members, I would like to move that the committee recommend approval of Council Bill 120074, which is item one on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Any final comments or questions?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120074?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that they'll pass it will be sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120061, an ordinance granting permission to Northwest Kidney Center to continue to operate and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Broadway, north of Cherry Street.

for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

So we already heard from our central staff analyst, Lish Whitson.

He's available for any questions on these next three items.

But we'll go ahead and go straight to Seattle Department of Transportation for their presentation.

Thank you again.

So this is the Northwest Kidney Center pedestrian tunnel located at 700 Broadway.

This first was granted a tunnel permit in 1978. Northwest Kidney Center is a nonprofit research organization and care facility.

It includes dialysis center, a research facility, pharmacy, and administrative offices.

And this tunnel connects to the Swedish Hospital's main campus on Broadway.

Next slide, please.

This is the same term permit process, so I will just pass on this slide.

This is located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood right on Broadway at 700 Broadway.

Next slide, please.

Here's some images from inside the tunnel to show, to provide a visual reference for folks knowing what it looks like.

It is used by staff, visitors, and patients of the two facilities.

Next slide, please.

Again, we are seeking council approval to renew the existing pedestrian tunnel under Broadway.

And it will be for a term of 15 years with one renewable 15-year term.

And any questions?

Thank you, Amy, toward the presentation on this existing tunnel and the request for the renewal with this council bill.

Colleagues, any questions for SDOT or for central staff on this item?

Okay, just checking here.

I don't see any hands raised for this one.

So council members, I now move the committee recommend approval of council bill 120061, item two on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120061. Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council bill pass will be sent to the May 24th city council meeting for final consideration.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item three, council bill 120075, an ordinance granting BGO Plaza 600 JV LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a vehicular and pedestrian tunnel under the alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, north of Stewart Street.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Our central staff analyst has already spoken at the beginning of these four items, and we can ask him questions.

But we'll go ahead and go straight to the presentation here from our Seattle Department of Transportation.

Estak, go ahead.

So this is the Plaza 600 pedestrian and vehicular tunnel in the alley.

It is located at the Plaza 600 building, also known as the Lloyd building.

This was first granted a tunnel permit in 1968. It is used, it's for staff and visitors of the office building with the parking garage.

There's three levels of parking that are connected by this tunnel.

And SDOT is recommending approval of this permit as well.

Next slide.

This is the process again, so I won't go into detail about this.

Next slide.

It's located at 600 Stewart Street in downtown.

Next slide.

Here's some images showing the vehicular and pedestrian tunnel, and the fee for 2021 is $8,816.

Next slide.

And again, this is the 15-year term with an additional 15 years allowed.

And that is the end of this presentation.

Thank you.

And Amy, are the vehicles there just for the delivery of things, basically, loading zone type?

I think Craig Maturi is on the panel as well right now.

He can talk about specific uses, but I think it's open to the public.

There is the Hotel Max and the Met Tower on the same block, and I think parking is used by all three facilities.

Craig, do you have anything that you would like to add?

I see him nodding his head.

He agrees.

You are correct, yes.

All right.

Thank you, Craig.

Thank you.

Council members, any questions on this item?

Okay, thank you.

Council members, I move that the committee recommend approval of Council 12075, item three on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 12075.

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item four, Council Bill 120076, an ordinance granting ICRCDP Seattle Hotel LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under and across Seneca Street between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Our City Council Central staffer, Lish Whitson, already spoke to all four of these items at the beginning of the agenda.

This is the fourth item.

And so we'll go straight to the presentation from our Seattle Department of Transportation.

All right, the last tunnel for review today.

So this is the Fairmont Olympic Hotel Tunnel.

It is on the site that was the original University of Washington campus before it moved out to now its current location.

This permit was originally granted in 1981. It is operated by the Fairmont Hotel and Resorts, and the University of Washington owns the land under the hotel and under the parking garage.

Next slide.

same process so we'll just pass through this.

Next slide please.

It's located at 411 University Street in downtown.

Next slide.

So here's images of the tunnels and these tunnels are primarily used by hotel staff to move supplies and deliveries made to the parking garage that need to be transferred to the hotel using it to a below grade connection rather than having to cross Seneca Street at grade.

It's also open to visitors and people parking in the parking garage if they want access to the hotel as well.

Next slide.

So this is the same condition with the 15 years, the term of 15 years and additional 15 year renewal.

And we are asking for council approval of this renewal.

Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation from us.

Council members, any questions for us or for our central staff and us?

Council member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

Thank you, Amy and Beverly.

Also for your pre committee briefings on these very dense topics.

Your conversations are always very helpful.

I want to, in particular, point out and thank you for changing these terms from five-year terms to 15-year terms.

It helps us reduce the administrative burden, both on Council and I'm sure in your office as well.

And then thank you also for the additional facts about the difference between term permits for tunnels and sky bridges.

I learned for the viewing public, I learned that public benefits are required for sky bridges and not for tunnels because the sky bridges are in the public realm while the tunnels are underground.

So that was a new thing I learned.

And Amy or Beverly, maybe if you wanted to share the interesting fact about the streets around the Fairmont, that would be of interest.

And just thank you as always.

Sure.

So as I noted, this is the original site of the University of Washington.

And the University of Washington actually owns the streets in what we call the Metro Tract.

And SDOT leases these streets from the University of Washington to operate as public right of way.

So it's just an odd little unique feature to this portion of land in downtown Seattle.

Thank you.

Council members, any other comments or questions?

Okay.

Council members, I move that the committee recommend approval of council 12076 item four on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Any final comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120076.

Arbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the May 24 meeting of the full city council for consideration, final consideration.

Thank you, everybody, for being here this morning, both from SDOT, central staff, and also the owners of those buildings.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, will the clerk please read the title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda Item 5. Appointment 01914. Reappointment of Marilyn Kay Furman as member Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee for a term to March 31st 2024 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you and I'd like to take a moment to highlight the School Traffic Safety Committee's 2020 report which is available online at seattle.gov forward slash school hyphen traffic hyphen safety hyphen committee again at seattle.gov forward slash school hyphen traffic hyphen safety hyphen committee.

This report includes recommendations for safety improvements at the renovated Queen Anne Elementary School, changes to parking requirements at schools in general, engineering changes to reduce speeding at locations with high rates of speeding tickets, and safer design standards for schools.

Let's turn it over to the liaison to our committee for this school safety committee, Jennifer.

Good morning from SDOT.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you.

Hopefully you can hear me all okay.

I just wanted to give a brief recap of Marilyn and just say that SDOT is very pleased to have her on for a second term.

Marilyn is a retired elementary school counselor and an avid volunteer.

She's also a grandmother to a Seattle Public Schools kindergarten student.

And so this brings a unique perspective to the School Traffic Safety Committee.

She consistently advocates for improved safety around schools and has a firsthand understanding of the issues and challenges faced by students.

And like you mentioned, SDOT is pleased would be pleased to have her for a second term on our committee.

The committee is also working on an update to the annual report that CM Peterson mentioned.

So that would be the 2021 report.

And they would be happy to share that with you all as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And we really appreciate the candidate's willingness to serve another term for this important work.

Council members, any questions for SDOT regarding this?

I know we've all read the appointment packet.

But any questions at this time?

OK.

Jennifer, thanks again for joining us.

I'll go ahead and move that the committee recommend approval of appointment 1914, which is item 5 on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this reappointment.

Any final comments?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve appointment 19144?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Excellent.

Motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the appointment pass will be sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Thank you.

All right, will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item six, Council Bill 120052, an ordinance relating to the City Light Department, authorizing the general manager and chief executive officer of City Light to execute an interlocal agreement with Skagit County for the transfer of real property from Skagit County to the city of Seattle.

For briefing, discussion, and possible votes.

Thank you, and good morning to everybody from Seattle City Light.

And as usual, we'll give our city council central staff analysts an opportunity if they want to open it up with some remarks or to frame things up for us.

Eric McConaghy, good morning.

Good morning.

Yeah, hi, Eric McConaghy and council central staff.

This is the question before council now is to do with interlocal agreement between City Light and Skagit County about a small piece of property, but an important component should it be accepted into City Light's work on endangered species.

It would also accept the deed for the property.

City Light knows a lot about this, has been in this business for a while, and I think they've got some great things to share.

So with that, I'll step out of the way.

Other than to say it's a relatively straightforward exchange, and it comes to council because it has to do with property, and council is the governing body for City Light and has to be asked about these kinds of exchanges.

Thank you, Eric, on our central staff, and welcome Seattle City Light and General Manager Deborah Smith.

Thank you for being here.

Please.

Well, you've got the A team here from City Light.

I'm looking at great faces here.

So I'm just going to turn things over.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Eric, for your help in moving this forward.

And who on the City Light team is taking the lead?

No one's raising their hands.

Denise will take the lead with the presentation and we'll borrow from Michelle so we can get started.

Thank you, Debra.

Can we see the presentation?

Yes.

Okay, take it away, Denise.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you, Council, for being able to come forward and present this to you.

This is about an interlocal agreement that we're hoping you'll accept on behalf of Seattle City Light.

Mara, please move forward.

So essentially this interlocal agreement would transfer to City Light the ownership of a county lot that's approximately half an acre at no cost.

It would place this county lot under the jurisdiction of our Endangered Species Act or ESA lands program.

The lot is adjacent to other conservation parcels that City Light owns, and it will help City Light to restore this parcel to continue the restoration that we're doing in this area.

And restoration essentially would entail treating some invasive species on the property, most notably blackberry, and then also replanting it.

And this is something that replanting it mostly with conifers that are more beneficial to salmon and other wildlife.

And that is funding that we currently have.

Next slide, please, Maura.

And just to give you a little background on the Endangered Species Act program, it began in 2000 with the listing at the federal level of Chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

It focuses on acquiring habitat beneficial for fish in both the Skagit and Tolt watersheds.

And part of this is mitigation for the ESA incidental take statement for the Skagit license.

That's the current license.

Currently it's about 3,700 acres are protected in both the Skagit and Tolt watersheds right now.

And since 2000, we've spent 5.9 million in City Light funds and about 5.2 million dollars in grant funds specifically in the Skagit watershed under this program.

And next slide, Mara.

And then this is to show overall the acquisitions that we've done in the area under City Lights program.

The highlighted square with the parcel number is the lot that we're accepting from Skagit County.

And the green shows properties purchased under the wildlife lands under the current license.

And then the red shows properties purchased under the ESA program.

And that is what I have to present to council.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

Thank you, Denise.

I think I saw Bill Baum.

Oh, now we'll bring this all back up.

I can see everyone.

Greg, too.

Thank you all.

And thank you for your pre-briefing on this topic.

If you could actually bring up the PowerPoint again to the map of all of the parcels.

You briefly touched on this, Denise, and maybe if you could expand on it a little bit more.

The difference between the dollars that we spend for the licensure agreement and the Endangered Species Act, the last time we brought a transfer like this to the committee, it was in regards to the licensure agreement and the final purchase to meet our licensure needs.

This is different.

Can you kind of explain the difference between the Endangered Species Act dollar grants and the dollars that we have to spend to meet our licensure agreements?

Certainly.

So the ESA Lands Program formed with, as I said, the listing of Chinook and bull trout that was When the current license that this gadget is operating under went into effect, those species were not listed under the endangered species act.

Um, so this, this program was put in effect to essentially, um, have the city do its part to help, um, do salmon recovery in the watersheds that we were having an impact and that Um, is how this program came forward and that is why this program, uh, most of this program is not tied to, uh, the license.

Whereas, um, the parcel shown in green on this slide are tied to the license that was part of the agreement.

When the first license was negotiated, that certain amount of funds would be set aside for wildlife, um, habitat acquisition.

And that's what those green green funds show.

And the benefit of the ESA lands program.

Since most of it is not tied to mitigation to the Skagit license, we're able to apply for grant funds.

Most grant funds will not provide funding if something is a requirement for an entity to do.

And since this is what Seattle City Light does above and beyond requirements as part of our environmental stewardship, it allows us to apply for those grant funds.

So that way we're essentially furthering the reach of our, expanding the reach of our City Light dollars.

That's really, that's really excellent.

And do you know, and I'm sorry, do you know off the top of your head how much grant funding we have available to apply for and how much we've currently used?

And if you don't have that off the top of your head, happy to follow up offline.

Yes, well, I can certainly get you more complete numbers, but we currently in the Skagit, I often partner with the Skagit Land Trust to do acquisitions in the Skagit watershed.

And we currently have probably, I think it's around $800,000 under grants that we currently have to acquire properties.

And we share that money to acquire properties.

And then we also have a proposal before the Saskatchewan Watershed Council to increase that by another $400,000 for another parcel that we're trying to acquire.

That's great.

And I just want to raise up what you already said, that this grant funding and this program allows City Light to go above and beyond its licensure agreement.

So just really great work.

And I have to give credit due where it is for my next question.

Kate prompted me during our pre-committee briefing.

Can you share with us how COVID has impacted your purchasing in this area?

Yes, in the last grant round, we had a property that we had reached a verbal agreement with the seller to purchase.

And as we were going through the grant process and I was reaching out to the landowner to say, hey, here's the draft purchase and sale agreement.

We'd like you to sign it now that we have this verbal agreement.

And I was having a hard time reaching him.

I finally got ahold of him and he admitted that he was selling the property to a couple who was paying well above and beyond appraised value in a realm that we could never match.

And that's just part of my reality is what people are calling essentially urban flight from COVID to get to more rural areas where people are perceiving it's safer from COVID.

and at least more remote for people.

So that is my challenge.

And other land acquisition partners, their challenge is essentially being outbid by extreme levels and not being able to acquire some of these key parcels that we really want to get.

Well, keep up the great work.

You're doing great.

And really appreciate everyone from the City Light team, Tom, Bill, Greg, Kate.

I did see General Manager as well.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members, any other questions or comments before we vote on this council bill?

Okay.

Council members, I move the committee recommend approval of Council Bill 120052, item six on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Any final comments?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council 120052?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Thank you, everybody, from City Light.

Thanks, Eric.

Will the clerk please read the title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item seven, presentation, internet for all status report for briefing and discussion.

Thank you committee members in 2020, the city council adopted resolution 31956, and it was signed by the mayor and it sets the goal of enabling all Seattle residents to access and adopt broadband internet service that is reliable and affordable.

The resolution requested an action plan from Seattle IT, our Seattle Information Technology Department, to examine solutions to increase internet access and adoption.

And we received the first Internet for All report in September 2020. Today's report is a follow-up to that which was required by the resolution.

It's to summarize initial progress on the strategies to increase access and adoption of affordable and reliable Internet service.

So thank you, Seattle IT, for being here with this update.

Thank you, and good morning.

Hi, I'm Tracy Cantrell, and I'm here to give an update on the Internet for All.

I will be joined by our team and as we present the report, they'll be able to introduce themselves and their good work.

But first, I wanted to start out with just a little context setting.

So we were here in September to share our report on how we were addressing the resolution and provided a report.

Today, we're doing an update.

I want to remind ourselves before we jump into the mechanics of the report that really the elements of the Internet for All are multifaceted.

Having Internet access is just one element.

Most important, digital skills to complement that access, in addition to learning and having access to devices.

There are multiple factors of this work.

So as we move forward, you'll hear on how we're addressing some of these issues and we're going to highlight some of the good work that's been done.

So thank you.

Just a little reminder that we do have a gap.

Despite being a very rich technology city, we still have a gap that we need to close.

And this is just a reminder of what prompted this action to begin with.

So we know that we have specific areas and communities that need greater help.

We know that many strive or have issues with affordability for getting internet access.

And we look at different ways that we can close the gap in this report.

You'll hear a variety of updates as we move through the PowerPoint presentation, and hopefully this is a good opportunity to complement the many great activities that are happening in our city, in our community, and in our region.

We also need to remind ourselves of how important this work is today.

We have a COVID pandemic that has highlighted the need for this.

We know that people are dependent on internet and those tools more so than ever before.

There has been a acceleration of how we're using this in our community.

From anything from doctors visits being conducted remotely to the way we're holding council meetings, it has just amplified the need for this work.

David, why don't you share some of the results that we've gotten regarding data?

Thank you, Tracy.

So I'm David keys and I'm the digital equity program manager within this, this group at Seattle it.

And so we're really excited about some of this data information that we have.

I want to point out that the, you know, the work on the Internet for All is our collective public, private, and community effort.

And so the data that we're about to share report reflects that, the data here and in the report.

It generally reflects work done since the pandemic began with some data reflecting work into the first quarter of 2021. And data was collected from six city departments, four public agencies, including Seattle schools, and four private sectors and philanthropy partners.

So you'll see here kind of the report, tremendous work being done by our partners on the front lines and BIPOC communities through the schools with the internet service providers and others.

And the data includes 13 community organizations that we funded for digital equity programs.

And some of the data is also rolled up from multiple community-based partners and organizations.

And so it's significant to kind of have the reporting from this many partners.

And their work is key to us being able to report.

back to you on the metrics.

And this is new for some folks to even track these digital equity metrics.

So here's what we found and where we've seen progress in a snapshot of what's presented.

Just for notation that in the future, that future reports in a data dashboard will have more comparison to what we know of population gaps.

So starting with outreach and assistance, we are able to help 3000 residents with information to help them know about and apply for the low income internet programs.

So that work is ongoing to help people be aware of those and help them sign up.

On internet connectivity, there were at least 7,300 households who signed up for low-income internet programs in 2020. Seattle schools accounted for over 4,200 connections as they enabled student remote learning with both hotspots and fixed internet accounts, partly in partnership with Comcast and Wave.

And then there were great efforts to help get devices out, clearly, especially for students in the Seattle schools and with partners like Amazon who helped as well.

So 9,000 devices were purchased and donated to residents and 40,000 loaned, particularly through Seattle schools, stepping up their student device program, a huge effort during the pandemic.

And then on digital skills and technical support, the combination of public and private and community-based organizations provided 5,818, at least 5,818 hours of skills training, technical support and digital navigation assistance reaching 5,228 residents.

And so that's a mix of intensive training and helping people navigate to be able to use school resources, websites online and so forth.

Seattle schools to note also work to really scale up their support and continues to look at improvements in that system.

We're seeing a continuing evolution of calls online and now working towards limited safe in-person assistance as well.

So that's a brief snapshot on some of the data work that's gone on.

Hi, I'm Vicki Yuki and I'm with, of course, Seattle IT.

I'm the technology matching fund manager and I'm a strategic advisor.

I'm working on a lot of these issues as well.

So one of the things that we wanted to feature is that we are driving resources to communities in need.

In addition to the $320,000 in our technology matching fund, I was able to give a presentation on that last month.

but the 14 community-based organizations received grants.

And then we also had another grant for 25,000 to a 15th project directly from a private foundation.

The Seattle Public Library increased hotspot circulations to 410 targeted specifically to communities in need.

So there's 1,335, but then 410 of those were actually targeted towards very specific populations.

that we identify in our digital equity internet for all.

And then the Office of Economic Development provided 174 hotspots to digital bridge job seekers.

This is a program in partnership with Seattle Jobs Initiative, and the hotspots came from interconnection.

The Human Services Department, through a budget process, City Council budget process that allocated $50,000 last year, went to 138 hotspots for seniors in their social connectivity project.

And these hotspots come with one year of service.

And then, as David mentioned, Seattle Public Schools.

Seattle Public Schools distributed 43,000 laptops, iPads, and such tablet devices, along with 4,200 hotspots and internet codes, in addition to their launching of these eight technical support centers.

And so these are just a handful of the resources and opportunities that were made available due to Internet for All, as well as our digital equity initiative.

Oh, thanks, Vin.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Alice Lawson, Seattle IT, and I'm the City's Broadband and Cable Program Manager and also Wireless Affairs Advisor.

And I'm going to share a little information with you today about how enabling infrastructure improvements have been a way we've been increasing more physical access to free and high-capacity Internet services.

And for this, we're happy to highlight work that's been done in these areas.

First off with Wi-Fi, Seattle IT worked with Parks and Recreation to complete seven internal Wi-Fi upgrades.

And those are some that are in our Internet for All specific target areas of Garfield, International District, Miller, and Northgate community centers.

And then there's also Wi-Fi upgrades completed at Laurel Heights and Magnolia.

They've also completed site surveys and done some design work that's going to be important for deploying at Magnuson Park at the community center there, and that's looking at exterior Wi-Fi as well as expanded and upgraded interior Wi-Fi.

And the Langston Hughes is another area where they're continuing work to look at internal upgrades and the actual design work is being done and is pending some hazmat testing that has to go on.

And that's also going to be one where they're looking at interior and also a cost study for some exterior Wi-Fi.

The next area where we've done some work that's a future looking at making progress for a free internet is a community cellular network.

So the city, Seattle Public Schools, the Seattle Housing Authority have been actively collaborating over the last last months to support the University of Washington's local connectivity lab project.

and to help them find sites that are taller buildings where they can deploy some pilot community cellular network equipment.

And through this effort, Garfield and Franklin high schools have been identified and are being finalized as two initial deployment sites.

And the UW is also now ready by the end of this month to deploy its equipment on its first Seattle site, which is at the Filipino Community Center.

And that's located on Martin Luther King Jr.

Way between Columbia City and New Holly.

A next infrastructure related improvement that comes from one of our partners, our community partners, is lift zones from Comcast.

So through these lift zones, free and low cost connectivity options have been expanded.

through at Beacon Hill, through the El Centro de la Raza, the YWCA White Center, which serves the South Delridge neighborhood, YWCA Willows, which is New Holly neighborhood, and now with the University Heights Center in the U District.

And these LiftZone programs are opportunities to provide free Wi-Fi in the facilities to specifically help students get online, do distant learning, do their schoolwork, but they're also places where the families and those students can get access to other kinds of resources and use the connectivity.

Another big improvement has been, again, through partnerships, both Comcast and WAVE have responded to the need for more increased service capacity by providing and doubling the service levels of their low-cost programs they provide to our low-income residents.

So for $9.95 a month now, those residents can get 50 megabit I don't want to get too jargony here, service, that's download speeds, but also 5 megabit upload speeds.

And I want to particularly highlight that new upload speed of 5 megabits.

We consider that a real win because we know through the pandemic that the ability for people to communicate back up to the internet has been vital.

in terms of video classes and video meetings, and that has been a barrier for families.

So that speed increase was something that the city and Seattle schools had advocated for at the FCC as part of our urban broadband program development comments.

So we're glad to see that the cable operators responded to not only increasing the download speeds, but also the upload speeds.

And they have committed to making that a permanent part of that program.

Lastly, I would just mention our Access for All program, longstanding program we have at Seattle IT.

And in the last year, we've connected 18 new community organizations.

And under the program, they get free business class internet service.

It supports their operational needs, but it also provides Wi-Fi and other internet access for their clientele.

And the Access for All sites with the 18 additions now are 252 around the city.

And this program is another one where it's the direct partnership with Comcast and Wave who provide the free service to the community partners.

And just as a little texture of the impact, the 18 new organizations that we've supported this year, the clientele they serve reach youth, people of color, immigrant and refugee services, low income, domestic and sexual violence prevention, housing and homelessness, and arts and culture.

So it's reaching a wide variety of community-based organizations.

Next slide, Vin.

Great, so this is David again, David Keyes again.

And just to, we've been taking a look at continuing to both monitor and to...

Sorry, I was wondering about that.

We had a skip there, apologies.

So building regional partnerships, I'll continue to speak to that one, then I'll pass it off to you, David.

So building regional partnerships has been another part of our, important part of our strategy as before and during the Internet for All initiative refocusing.

And as it demonstrated through the highlights in our infrastructure improvements, it's the public, it's the community and private partnerships that have been essential in addressing the diverse digital equity needs of meeting those needs of the unconnected and our under connected residents.

and the city is continuing to focus on building and expanding those collaborations to achieve our IFA goals.

Some of the highlights, as I mentioned, we have the Access for All program.

We now have a new partnership with Lumen, which you may know more as CenturyLink, their new name is Lumen, to participate as one of our Access for All program providers, and they're providing the city with 20 gigabit connections to eligible community-based organizations.

And already one of those connections has been used to support the Filipino Community Center to support the community cellular network pilot.

So that is a nice direct connection.

This has a layered impact.

And another Lumen connection is underway to be set up at the Garfield High School location where the next community cellular pilot antenna will be deployed.

Two of our long standing key partners when we talk about regional partnerships has been Seattle Public Schools and the Seattle Housing Authority.

And both have now hired digital equity coordinators who are catalysts for increasing collaboration to meet the needs of their families in terms of working with the city and many of our digital equity learning network partners.

And again, I would highlight the partnership we have underway with the schools, with the housing authority, with the city, and with the University of Washington to support the effective pilot of the community cellular network.

And lastly, I just mentioned our TechConnect Washington.

So Seattle IT has been an active member of the Connect Washington coalition.

And that's a collaboration of digital access stakeholders across the state who are working to increase digital access to BIPOC communities, to students, and to elders.

And the coalition launched a TechConnect Washington community help desk, which provides free technical support to Washington residents to help them to be able to engage in a virtual environment.

With that, David, I will turn it over to you.

Thank you, Alice, and sorry about that.

So we're continuing to monitor for funding opportunities for the city and our partners, as well as being very active in advocating for state and federal policy that supports Internet for all.

So there's been generally three types of funding that's coming up through the state and federal governments.

And that's for broadband infrastructure, broadband adoption, including affordable internet subsidies, and to some extent digital literacy support, and money granted to cities and states that can be designated for more flexible purposes, which include internet for all.

And so there is the Federal Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that was passed.

That just got implemented, and I'll talk about that in just a minute.

the American Rescue Plan Act that had both some targeted funding and flexible local and state recovery funds for direct community support that could help improve digital equity.

One of those that is being worked on right now is the Emergency Connectivity Fund.

And we partnered with Seattle Schools, Seattle Public Library, the state and a number of others to submit comments about that.

That emergency connectivity fund will help provide some reimbursement for connectivity for students and an expansion of support for library patrons.

Those rules are still being put fully in place, so we're not sure yet exactly to what degree that will impact us.

We're also looking at guidelines being issued around capital funds, depending upon the Treasury rules.

So continuing to monitor that.

And then in the upcoming proposed American Jobs Plan and Infrastructure Bill, we're seeing some work going on there to include programs that could benefit our internet for all work.

The Digital Equity Act that Senator Murray proposed a couple of years ago is being folded into some of those proposals through this proposals coming from Clyburn and Klobuchar that was introduced.

We're also seeing a proposal that could help public housing authorities be able to seek reimbursement for internet costs for residents in subsidized housing.

So a lot at play there still, obviously, but something we're continuing to work on.

And then in the state budget, which just passed, We're quite active in that.

One of the things that passed was $7.5 million for a digital navigators program.

$6.2 million of that's going to go to a nonprofit.

We expect that that's going to end up benefiting folks in Seattle as well.

There's support for a digital equity dashboard.

the first digital equity inclusion position in the state broadband office, a small amount for planning, and some other funds for infrastructure, though most of the funds for broadband infrastructure at the state level are being targeted towards unserved areas, so areas that really have no internet at all right now, which includes actually some parts of King County.

And we've been working closely with King County on a number of areas.

They are working on development of a King County broadband strategic plan that will overlap well, I think, with our Internet for All.

So we'll see that coming out in the next couple of quarters as well.

And we'll continue to work with that.

King County also funded some digital equity grants this past year from some of the CARES money, so that was also benefited some of our community-based organizations and BIPOC community organizations in Seattle.

So the Emergency Broadband Benefit just launched.

It's providing a discount for residents for their internet costs on a very temporary basis.

That money is available until it runs out and there's no assurance of a specific length of time that people will get that discount, but it's an opportunity and we're working hard to both understand the program fully and get the word out.

We have a Digital Equity Learning Network seminar on this tomorrow.

Some of the providers are providing a discount on computers, tablets, or laptops.

Comcast, CenturyLink, Wave, AT&T, Mobile Verizon, PCs for People, HumanRT are some of those that are participating providers.

For those folks that are on the Comcast Internet Essentials low-income program, They have a pretty straight path to signing up for the discount through their Comcast accounts or Xfinity accounts.

So the eligibility on that is for low-income folks.

Those are on public assistance now, like Medicaid, SNAP, free or reduced lunch, the Lifeline program.

Nice to see an expansion to federal Pell Grant recipients and the US Department of Education is sending notices to all the Pell Grant recipients across the country to let them know about eligibility.

And then those that have been impacted through COVID.

have either lost jobs or been furloughed and had a large income loss are also potentially eligible for this benefit.

So I've included a phone number, 833-511-0311, or GetEmergencyBroadband for folks.

And so we're working on starting to promote this.

We just put up a post this past week.

as I mentioned, have put information on our website.

We'll be pushing that out.

And I know Council Member Peterson has looked at helping to get the word out about that.

And we really appreciate.

that and welcome the rest of the council and any folks out in the community that are listening to help get the word out so folks can take advantage of that.

There's no set amount, so we just want to make sure that our area gets some of the money to help relieve folks on their internet costs.

Next slide.

Okay.

we might have seen this slide and we're going to the next one yeah there we go all right great thank you so again as david mentioned earlier in the presentation when he was speaking on data a key element of the city's efforts is supporting residents and getting information and about connectivity and particularly low-income residents who have faced affordability barriers we want to ensure that they have the information both at an individual level and through our community-based organizations on how they might be able to benefit from those programs.

So while we do work through our community organizations and through that, we've been able to reach over 3,000 residents with the information, Seattle IT also continues to do direct work with residents and was able to support, in the last year, 900 residents.

with specific service requests related to information or actually applying for the WAVE low-cost program, which is administered through our office.

We do some of this connecting our community with information through, again, our community partners, but also website information.

We use an annual mailer that our cable operators do to their cable customers to put information about the low-cost programs and connection information.

And then we also help people through finding community-based organizations that could assist them in applying for a program if there's going to be language barriers and develop partnerships that way.

Currently, we have two really vibrant partnerships with El Centro de la Raza and the Chinese Information Service Center to support in-language applications for these low-cost programs.

In the past year, as I said, we've supported the 900 individuals and the community residents have reached over 3,000.

And it's hard to estimate during the year of the pandemic, there's been a lot less in-person use of community centers and libraries, but we also put information in those city locations so people can find it when they might be needing information to meet a need.

The last item we would highlight is that we've now completed and launched a dynamic map that is a GIS map of public facilities offering Wi-Fi, which notes interior and exterior coverage.

The website also features a screen-readable list of the sites and is capable to search for the sites nearby.

And some of the interesting features of the map that are improvements is it allows a user to click on a location, and then the map brings up the detail, as you're seeing now, to include whether it's interior or exterior, Wi-Fi available, and some other details about hours of availability.

And then there's also another feature where the Find City public Wi-Fi sites near me would allow a person to enter an address to try to narrow down locations that are close to them.

With that, I welcome Delia to share on how our Internet for All work continues.

Thank you, Alice.

Well, good morning, everyone.

My name is Delia Burke, and I'm a strategic advisor in the Community Technology and Broadband Group.

And again, thank you so much.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to have some space and to share some of the highlights and accomplishments that we've made with our partners over the last six months.

Many of these were in direct response to the COVID crisis.

But as you know, our North Star goal for Internet for All is to move Seattle closer to universal broadband adoption.

So this work will be ongoing as we look to make long-term systemic change in the community.

Some of the areas of focus coming up in the new year will be, again, sharing timely opportunities for our residents to obtain the low-cost internet through EBB or other programs that may come up.

and working closely with our community partners to build capacity to help them sign up residents.

We'll be actively looking for state, federal, and other funding opportunities.

We believe that our Internet for All framework makes us well-poised to take advantage of some of these as they arise.

And we also plan to continue to invest in the community through tech matching fund grants to upgrade Wi-Fi capabilities in our libraries and community centers and to make some real headway on developing a community cellular network here in Seattle.

And these will provide more connectivity options for our residents.

And these improvements will also benefit residents now and for years to come.

So lots of good things in the works.

We'll be excited to share progress on these items through an online Internet for All dashboard.

This dashboard will enable us to provide more real-time updates to share with our stakeholders and to celebrate successes as they come.

So we're looking forward to rolling that out.

And with that, that brings us to the end of our presentation.

Thank you.

And I wanna thank everybody at Seattle IT who has been working on, who were working on these issues, the digital divide before our internet for all resolution and really has been great to work with you as we develop that resolution and the action plan that you have As we know, the COVID pandemic has laid bare those digital inequities and your work to close the gap is very important.

I know Seattle IT is a lot of it is an internal facing department helping all of us with our our technology infrastructure, but the need externally in our communities is so great for access to the Internet.

As the new head of the Federal Communications Commission is saying, you know, the Internet, access to high-speed Internet is no longer a nice habit, it's a need to have for jobs, education, health, services.

And so I'm glad to hear you restate our goal of the universal adoption of high-speed Internet access.

In reading the report, the update, one of the themes that stood out for me is that there have been gains over the last several months as everybody has stepped up, both different levels of government, just like the FCC program that was discussed, different levels of government, but also the private sector providers.

Everybody's doing more.

And so it seems like one of the themes is to maintain the gain, to maintain what has been gained over the last few months, and to make sure that the private providers don't slip back to fewer subsidies or fewer opportunities for low-income households to adopt the high-speed Internet access.

you know, as you implement the action plan that we all agree to, please do let us know when you need a city council to step in and help with the private sector to make sure that they're providing what our low-income residents need.

The other thing that stood out for me is the dashboard.

and as the saying goes, what gets measured gets done.

And so very eager to see the dashboard when it's available so that we can recalibrate on how we're tracking toward the ultimate goal of getting universal adoption to high-speed internet access that's reliable and affordable.

And Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you so much.

I have a question about a slightly different issue around Internet access, and that relates to trying to understand how we can better incentivize providers through our contracts to make sure that they are building out their infrastructures in the city, in parts of the city that do not have access to broadband Internet because of I'm forgetting the terms in the contract, but there's one set of issues that relate to city requirements in order to make an area eligible for broadband access, and the other is, I'm not finding it right now, but there's like a non-standard use.

And so I have two examples of households in my district that have been trying for years, literally years, to get broadband access and have been unable to because of language within our own contracts that make it so that the providers aren't under any obligation to provide service.

If I could speak to that really quickly.

So one of the things that's really hard to accept, but it's the reality of our federal telecommunications law, is that it's siloed.

And the authority we have in those contracts you're referring to, which are cable franchises, are over a cable television service.

So we have no authority as a local government or as a state to require a broadband or an internet service provider to build out and to provide that service.

So there's an overlay there because our original cable television providers and that infrastructure they laid out to provide the TV then now has morphed to be a medium over which internet service is provided.

But now that we've changed to a time when people want just the internet service, we can't make that kind of requirement.

It's just we don't have that authority under federal law.

And so that's one barrier.

And then we did change back in 2015 because the vast majority of our city was built out with cable television service in order to incentivize more competition and the investment we got from CenturyLink.

to come and upgrade their system to fiber optics in about two-thirds of the city.

We changed our cable code.

We didn't require cable franchise areas with universal build-out.

Instead, we allowed a cable operator for cable television purposes to build out anywhere they wanted in the city.

So now we don't have the authority any longer to tell a cable operator you have to build to a certain house.

So that has left us with some small pockets of lots that didn't have cable TV in years past, and now they're hard to reach for one way or another.

But we just don't have that authority under contracts to require that.

Sorry, I didn't ask about a requirement.

My question was specifically, how do we incentivize?

So, so that yeah and in those cases we've got one off generally the problem is it's a very limited amount, maybe it is one house or two, and it's so expensive to build out that it's just there's no business case for them.

The way the city could potentially incentivize if we could find ways to work with them and this is a conversation we are having at Seattle it.

Is there a way to build out?

But in general, I would say that it's a return on investment question and it's very expensive.

I also think that advocating for the need is an important step to that process.

There may be barriers, but we have to keep championing this cause.

We can look for ways to amplify that message so that they understand that it's important to the city and our community, And although that message may not have as much strength as we want it, I do think it does help incentivize.

All right.

Well, this is me.

I have been advocating for Colin Hinshaw to be able to purchase broadband cable service since I took office in 2015. And we've been working with the providers, different providers, to try and help him.

And we've hit a wall.

So this is me advocating, elevating it.

We've talked to many people at different providers to try to help him and have really continued to hit walls.

So anything that you can do to help me lift his voice and get him service.

There's another group of families in another part of the district that are facing the same problem.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for raising that.

We won't be able to get internet for all.

We won't be able to achieve that unless everybody has it.

So I hope the Seattle IT can reach out to Councilmember Herbold's office to brainstorm on additional strategies to help with that, such as a Wi-Fi hotspot or something.

So Councilmember Morales.

Good morning, everyone.

I get as frustrated as Council Member Herbold with this conversation.

It is really difficult for me to understand how we can say at the same time that internet is a basic utility that we cannot function without in this day and age.

Our children can't do their schoolwork.

We can't go make medical appointments.

People can't apply for jobs.

They can't talk to their doctors.

It is essential that we have it.

And at the same time, we're talking about how if businesses can't make a business case for why they go to every individual household, there's not much we can do.

Our hands are tied.

We don't have authority.

Those two things are in conflict.

And as a local government, our responsibility is to make sure that everybody has access to what they need in order to thrive.

And so I expect that we will be hearing again from the folks who have been advocating for municipal broadband, because this is not sustainable for us to say that if you can't make the business case, then a particular neighborhood doesn't get a basic utility.

I think we're going to have to begin to have a really different kind of conversation in the city about what we mean when we're talking about equity, when we're talking about access to resources and to to basic utilities.

so that folks in our communities, particularly in neighborhoods that have been disinvested in for generations, are able to catch up with the rest of the city and to be able to do the things they need to do without having to worry about whether somebody can make a business case for it.

Thank you for that comment.

Well said, Council Member Morales, and this Internet for All effort from us is really the, you know, it's meant to get us to universal access to an adoption of high-speed broadband, but if this does not work, it's gonna, you're absolutely right, that it's going to give a lot more strength to the movement to have that infrastructure just owned by municipal government.

So I look forward to bringing Seattle IT folks back in a few months, looking at the dashboard, seeing whether these issues raised by committee members can make even more progress with the private sector providers of this technology.

I really want to thank everybody for their work in putting this together.

And actually, we had you scheduled a month earlier, and I'm glad it actually got moved to today so that we could get the information out about the Federal Communications Commission program.

And we'll figure out other ways to get that out through the council members have their e-newsletters where they can advertise that benefit, which will be really useful for the rest of the pandemic.

the lingering effects of it.

Council members, any final comments or questions for our Seattle IT folks?

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

We'll see you next time, and we'll be in touch in between as well.

And please do reach out to Council Member Herbold's office and Council Member Morales' office as well.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, bye-bye.

Okay, Council Members, we are now to the part of the agenda, the meatiest part of the agenda, which is the information technology items.

These are existing technologies that Seattle Police Department uses and We are at the toward the end of the process where we will amend and approve the surveillance impact reports.

Those who are watching, please know that this process actually continues beyond the surveillance impact reports because the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety does ongoing work for these technologies beyond the amendments and approval of the surveillance impact reports on these three existing technologies and actually all SPD technologies.

So let's have the clerk read the next agenda item into the record.

We'll take these bills one at a time.

Go ahead.

Agenda item eight.

Council Bill 120053, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation, authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of forward-looking infrared real-time video for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

So two weeks ago, we had a presentation on these three existing SPD technologies and had the memos at that time from our central staff analysts.

Thank you, Lisa Kaye, for your early and hard work on this.

Today we'll be voting on amendments to these three surveillance impact reports.

This is the first one, this Bill 12053. And thank you, Councilor Herbold, for your work on getting your amendments in the very thorough and got those approved by our city attorney's office in advance, since sometimes these actions could impact our federal consent decree.

So we were able to get those ready to go.

They're on the agenda for the viewing public.

We'll turn it over first to our central staff analyst, Lisa Kay, and then we'll be able to address the amendments.

Go ahead, Lisa, good morning.

Good morning, Council Member.

What I would propose to do is share my screen and then I can project each of the amendments as we talk about them.

And then I'll introduce the amendment and then turn it over to the sponsor of the amendment to speak to that amendment.

Does that work?

Yeah, it does.

And committee members, just so you know, we do have Seattle I.T.

here with us as well as the police department in case there are questions related to the amendments.

The amendments are by from me and from Councilmember Herbold.

OK, so I'm assuming you're seeing the shared screen now.

Yes.

Okay, so we'll start with the amendments to Council Bill 120-053.

This is the bill that would accept the surveillance impact report and authorize continued use of forward-looking infrared technology.

That technology is used with the sheriff's helicopters to view thermal images on the ground.

So the first amendment that you see before you is sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

This reports that SPD reports its metrics that it will provide to the Chief Technology Officer for the officer's annual equity assessment.

Council Member Peterson had similar amendments with the Group 2 CSRS that you may remember.

Council Member, did you want to speak to that before I move on?

Yes, thank you, Lisa.

So committee members, this is the same amendment that we approved for all the previous surveillance impact reports, and we have it for this bill and the other two bills that we're going to vote on today.

And it's just as Lisa Kay said, having SPD report back on the metrics they'll be using for their equity assessments.

And there are a couple of different ways we could handle the parliamentary procedure on this.

We can hear all the amendments and discuss them, and then I can just go through each one and move them after we've heard the totality of them.

And as I'm saying it out loud, I think that would be best.

I prefer that.

Council Member Morales, I don't know if you have your hand up for, do you have your hand up for this item?

Sorry, it's lowered.

Okay.

So let us keep going with the amendment descriptions and each sponsor, Lisa Herbold can talk about her amendments and then I'll just move them all.

We'll just move them each one and vote on each one afterward.

Because I think that, I suspect there'll be consensus on these.

So go ahead, Lisa K, please continue.

Thank you, Council Member.

So the next four amendments to this bill are sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

Amendment two would request that the police department develop policy by the end of the fourth quarter of 2021, defining the purpose and allowable uses of this technology, including the circumstances in which the police department can request use of the technology.

I will wait, turn it to Council Member Herbold if she has any additional comments.

One thing that I think might be helpful, and I'm looking to maybe pull it up in case you don't have it handy, Lisa, is for each of these amendments, the police department provided some feedback, and you really helpfully give your sort of your response to their feedback.

And I'm wondering if it might be useful for purposes of the public following along here.

Well, let me see, I was pulling it up right now.

Hear a little bit about whether or not the department had specific response and what your analysis was on that response.

I can do that.

I don't have a slide to do that, but I am prepared to just give kind of a high level.

High level is all I'm looking for.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

Okay, so this amendment, as I said, would ask the SPD to identify the circumstances in which SPD can use the technology.

The police department's response identified policy 16-060, which is the policy that basically provides the description of how the police department can call out air support unit from the sheriff's office.

And so that policy cites a life safety incident or a serious crime incident as examples where air support would be beneficial.

I would my response basically is that that policy still does not define what a serious crime incident is or restrict the uses to specific types of crimes.

So that was That's all I had on that one.

So Councilor Herbold and Lisa Gayser, it just sounds like this is a situation where the police department is saying, well, we already have a policy for this.

Here it is.

And then we're saying, yeah, but we would like it more crystal clear.

And this is our real opportunity to weigh in.

And so we would still like this to be layered into it.

Is that right?

Exactly.

And the reason why I'm asking that Lisa Kay offer this a little bit of additional detail is because there are three instances of my amendments that I I'm inclined to agree with SPD.

And so I just want to be able to, for the public to hear that we took the input of SPD and central staff, then took another look at the policy and what SPD was saying.

And we made a determination of whether or not we were going to agree with SPD's analysis or whether or not we were going to ask for that little additional detail in the policy.

as consistent with the surveillance ordinance.

Great.

Colleagues, any questions about this amendment before we move on to the next amendment?

Okay, go ahead, Lisa.

Thank you, Council Member.

Council Member Three, also sponsored by Council Member Herbold, would request that the Police Department develop policy requiring the redaction or deletion of information that may compromise the privacy of individuals not related to a specific investigation.

SPD's response was that the department policy does require deletion of photographic or video evidence not needed for an investigation.

I had to say that I haven't found that specific language in the operating manual, but in any case, the proposed amendment, again, as with the previous one, is asking for a more specific policy related to how that information is redacted or deleted specifically to the use of the forward-looking infrared video technology.

Council Member Herbold.

Nothing to add, thank you.

Okay, let's do amendment four.

Okay, here we go.

Amendment four, sponsored by Council Member Herbold, requests that the police department develop policy by the end of the fourth quarter, prohibiting the use of forward-looking infrared technology to disproportionately surveil communities of color and other historically over-policed communities.

SPD's response cited their policy 5.140, which is bias-free policing.

They said that that policy addresses the issue.

It states that the department is, quote, committed to eliminating policies and practices that have an unwarranted disparate impact on certain protected classes, unquote.

So again, however, that policy doesn't explicitly prohibit the use of this technology, the FLIR technology, to disproportionately surveil communities of color and other historically overpoliced communities.

Council Member Herbold, anything to add?

Nothing to add.

Consistent with the analysis from Lisa K. I'm intending to move this amendment forward.

Okay, and amendment five.

Okay, this is the last amendment to this particular bill.

So this one sponsored by Council Member Herbold requests that starting September 1st of 2022, the police department reports annually on its use of the forward-looking infrared technology including how SPD used the data that it collected, the amounts of data that it did collect, the retention and storage of the data, and neighborhoods over which the helicopters and or the FLIR technology were deployed.

In its response, SPD identified a number of workload issues that affect its ability to produce these types of reports.

But it does appear that they could, at a minimum, compile deployment history for the department's use of forward-looking infrared technology.

They basically said they probably already have that data.

They just need to put it together.

And thank you.

And I let SPD, reminded SPD of this council's established history of showing flexibility with deadlines.

And I believe this one, a year out, more than a year out from today, it's September, 2022. Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold for thoroughly looking at these and then coming up with these amendments and then also the back and forth with SPD and just the, you know, this is the council's main opportunity to put in additional, more explicit language or refined language or guardrails.

So even if SPD already has a broader policy or And we're not saying that they're doing these things that we're putting in the guardrails for, but this is our opportunity to put the guardrails in and be more explicit.

And so appreciate the back and forth dialogue on that.

So from a parliamentary procedure question here, Councilor Hurdle, you're gonna be keeping all of your amendments for this one, correct?

So what I'll be doing is I'll move each of the amendments, and you can second them, and then we can just go right through them.

But for the other committee members, if you do have any questions about these amendments, let us know.

And otherwise, we'll just go through and we'll start moving the item and the five amendments on this one council bill before we move to the next two council bills.

Okay, well, first, I'll go ahead and just put this bill officially on the table here.

Council members, I now move that the committee recommend approval of Council Bill 120053, item eight on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

I now move to amend Council Bill 120053 as presented in amendment one on the agenda.

Is there a second?

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. And I already spoke to this as a sponsor of this item.

This is the same amendment we've approved for all the surveillance impact reports thus far.

And are there any comments on Amendment 1?

OK, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion passes to incorporate Amendment 1. I move to amend Council Bill 12053 as presented in Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 2. Councilor Herbold, anything to add as sponsor of this amendment?

Just for the record, this amendment requests draft policies defining purpose and use, including circumstances where officers may request forward-looking infrared real-time video assistance.

Thank you.

So it's been moved and seconded to amend this bill as presented in our amendment to any final comments.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment 2 is incorporated.

I move to amend Council Bill 120053 as presented in Amendment 3 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented as Amendment 3. Councilor Hurdle, in response to the amendment, any additional comments?

Thank you.

Again, just for the record, this Amendment 3 requests policies requiring deletion of images to protect the privacy of individuals not connected with an investigation.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further comments on this Amendment 3?

Will the court please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Drought?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries, and Amendment 3 is incorporated.

I move to amend Council Bill 120053 as presented in Amendment 4 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented as Amendment 4. Council Member Herbold is a sponsor of this amendment.

Any further comments?

Amendment 4 requests policies prohibiting disproportionate surveillance using the forward-looking infrared real-time video technology.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further comments on Amendment 4?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment four is incorporated.

I move to amend Council 120053 as presented in Amendment five on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill is presented on Amendment five.

Council Member Herbold is the sponsor of the amendment.

Any final comments?

Amendment 5 is the amendment that requests the annual report for the forward-looking infrared real-time video and helicopter deployment.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any additional comments on Amendment 5?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 5?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment five is incorporated in the bill.

Are there any final comments on this bill as amended by the five amendments?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120053 as amended?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And the committee recommendation that the bill pass, we sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Colleagues, we have just two more council bills on our agenda today.

They're both existing SPD technologies as well.

We have a series of amendments.

Hopefully you found that parliamentary procedure to be okay, and we'll do it for the next two bills as well, unless there are any other thoughts on that.

Will the clerk please read the title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item nine, council bill 120054. An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation, authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of situational awareness cameras without recording for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

So once again, let's turn this over to our central staff analyst, Lisa Kay, to walk through the amendments.

Feel free to give a quick overview of what this technology does.

And then we do have Seattle IT and SPD here with us if we have any questions.

The amendments are similar.

Well, there's one amendment from me, which is almost identical to the previous ones on equity assessments.

And then Councilor Herbold has some amendments that we'll walk through.

Lisa Kay, take it away.

Okay, thank you, Council Chair, Committee Chair.

So Council Bill 120.054 would approve the surveillance impact reports and authorize the continued use of situational awareness cameras.

These cameras are used by the SWAT teams to provide visibility of ongoing incidents from a safe distance.

As you mentioned, Amendment 1, Council Member Peterson, is your amendment that asks for a report on the metrics that the Police Department will provide to the Chief Technology Officer for their annual equity assessment.

Thank you.

Yes, Amendment 1 is what we have passed on the previous bills, having SPD report back on the equity metrics.

Any comments or questions on this amendment?

and we'll go ahead and have Lisa Kay walk through all the amendments, and then we'll circle back and do the parliamentary procedure and vote on each one as required.

Please continue, Lisa Kay.

Thank you.

Amendment two is sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

This amendment requests that the police department develop policy by the fourth quarter of 2021. defining the purposes and uses of this technology, including restrictions on downloading or streaming images from these cameras.

In this instance, SPD's response noted that the department currently has policy restrictions on downloading and streaming of the images from the situational cameras.

I have to say, I didn't actually find those policies.

I wasn't able to find those.

I did look at some policies that pertain to photographic evidence.

Those don't, however, specifically prohibit the personnel from downloading or streaming images.

Policy 7.090 on photographic evidence does allow employees to temporarily store working copies of images on a department computer to meet an operational need.

However, these are to be removed from the department computer once the photographic evidence is no longer needed.

So I think that this policy would provide, the request for this policy is to provide some additional clarification that the images from these situational cameras may not be downloaded or streamed.

Council Member Herbold, a sponsor of this amendment, would you like to speak to it?

Nothing really to add here.

I think this additional clarity around downloading and streaming images is distinct from the existing policies.

And for that reason, I do intend to move this amendment forward.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions about Amendment 2?

Oh, Council Member Morales, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, not specifically about the amendment, but Lisa, you've mentioned a couple of times now that you were not able to find policies that you were looking for.

Can you just explain what you're talking about for a minute so we understand what's going on?

Sure.

I basically reviewed the operations manual to look at policies to see if I could find The policies that were referenced in here and I there may be a separate manual for the SWAT team.

I don't know that I have inquired of police department.

I usually send them lists of questions pertaining to these and they gave me responses, but I did not find a I did not find the policy that they're referencing here.

that prohibits downloading and streaming of the images from the cameras.

And in the information that we received from SPD, in many cases, when they said we have policies, they also included links to where they were pointing where the policies lived.

And I think those are the places that you looked and didn't necessarily...

There were policies, but they didn't completely align with the policies that we were seeking.

Exactly.

And I can send that correspondence from SPD to the committee members as well, if they'd like to read it, because there are a lot of really useful links included around the various policies that might touch on some of these technologies, but not to the level of detail that we're seeking.

And to be fair, those policies are referenced in the surveillance impact report.

And so they do provide as much information as they can about how their policies are stated.

And I think there may be a general understanding in the department that something is done a certain way.

based on kind of the cumulative interpretation of policies, but that's different than having a specific policy that puts this fine of a point on the issue.

Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to understand.

If there is something that we just haven't been given access to, or if there is something there, it just doesn't meet what we're actually interested in.

And then you're right, Lisa, if there is a difference between policy, which is something that is written and we can point to, and practice, which is what it sounds like is the response we're getting that there isn't actually a policy, but our practice is to do something.

And those are very different.

So yeah, it would be helpful to see what the correspondence has been.

Thank you.

And council members, we have the executive here as guests to our committee.

I'll just leave it up to your discretion, whether you want to, you know, ask them directly.

I don't, you know, this is our meeting as council members.

So it's really up, you know, it's up to you.

They're here as a resource, but I don't want to, you know, necessarily, you know, You know, it's basically up to you whether you want to use this time to have that discussion or not, or whether you can get the information later, totally up to you.

They were just very generous with their time, wanted to be here as a resource, and I just wanted to remind you they are here, but we can also proceed as is.

And Council Member Rallis, your hand is still raised electronically, but I didn't know if you wanted to keep if you have another question.

I thought it just lowered automatically once I'd asked my question.

I will actually do that myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we're ready to move on to the next amendment for discussion.

Sure.

I think the hand lowering will be like Zoom 3.0.

It'll recognize the inflection in our voice and the handle on that.

It would be helpful.

Okay.

Amendment three is sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

This one would request that the police department develop a policy by the fourth quarter prohibiting the procurement of situational awareness cameras that are equipped with facial recognition or recording capabilities.

SPD's response noted that they can't use the recording capabilities or any sort of facial recognition with these cameras without having specific approval of a surveillance impact report that describes that kind of use.

And the reports that we have do not identify any use of recording with these cameras or facial recognition.

For Council Member Herbold, please.

So in this case, I am agreeing with the department, and for purposes of this committee meeting, unless I get any additional information before full council, I'm going to pull this amendment, because I believe it is redundant with the obligations in the surveillance ordinance to develop a new SIR for council approval if capabilities are added outside of the scope of those approved in this legislation.

Thank you.

Yes, it does seem that the underlying surveillance ordinance already has those structural guardrails in place, but I appreciate you putting this out there and having that discussion.

the police department certainly knows that we have this concern.

So colleagues, any other comments on this item?

So for the parliamentary procedure for this, that was the end of our amendments for this, correct?

For this item, okay.

So I'll go ahead and do the similar thing where I'll put the bill on the table and then we'll amend it with amendments, in this case, one and two, and then we'll move on to the last item on our agenda.

Okay, council members, I now move the committee recommend approval of Council Bill 120054, which is item nine on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this bill.

Regarding the first amendment, I move to amend Council 120054 as presented in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to to amend the bill is presented on Amendment one.

I'm sponsor of this item.

I spoke to it earlier, but this is a good time.

If anybody has any final comments on Amendment one, okay, well, the clerk, please call the role in the adoption of Amendment one.

Her bold.

Yes.

Morales.

Council member Morales.

Yes.

Charles?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and Amendment 1 is adopted.

I now move to amend Council Bill 120054 as presented in Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 2. Council Member Herbold, as the sponsor of this amendment, would you like to add any comments?

Just want to say for the record that Amendment 2 relates to the situational awareness cameras and request policies prohibiting the downloading or streaming of images.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any final comments on Amendment 2?

OK, it's been, let's see here.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment 2 is adopted.

Colleagues, any final comments on this bill as amended before we vote on it?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120054 as amended?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the May 24 City Council meeting for final consideration.

Okay, colleagues, we have our last item on the agenda.

It's also an SPD existing technology and a surveillance impact report.

Will the clerk please read the title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item 10, Council Bill 120055. an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of video recording systems for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

And as last, as we did for the previous two bills, we'll hear from central staff and Leslie K. Again, Seattle IT and police department are available.

These video recording systems are those used at SPD facilities.

That's an important point.

Please, Lisa K, go ahead and you trying to share your screen.

There you go.

Well, I seem to be having a technical difficulty that my PDF doesn't want to load the last three pages of of this.

So with your permission, I find when I close those and reopen them, then those disappearing pages reappear.

Okay, I'm gonna try that with your patience.

I mean, in the meantime, we could talk a little bit about Amendment 1, which is your amendment for the equity metrics.

Again, asking for a report from the Police Department about the metrics that it will provide to the Chief Technology Officer relative to the video recording systems.

Yes, that's right, Amendment 1 is the same as the previous Amendment 1s on the previous two bills, as well as all the other surveillance impact reports we've approved previously with Group 2. This is Group 3. And I'm happy to answer any questions about that while Lisa K.

pulls up the other amendments that we have.

We have two more amendments to discuss on this final item.

Yes, and I'm not going to be able to pull those up because my VPN system would need, I would need to reboot the entire VPN.

Which I can do if you like, but I think that would be.

I think we can handle it.

Yes, I'm sorry.

I might be able to share my screen too.

Okay, let me.

What could possibly go wrong?

I could give you a lesson on what could go wrong.

Oh, look at that.

Look at you.

Are you seeing Proposed Amendment 2?

OK.

Great.

Well, go ahead, Lisa Kay.

OK.

Thank you, Chairman.

Okay, so Amendment 2 is sponsored by Council Member Herbold, and this one would request that the Police Department develop a policy by the fourth quarter of 2021 defining the purpose and only allowable uses of these video recording systems.

SPD's response noted that the allowable uses are controlled by department policy, They didn't say it directly, but the purpose and uses, I think, for this technology are well summarized and completely summarized in the executive overview, which would be approved if Council passed Council Bill 120055.

Thank you.

And in this instance, I do concur that the executive overview itself contains a policy defining purpose and use of this technology, and for that reason, purpose and use, which identifies the allowable purposes and allowable uses of the video recording systems.

And for that reason, I'm going to hold this amendment.

Thank you.

That's an excellent point.

The actual ordinance we're approving comes with an executive overview, and that layers in some clarification already from the department on what they're doing.

And we are then approving that here today.

So that's already baked in.

OK, well, let's go to Amendment 3. One moment.

There is something shameful about me needing to have the chairman of the committee on his screen.

I apologize.

This is not...

Okay, amendment three for the final council panel.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sure.

Okay, amendment three would request that the police department develop a policy by the fourth quarter prohibiting the use of video recording systems with facial recognition capability or the use of those systems with facial recognition systems.

SBD didn't provide any specific comments on this.

However, their response to Amendment 3 to the situational awareness cameras also does apply here.

Should the department wish to use any facial recognition technology provided by or through these video recording systems, the department would need to receive council authorization through a new surveillance impact report.

Councilor?

That summarizes it well.

So again, for the viewing public, I'm holding and asking that we not vote on amendments two and three in this legislation.

OK, thank you.

And you explain it really well in the previous bill, the reasoning for that, the underlying surveillance ordinance should provide those guardrails where they're required to come back to us with a new surveillance impact report if they are adopting any new surveillance technologies.

OK, thank you.

Okay, council members, I'll go ahead and do the parliamentary procedure for this.

It's just the one amendment at this point.

So council members, I now move the committee recommend approval of Council Bill 12055, the last item on our agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 12055 as presented in amendment one on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. And I addressed this already as the sponsor earlier.

It's the same amendment we've approved previously.

Any final comments on this amendment?

OK.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Council Members, any final comments on the amended version of this bill?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Council Bill 120055 as amended?

Herbold?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent as amended, will be sent to the May 24th City Council meeting for final consideration.

I want to thank Seattle IT, our central staff, Lisa Kay, and also SPD for their help with these bills.

And this group three surveillance and back report package will go to the full council May 24th.

And colleagues, that was the last item, and this therefore concludes the May 19, 2021 meeting of the Transportation Utilities Committee.

The committee plans to meet again on June 2nd.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.