Seattle City Council Public Safety & Human Services Committee 4/12/22

Good morning.

The April 12, 2022 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee will come to order.

It is now 9.32 AM.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Thank you Councilmember Nelson.

Councilmember Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Lewis and Chair Herbold.

Here.

We have four present.

Thank you so much.

So on today's agenda, we will be hearing four items.

The first will be an update from the Seattle Department of Human Rights on the Statement of Legislative Intent 013-A-002 on citywide hiring incentives.

We originally had Senior Deputy Mayor Harrell who was going to be with us to present, but Senior Deputy Mayor Harrell is unable to attend, so this item will be presented by Keith Gulley of the Seattle Department of Human Resources and Interim Director of the Seattle Department of Human Resources, Kimberly Loving.

Thank you so much for joining us on short notice.

We'll also be hearing an update from Presiding Judge Gregory on the Seattle Municipal Court Probation Evolution 2020 Zoom update.

We'll be hearing from Chief Diaz on a statement of legislative intent from the council, SPD 18A1.

This statement of legislative intent asks the department to, the Seattle Police Department, to report on their participation on several federal task forces, you'll see that much of the work of these task forces has an outcome of removing guns from people who should not have them, among other outcomes.

I am really thinking today of how grateful I am for this work on the morning of a New York City mass shooting in a Brooklyn subway.

Lastly, we'll be hearing a presentation from Seattle Central staff on the bill, Council Bill 12-0294.

This is the first bill in the pay-up policy package, which addresses minimum payment transparency and flexibility for gig workers or contract workers who are not protected by our other labor laws.

I want to note that Council Member Lewis has joined the meeting.

Councilmember Lewis, thanks for being here with us this morning.

And we will now approve our agenda for our committee meeting this morning.

If there's no objection, today's agenda is Hearing no objections, today's agenda is adopted, and at this time, we will transition into public comment.

In order to have as many speakers as possible testify this morning, there are no objections.

I will suspend the rules to allow an additional 10 minutes for a total of 30 minutes of public comment.

Hearing no objections, public comment has been extended.

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

As of the number of speakers signed up and testified this morning, each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in order would stay registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak, but would like to do so, you can sign up before the end of the public hearing by going to the council's website.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, you'll hear a prompt.

And once you've heard that prompt, Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

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

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

If the speakers do not end their public comment at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds.

to allow us to hear from the next speaker.

Once you've concluded your comments, please disconnect from the line.

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

46 people signed up for public comment.

And again, I will read names into the record one at a time.

Our first speaker is Howard Gale, and Howard will be followed by Danielle Alrado.

Howard.

Good morning.

Howard Gale, District 7, commenting on our failed police accountability system.

It is now over eight months since Carolyn Bick at the South Seattle Emerald published her exposé of the failures, malfeasance, and corruption at the OIG and the OPA.

Yet we know of no actions taken by the council to address these findings and no findings of any independent investigation.

We've become so inert to a policing system that responds with violence and has never held accountable that we have now gone over three months without even knowing the name of the man experiencing a behavioral health crisis and murdered by the SPD in Beacon Hill.

The council, especially the Public Safety Committee, has not only displayed gross indifference at the failings of our accountability system, but has gone to great lengths to paper over and defend its failings.

I congratulate and support the Seattle Human Rights Commission for breaking through this indifference by voting overwhelmingly last week to seek amicus status in the policing consent decree federal court case in order to more accurately represent to the court what is actually happening in Seattle.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Danielle Alvarado and Danielle will be followed by Talisha Harold.

Danielle.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm the executive director of Working Washington here to express our strong support for the pay up policy, which will raise pay, protect flexibility and provide transparency to gig workers currently excluded from our city's labor standards.

Our city has taken great strides in recent years to advance equity and to center the voices of historically excluded workers.

Ending the exclusion of gig workers from labor standards will make work better for people of color immigrants workers with disabilities LGBTQ workers and single parents.

No one should be working for less than minimum wage in Seattle in 2022. Passing this policy is a racial justice issue which is why organizations like One America and Somali Community Services have endorsed it.

Partners including the Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance and Seattle Restaurants United support it because they agree that providing basic protections to gig workers is critical to ensuring an equitable recovery.

This is a well-crafted labor standards policy which has been developed through an extensive year-long stakeholder process.

The work has been done and it's time for action.

Let's make gig worker exclusions a thing of the past.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Talisha Harold and Talisha will be followed by Molly Jones.

Talisha.

Hello, this is Talisha Harold.

Thank you for hearing me.

I started doing gig work in 2020 because my work as a sales rep shut down due to the pandemic.

At first, gig work was my full-time employment.

But as I started seeing how easily shoppers were deactivated without adequate review and appeal process, and unfair pay, inconsistent pay, untransparent pay, I decided to start my own shopping business I still do sometimes shop for Instacart in my open windows, but it really shouldn't, not every gig worker should have to start their own business so that they can ensure that they're gonna be treated fairly by opportunity, pay, and transparency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Molly Jones, and Molly will be followed by Leif Gehring.

Molly?

Molly, remember to press star six.

There you go.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment today on the payout policy.

For the record, my name is Molly Jones, and I'm the vice president of public policy at WTIA.

a nonprofit dedicated to fostering an equity-centered tech sector that empowers thriving communities.

App-based companies enable essential economic functions from food and grocery delivery that have provided a lifeline to restaurants and residents during the pandemic, to childcare at a time when our city is strained to provide resources that enable women to get back to work.

Worker earnings in this sector are highly complex, and if regulated poorly, can adversely impact a broad ecosystem of merchants, customers, and workers.

We are concerned that this ordinance fails to incorporate sufficient stakeholder consultations, data, and learnings from industry partners who are at the forefront of the policy.

For example, WTIA and our members recently partnered with state legislators, labor unions, and others to negotiate the first in the country statewide regulation of app-based ride-sharing companies.

This cooperation is not only possible in Seattle, it is necessary for such a complex topic.

We would be happy

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Leif Gehring, followed by Orlando Santana.

Leif?

Leif, remember to press star six to unmute yourself.

I'm still seeing you on mute there.

You can hit star six if you're with us.

Leif, star six, if you could hit star six so we could hear you.

Calling one more time for Leif Goering.

All right, we will try to come back, Mr. Gehring.

Orlando Antenna is showing is not present, so we'll go down to Magnolia Klee, and Magnolia Klee will be followed by Justin Hire.

Amanda.

I'm sorry, Magnolia.

Here you are.

Hi, thank you for your time.

My name is Magnolia.

I'm a gig worker on TaskRabbit in Seattle, and I'm here because I support the pay up policy and I want to see action on it now.

I started doing gig work in 2020 after feeling unsafe in my job and after-school program, so I began cleaning homes on TaskRabbit.

I now have my own business and clients, but I use TaskRabbit to fill the gap, and I rely on this app for steady work.

Not to mention, before I set up a business, this was my only source of work.

I want City Council to know that this isn't a side gig.

I'm not doing this to pay for vacation or to buy a PS5.

I'm doing this to pay rent, buy food, buy medicine, survive.

What I'm making doesn't give me the budget for much else, especially not enough to build up savings.

TaskRabbit controls the market rates by suggesting what you should charge for your work and warning if your rate is too high.

New taskers are strongly encouraged to charge $18 per hour for skilled work.

This is far below minimum wage and even before expenses this is far below a living wage.

We the workers of Seattle have very limited options for safe work.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard spot.

Thank you, Magnolia.

Our next speaker is Justin Hire and Justin will be followed by Brian Rodriguez.

Good morning.

My name is Justin Hire and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Same Day Delivery Platform SHIPS.

I'm calling to speak on item number four.

The businesses that make up the sharing economy operate in differing ways, ways that fit the individual needs of our unique customers, as well as for the workers who choose to seek out earning opportunities.

The ordinance before you offers up a one-size-fits-all approach that does not account for these differing business models, creating the potential for additional barriers to entry for workers that ultimately drive down the flexible earning opportunities available to them.

This legislation talks about flexibility, something we care deeply about at Shipt.

It's worth noting that 75% of our shoppers choose to work less than 10 hours a week for Shipt.

And nationally, the 1% of Shipt shoppers who choose to work more than 40 hours a week on average earn more than $67,000 a year.

We provide shoppers with the info they need to make decisions on which offers are best for them, including the location, the estimated time it takes to complete an offer, and a pay estimate outlining the minimum they'll make on that job.

I'm running out of time, so I'll just encourage you, please check out the comments I sent over yesterday regarding our pay.

Happy to meet any time and discuss.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brian Rodriguez, and Brian will be followed by Maria Hernandez.

Brian?

Oh, my name is Brian Rodriguez, and I am a Dasher based in Seattle.

I am working to save enough to go back to school without having to depend on my parents and family.

All of us are going through a hard time right now, especially with the pandemic, rising gas prices and inflation.

But Dashing has made it possible to remain financially free, all while making it to class on time.

Not having to choose between my education and making money has made these uncertain times easier.

And I wanted to say that way.

I stand before you today because I worry that the current pay-up proposal is problematic.

If we're trying to pass a proposal to help Dashers, I want to know that our legislators have done everything necessary to make it sure it actually does end up helping us, not hurting us.

I ask the City Council to take more time to study pay-ups so that you may better understand the consequences of this proposal before passing it.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Maria Rodriguez, followed by Allison Ford.

Maria.

I understand Maria actually needs interpretation services.

So if Patty can be unmuted as well.

Thank you so much.

Maria, we need you to hit star six to unmute yourself.

There we go.

Hello, good morning.

Thank you for listening to us.

My name is Maria Hernandez and I work for Dolph Dash.

Necesitamos la política PIA para poder vivir con más dignidad.

We need a PIA policy so we can live with more dignity.

Empecé a trabajar en 2019 porque necesito flexibilidad para cuidar a mis hijas y estudiar en el college.

I started doing gig work in 2019 because I need flexibility to take care of my children and because I started attending college.

Recibo un pago muy bajo por mi tiempo invertido y las propinas son bajas y los gastos son muchos en mi vehículo.

I get very low pay for the time invested, low tips and expenses on my own vehicle.

Sin mencionar los altos precios de la gasolina.

Not even mentioning the high prices of gas.

Vivo en la pobreza todos los días sin esperanza.

La diste y recurro a amigos y familiares en busca de dinero para cubrir facturas.

I am living in poverty every day with no hope in sight.

I turn to friends and family for money to cover bills and still cannot pay enough on time.

Y en cualquier momento podremos quedarnos sin hogar.

at any moment we can be without a home.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker, also our translator being with us, our next speaker is Allison Ford and Allison will be followed by Mackenzie Orr.

Allison, you do need to hit star.

There you go.

Oh, thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Allison Ford and I am the public policy manager for Uber in Seattle.

I am providing public comment today with deep concern for the pay up legislation as it is currently drafted.

Uber is supportive of a driver earning standard policy.

However, this earning standard formula is so complex and costly that it will lead to a significantly more expensive service.

It has been drafted with no independent research to identify the cost to restaurants and consumers or what impact it will have on driver earning opportunities.

Our modeling estimates that this standard would result in the loss of thousands of Uber Eats orders a week, which ultimately hurts small businesses, reduces work opportunities for platform drivers, and limits access to delivery services for communities that rely on them.

We request the council reconsider this important legislation by taking the time to fully understand the many potential unintended consequences.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Mackenzie Orr.

And Mackenzie will be followed by James Commiss.

Hi, my name is Mackenzie.

I mainly work on the platform Instacart.

I started doing gig work in 2020 because I was suffering with an autoimmune condition that made it hard to commit to a 40 plus hour work week.

Like many others I depend on gig work to make a living.

I'm speaking today because gig workers like me are tired of being taken advantage of by multi-billion dollar companies.

Tens of thousands of gig workers are still getting paid sub-minimum wages and are subjected to unfair and dishonest business practices.

For me low pay in the gig economy means any emergency that may arise can be devastating.

A flat tire or health issue could mean possible homelessness.

I have faced many issues in the two years I've done gig work including car accidents due to bad weather injuries from carrying extremely heavy groceries and over 60 denials of my sick pay claim because no one at Instacart even knew what the Seattle safe and sick time ordinance was for two years into it.

We need the pay up policy now because gig workers deserve protection.

These companies make billions and they benefit greatly from vulnerable gig workers not having a voice.

They are taking serious advantage of people and gig companies.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is James Thomas followed by Mackenzie Davis.

I'm sorry, Mackenzie Chase.

So Chase Thomas and Mackenzie Chase.

Good morning, my name is James Thomas.

I'm a gig worker and I'm here because we need to pay up policy now.

I received a small business pandemic loan that is coming through soon.

I brought the money based on being paid at $0.94 a mile by Postmates the day that I signed the loan agreement.

Now the pay on Postmates has been reduced by over $0.22 per mile.

Unlike restaurant and tap house owners, I don't have the ability to raise the prices on my menu, so I have no choice but to pay the loan back over a longer time to struggle to fit it in my budget.

As defined by the city of Seattle, gig workers are small business owners too.

Council Member Nelson, as a small business owner, you should understand the need to charge enough for what you sell to make a profit.

Right now, gig pay is so low that after our expenses, we earn next to nothing.

Large corporations are making money hand over fist.

As you heard, they don't own the cars there, They don't own the cars or pay any of the expenses to make the business go.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Mackenzie Chase, followed by Carrie Herstad.

Mackenzie.

Good morning.

My name is Mackenzie Chase, and I am the policy director at the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce.

I'm here to speak about CB120294 relating to app-based workers.

The Seattle Metro Chamber supports legislation to ensure that app based workers make a competitive wage as well as new innovative ways to allow app based workers to access benefits like the state legislation HB 2076 which allows TNC drivers to access benefits.

The chamber strongly urges you to take the necessary time to craft balanced and thoughtful legislation to achieve these goals.

As currently drafted this legislation could apply to diverse business models from pet care to food delivery.

These businesses include apps in which workers set their own rates and access schedule services in blocks as opposed to individual deliveries and jobs.

The variety in business models and work necessitates that definitions and inclusions have to be carefully drafted.

We also urge city council to study and address unintended harmful consequences for low-income residents.

For example, someone with limited mobility.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terri Herstad.

Terri will be followed by Kedane Bayane, Terry.

I'm afraid it's listed as not present.

So we'll go down to Kedane Bayane, followed by Ashley Sutton.

Kedane.

Kedane, you'll need to hit star six, please, so we can hear you.

Let's try again.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Okay, my name is Kirani.

I'm a member of the Pay Up campaign.

So we are strongly asking the council members to put into consideration the unseen or the hidden consequences, which is putting too much pressure on the livelihood of the people who are working with the workers.

So the gig companies, they just make all the money, but the gig workers, they don't make that much.

So now, as we see, the living standard between the rich and the poor is getting wider and wider.

So for that matter, the council members should understand the situation and make sure that, especially the middle class in this country, has to continue.

So for that matter, the council members should understand all the consequences all the problems what we see in our city Seattle so for that matter we have asked you to pass this legislation.

About all thank you members for your time and commitment to look into these matters.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Ashley Sutton and Ashley will be followed by Melissa Watts.

Good morning.

My name is Ashley Sutton.

I'm the TechNet Executive Director for Washington and the broader Northwest.

I am here respectfully testifying in opposition to the pay up policy proposal.

TechNet recognizes the importance of ensuring access to flexible independent work.

This type of work allows families in need of supplemental income including periods of unemployment or underemployment to gain access to work on demand.

However this proposal has been drafted without a single piece of research to support it so it is unclear what the impacts might be on businesses gig workers or the community.

We are concerned that it could have negative consequences like higher prices for consumers and reduced availability of delivery opportunities for CLL drivers.

We respectfully ask that the council pause to take the time to fully study the impacts of the PF proposal before moving forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Melissa Watts, and Melissa will be followed by David Haynes.

Hi.

My name is Melissa Watt and I live in Northeast Seattle and I'm a proud caregiver and a proud member of SEIU 775, the Caregivers Union.

I'm testifying today in support of CD 120294, it's a pay up legislation and for me and many other caregivers, the pay up legislation fits very close to home.

Many gig workers covered by this legislation like caregivers were historically excluded from minimum wage laws and labor standards.

We received minimum pay with no benefits and no protections, like workers' comp or unemployment, and no protection from anti-discrimination laws.

It should come as no surprise that gig workers, like caregivers, are disproportionately done by immigrants and people of color.

Over the last two decades, Caregivers came together and fought back, winning the right to protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

I'm proud that my union endorses the pay.

Thank you so much, Melissa.

Our next speaker is David Haynes, and David will be followed by Tiffany Alvidrez.

David?

David Haynes, District 7. Two and a half weeks ago, my friend drove through Chinatown after visiting her sister, and she was attacked by a guy with a fork.

who jumped up onto the hood of her car at the traffic light, trying to smash her window, then throwing a fork in her face at the side of the window.

Same neighborhood that council brags they walked through last weekend, as if that makes it safe.

That city council is using the public safety committee to buy off a voting block of 30,000 gig workers, while city hall still runs interference for low level drug pushers, destroying lives daily, exempted from jail, committing crimes against humanity, listed nonviolent misdemeanor.

It's tragic how Seattle Times and liberal media pulls punches on City Hall conducting a race war, class war on innocent homeless while forsaking them and running interference for and exempting low-level drug pushers with untrustworthy community safety nonprofits who pocketed $30 million as an alternative to public safety after George Floyd protesters intimidated city council who were squandering homeless money on criminals through lead and just

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tiffany Alvidrez, followed by Mandolin Noir.

Tiffany?

Good morning, Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Tiffany Alvidrez, and I'm the Western Region Policy Manager for Instacart.

We are opposed to the current version of the payoff policy proposal.

Members of this committee should be aware that the unintended consequences of this bill will likely result in decreased demand for the delivery services offered on delivery network companies' platforms.

It'll increase costs for consumers and will ultimately jeopardize earning opportunities for workers.

According to Instacart's calculations, the formula outlined in the ordinance would put the minimum pay rate at approximately 170% of Seattle's minimum wage, already the highest minimum wage in the country.

The premium pay on food delivery networks companies is still in effect, which raises the minimum standard even higher, yet there's been no effort to assess the potential impact of this proposal on consumer demand, and by extension, earnings opportunities for Seattle workers.

We have sincerely appreciated the ability to take part in stakeholder negotiations, and we'll be submitting a counterproposal that we hope will be considered in future drafts of this ordinance.

We strongly encourage the City Council to revisit the formula.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Our next speaker is Mandolin Noir, followed by Raymond Evans.

Mandolin.

Hello, my name is Lillian Moore.

I have been working through the Romer Act since 2014. I'm here because I want equal rights that other people have already been benefiting from and in support of the TANF policy.

Misinformation can be pounded by opponents, claiming that this was created, but it isn't true.

This policy would create a minimum pay to start for those who aren't able to set pay rates less than I'm able to.

Even with setting down a pay rate after the expenses is over set, I can make a new list until the 15th hour, which is still not minimum wage.

If you passed the emergency ordinance in 2020, that would be important.

I wouldn't be eligible for it, because it would happen if those who are doing things didn't support it.

We need to make sure that this payout policy benefits all of the support line apps, such as Roadrunner, TaskRabbit, and Wipe.

Why not ensure that Asian Americans are able to survive in this dog-eat-dog world?

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Raymond Evans, is showing as not present.

So we'll go down to Mary Lutezzi, followed by Michael Malini.

Mary?

I understand Mary also has interpretation services.

Thank you, Alex.

Mary, please press.

There you go.

Hi.

Yes, there.

My name is Mary.

I work for a pay-up competitive.

I worked for Instacart for a few years, actually a few years ago, a few hours a week only, between $35 to $40 a week.

The charge of transportation weekly was a lot, and it took a lot for my pay.

It was sneaky from the company.

They did not pay enough.

income for the expenses.

They would increase the pay and they would make more while we as workers would shop and deliver and making it much more harder for us and many of the shoppers.

It was not enough to be able to pay for living expenses Thank you so much, and I hope this passes through policy.

Thank you, Mary.

Our next speaker is Michael Malini, and Michael will be followed by Michele Balzer.

Michael.

Michael is now showing as not present.

OK, thank you.

Michele Balzer, you are up next, followed by Shelby Hanson.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Hello.

I'm Michelle Balzer.

I am a shopper for Instacart.

And I am actually, you know, obviously in favor of this.

And the biggest reason in the last few months, I've seen a big drop off in customer orders.

And my fear is that with this mass hiring that Instacart does, and a lot of the gigs do, service has kind of gone down and therefore customers are not have a lot of faith in their orders and what they're going to get and that they're correct.

And I think part of this payout policy and the pay-for will ensure that quality increases because they're going to be paying for the good shoppers.

They want people who are shopping fast and shopping accurate.

And so this really would benefit the companies, the customer, and the shoppers.

We'd be ensured that the good people who actually want to be doing this job and care about the customer would be out there shopping.

And we wouldn't see the decrease.

We'd see an increase, if not stabilization of the customers.

And I think Instacart would see the increase.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Shelby Hampson.

And Shelby will be followed by Erin Paso.

Hi, I'm Shelby, and I'm at Gig Rover.

I'm Rover, a new member of the Pay Up campaign.

I work for the Rover app, which is a pet-sitting app, dog-walking service.

While I was pet-sitting, owners were not honest with me about the aggressiveness of their dogs.

I was hurt with less than medical bills, and I was not able to work with dogs because I had such a fear for them.

Rover would always encourage their workers to always maintain a low pay threshold in order to undercut other Rover workers.

This base pay isn't enough to sustain a livable wage, let alone to deal with medical bills.

Rover takes 20% of each and every job I do.

When you have to choose between food to stay alive, or transportation, or even rent, this is no way to live.

Rover is in our backyard.

If you would have thought they would treat us better.

Thank you for listening to me.

We need the Seattle City Council to

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Aaron Toso, and Aaron will be our last speaker.

Aaron, go ahead.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you, Council Member.

My name is Aaron Toso, and I'm representing the Washington Coalition for Independent Work.

Members of our coalition have long advocated for minimum earning standards for their industry.

They advocated for the recently adopted earning standard in California and currently support a ballot measure in Massachusetts that would provide the same benefits for workers.

Unfortunately, the proposed pay-up legislation, while well-intentioned, is poorly drafted.

This Seattle City Council proposal increases costs without regard for consumers.

Pay-up would broadly mandate that drivers be paid more than double on a per-trip basis without regard for the impact on small businesses, consumers, and ultimately drivers themselves.

If costs for delivery services are arbitrarily driven out of reach for consumers through mandatory regulation, then everyone will be hurt, including the drivers who will lose work as consumers choose other options or simply forego certain services.

The Seattle City Council proposal is far too broad.

Pay up would go far beyond delivery services in our coalition and would impact sites like Angie's List and Care.com.

Thank you so much.

I recognize that we do have some other folks signed up to speak.

I'm sorry we weren't able to accommodate you today in today's meeting.

We do have a number of presenters today on the agenda who have fixed times for availability for their presentations.

So we have as much flexibility as I would normally hope to do so to accommodate more speakers.

With that, the public comment period is closed.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item one.

Committee agenda item number one, update on statement of legislative intent, CBO 013-A-002, citywide hiring incentives for briefing and discussion.

Fantastic, thank you so much.

We're joined by Interim Director Kimberly Loving and Keith Gulley of the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

Thank you so much for filling in to present this report on the Statement of Legislative Intent on Hiring Incentives.

Really appreciate you being here with us today.

Just before we get started, just if you could just do a quick introduction of yourself.

And then I'll have a couple of remarks and I'll hand it over to you for your presentation.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

My name is Keith Gulley.

I'm the Talent Acquisition Director for Seattle Department of Human Resources.

So very glad to be here today.

Pleasure to meet you all.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

This is Kimberly Loving, Interim HR Director for the City of Seattle.

And we're happy to be here.

As you know, we're stepping in to try to set the table here.

I think it's probably the best way to put it since Senior Deputy Mayor was unable to attend, but happy to do the best we can and answer any questions that we're able to today.

Thank you so much, Director Loving.

And yes, again, I appreciate your graciously stepping in at the last moment to do this presentation.

I will request that council members hold questions that they might have until after the presentation.

And for the viewing audience, OrientU, as Director said, this is, I think, a table-setting conversation.

This item is the response from the Seattle Department of Human Resources to the council's request during the November budget process regarding citywide hiring incentives.

Consideration of a resolution that Council Member Nelson is sponsoring on police hiring bonuses is scheduled for the Public Safety and Human Services Committee meeting on the 26th, weeks from today.

But this is a presentation on the need or lack thereof for bonuses or incentives to encourage hiring in departments throughout the city, not simply focused on the Seattle Police Department.

A statement of legislative intent response was scheduled to go to Council Member Mosqueda's Finance and Housing Committee, and she graciously let me have the discussion here in the Public Safety Committee with the understanding that some of the discussion will likely relate to next committee meeting and the resolution that I mentioned from Council Member Nelson.

And so with that, I'll just hand it over to our guests.

Again, thank you for being with us.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Really appreciate it.

Um, so I just want to kind of jump in kind of the high level portions of the slide and just kind of start off and let you all know that this was really a team collective effort, um, led by, uh, basically citywide recruiters and department heads across the city.

When we got the request for the slide a few months back, um, the idea around it was really to hear our stakeholders get an idea.

What are the challenges?

What are the the high level priority positions that we were having challenges for.

So we, as recruiters across the city, we meet every other Thursday and we really focus in on some of those trends.

What are each department seeing?

What are the heartburns around different positions?

What are some of the challenges?

How we could come together as a recruiting network to support each other around postings, whether it be posting jobs on LinkedIn or just sharing our network.

Um, from those meetings, we found that it was the best practice was to do a survey, and we surveyed all the city wide recruiters across the city for each department and really got feedback from them on some of those high level, challenging, critical roles to fill.

Um, about five days later, we actually called the meeting with all the department heads across the city and had a discussion around what are some of the trends they're seeing in some of the heart and how can we come together and really focus on this thing?

So it wasn't just Seattle Department of Human Resources decision.

It was a team decision, and you know, we really kind of came to the conclusion in regards to the citywide hiring and said what that would look like for future.

So I just wanted to kind of go over and just set the set the table for everybody, but also do kind of a little bit of a high level review of all those positions that came in hand so.

We, like I said, reached out to the city departments, identified hard to fill positions and the factors impact the city's ability to hire talent.

SDHR, we found many factors that impact the ability to attract frontline workers.

The most identified were full-time work, benefits, and pathways from temporary to regular employment.

We really feel like our temporary pool is definitely one of our most diverse pools, but it's a pool that we really take advantage of to fill different gaps in different areas to help support staffing across the city.

Hiring incentives to what we came to the conclusion are more of a short-term strategy to attract more applicants.

The city began offering hiring incentives in October 2021 for certain public safety positions.

Seattle Police Department did not experience an increase in hiring since implementing a hiring incentive into their process in October of 2021. The Community Safety and Communications Center, however, did see an increase of candidates entering the hiring process since the implementation of an incentive in October 21. Based on the limited time frame for the incentive, though, there just wasn't enough time to get conclusive data.

In addition, based on the feedback we received, like I said, we did our roadshow from the city department.

So the largest barrier to attracting, retaining, and promoting internal and external talent is our current job classification compensation program.

That's where a majority of our employees who have worked for the city for years get stuck in this classification system.

And just to kind of give you an idea around that, our class specifications are from 1990. They have not been updated since 1990. So I'll give you an example.

If a person's trying to hire, let's say they've been with the city in an accounting position for maybe 15 or 20 years, we feel like transferable skills and the fact that work experience can substitute a lot of times for education.

with this certain classif trying to go for a senior they have to have 24 hour work.

And you know, we've kind of stuck in those t able to advance their car departments to, you know, to see those promotions f did a citywide job fair a in on just city employees And it was down at Berth had a huge, huge turnout about it is, um, you kno that were able to get con were in those temporary p up in the full time oppor that there was a lot of, within those class specs t I think, you know, if we put our efforts and resources in looking at some of the class facts at all in the positions that I will talk about, there's some ways where we can knock down some of those challenges.

So within our retention challenges, you know, recruited, we created a recruitment challenges survey, and I'll give you a list of the following positions that were listed as critical city business needs.

and challenging to fill.

Carpenter, plumber, truck drivers, rec attendants, IT programmer, senior civil engineer, police officers, HVAC technicians, skilled trades, cashiers, electrical inspectors, public safety auditor, veterinary and 911 dispatchers.

The lack of qualified candidates was a primary factor identified for these hard-to-fill roles, and survey departments raised another fundamental issue.

It once again came back around minimal qualifications, constraints in the city's outdated classification system that causes those barriers to retain, promote, and really hire internal and external women in BIPOC into the city.

So really kind of with SDHR, you know, we took an idea and looked at some of the trends and some of the other things that really impacted, you know, some of those challenges.

So I go back to class facts, you know, As far as the job duties described in these job classifications, they don't always pertain to the work that needs to be completed by today's city workforce.

Updating the city's 30 year old classification system, I think will improve the city's ability to attract entry level, skilled trades and other positions where transferable skills and lived experience can be substituted for education and rigid requirements for multiple years of work and experience.

The task to review the job classification system is definitely significant, but it is an update to the system.

And even if we start out with maybe 20 or 30 classifications that are critical roles and we're not seeing the talent come through and the challenges of recruiting, maybe we focus in on those first.

So this was really kind of the conclusion in regards to the hiring incentive and really some pros and cons.

Offering a higher incentive is a short-term strategy, like you heard me mention earlier.

Of course, you'll probably get a person to accept the offer, but in the King County area, other local jurisdictions have been offering similar hiring incentives, while some departments in the city of Seattle have observed a clear and positive benefit.

This must be weighed against other situations where this can approach that has really inherent drop drawbacks and equity issues for both employees, employers and employees.

So for example, once an employee is on board, even a structured sign-on bonus with additional payout tied to time in service has limited impact on retention.

The money is a one-time quick fix that may not compensate for uncompetitive wages, difficult or unsupported work conditions, lack of opportunity to develop career relevance, experience and skills, and limited promotion opportunities.

Signing bonuses for newly hired external talent or already working in the job can really feel undervalued and underappreciated when the financial package does not match what external recruits receive.

The potential for breaking trust is greater now, especially coming out of the pandemic and retaining our employees and making sure they're not leaving us for other opportunities.

And with the current city employees and identified with those hard to feel working positions, it's really important to maintain our frontline employees and really focus on really taking care of them.

So I go back to those really things about the critical roles and about the hiring incentive.

There are some other ways to attract and retain talent.

So I'll go back to using the resources that we have internally.

A few of those resources, we have a great internship program.

If departments really start to really invest and focus in our college interns, our SYEP, our high school interns, our apprenticeship.

We can build some great pipelines there through social media.

We actually SDHR purchased the LinkedIn web page for the whole city, so all departments can take advantage of this free of charge.

They can build like a life cycle and a life page tab to focus in on what's going on in their department.

Talk about, you know, different opportunities that may be coming up, different large projects that the city is supporting.

There's a lot of great work that gets done across the city.

And it's really time to promote those opportunities outside of really our networks.

And like I said, you know, another way would be is to really focus in on, you know, doing reinterviewing our employees that we have right now, just doing those focus time, whether it be our one-on-ones, but just talking about, you know, what are some of the things that they would like to see?

What are the challenges that they're having?

How can we support them to get promoted into other opportunities?

So, like I said, end of the day, we did this as a team, and we looked at all the different factors into this.

And I know it definitely worked for CSCC.

It sounded like they experienced some really high recruiting rates, which was great.

But our fear was if you get that person here for, you know, six months and then after six months, you know, as far as the pay goes, they're not going to see another pay bump for another year.

Their pay is going to stay the same.

So will their morale drop?

You know, can we focus in on some different areas, areas?

And I feel like, you know, given a person, obviously a job opportunity, but seeing a way out, they can promote up through the city.

And we have so many different opportunities across the city.

I really focus in on, you know, we're one city, but we have many career opportunities that we can offer.

So a person never has to leave, but it's really important for us to, you know, promote those opportunities internally and really focus on sharing those job opportunities across the city network.

So that's really kind of a high level review of the work we did and really, you know, what we really recommended going forward.

But there's a lot of space, you know, around recruitment.

One thing I will bring up before I open up for questions is really around the support for recruiting.

One thing about recruiting, it's a team effort.

It's not just a recruiter's job.

It's a team effort.

So the more we can team up with our hiring managers and our employees, whether it be sending in employee referrals and things like that, it's going to help.

Resources even around recruitment for recruiters, finding maybe a recruiting team that just focuses in on outreach.

You know, maybe that recruiting team goes to different colleges or universities or high schools and talking to students about career opportunities in Seattle Police Department, the Fire Department, you know, if you want to be HVAC, you know, employee, you know, those type of critical roles.

I think there's some opportunity for us to be able to build into our recruiters.

network right now and in our departments, and in a way we can really kind of, you know, share those resources that we all need in order to make our staffing a lot easier.

That's one of the things I really focus in on is, you know, diversity.

And I feel like, you know, if we do a recruiting bonus, you know, it's a great idea, but like I said, focusing in on that long-term solution would be looking at those class specs, and that's the way we're gonna be able to you know, retain, attract, and hold on to our workforce.

Thank you so much, Keith.

So on that note, really appreciate your zeroing in on this sort of historical and structural barrier to people from within the city who have a lot of experience doing work advancing.

Is SDHR looking at making an update to do those classifications to remove some of those barriers?

Please repeat your question.

As it relates to the barriers within the classifications on requiring degrees or classroom credits, as opposed to applying folks' experience working for the department, working in a particular function, is this a body of work that SDHR is going to be addressing?

This is a body of work that we can't address without resources.

So this body of work would take a outside consultant to come in and look at our 400 plus class specs in our system, and look at those jobs, and look at that body of work, and basically bring that up to 2022. Like I said earlier, our work has changed quite a bit.

With technology, work changes every day by the minute.

So in order for us to keep up with the times and succession plan and focus in on our internships and really build those into pipelines, we have to break down those class specs.

So as far as us being able to do that, SDHR, it's a team for across city departments, but we just don't have the resources to be able to do that.

Can't just add or relevant work experience to all the job classifications?

So that's one thing.

Also, we're herbal.

We definitely do.

We really try to focus in on those shared experiences.

I really feel like transferable skills are great.

I mean, the process that we use right now for hiring is called TEA.

It's Talent, Experience, and Alignment.

And we really focus in on the talent, which is more the potential of the candidate and the alignment around the mission, vision, values of the city and working for the community and giving back to the community and really taking the emphasis less off experience and education.

So when the recruiters are looking at resumes, they are evaluating that talent that way.

But then the challenge comes into, you know, once a person gets to maybe that screening stage and they're looking at those class facts, like I mentioned with the accountant, that one or two things in those class facts really holds them back from moving forward and gaining that opportunity.

Thank you.

I'm looking to see whether or not my colleagues have questions.

I know a number of us had questions after receiving the report itself and really appreciate that the department acted quickly to get us back some of those answers in time for this committee discussion.

Perhaps this might be a good time to lift up some of those questions and answers if council members wish to do so.

I'm not seeing any raised hands here.

I'm just going to...

Council Member Nelson has her hand up.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I don't...

I'm not sure why I don't see it.

There you go.

Council Member Nelson, thank you so much Alex.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So I realize that the discussion on public safety incentives is going to be had in the next public safety and human services meeting.

However, because this document, two-page document, half of it was about public safety incentives, I do want to say that this is one area where we don't need a consultant really to study the benefit of incentives, because Interim Chief Diaz did say in previous meetings that other cities do have these, just let's say staffing incentives where they're not being called hiring, et cetera.

But this is one area that we can implement right away because it has been shown to work in other cities pretty much most if not all cities in our region do have this and it's been said that we need to level the playing field for offering our officers this otherwise we're going to lose them to other departments so and because public safety as we've been hearing in the news is such a crucial issue right now I don't think that I just wanted to make to mention that this is something that doesn't need a lot of more study.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Kelsey Gilbert.

Thanks so much.

As it relates specifically to the SPD portion of this report, I do want to highlight that even though it covered a relatively small number of months, There was an evident response in the way of increased applications as it relates to the 911 center at the CSCC, whereas in the police department, I think some have said or suggested that the benefit in offering the bonuses is that more people apply to become police officers.

And again, that happened definitely with CSCC.

not appear to happen a whole lot with the police department.

They did receive slightly fewer entry-level applications per day after the hiring incentive announcement compared to the number of applications before the announcement.

And then as it relates to lateral applications, it did receive about the same number since the hiring incentive announcements as they did before.

It's not clear for SPD that the bonuses resulted in more people applying.

But it does appear that it had that function for CSCC.

I do want to remind folks that we also had a preliminary study, I think would be fair to characterize it, on the incentive program that was approved by the council in 2019. And that preliminary assessment showed that about one in five identified the existence of the incentive as being a consideration in their decision to apply.

That's a relatively small number.

It's not, it doesn't look into, whether or not there was an increase in applications, just simply that one in five people said that the incentive had something to do with their interest in applying.

Just as a, you know, I think it might be fair to characterize some of the questions I asked as part of run up this presentation today after receiving the Perhaps, Keith or Director Loving, you could talk a little bit about what we found when we looked at the ability of departments to offer compensation for people's relocation assistance.

Oftentimes, particularly in situations where we're doing a hiring push, uh...

we're looking at hiring people from other jurisdictions that could be either when we want to hire a lot of people for uh...

positions where we have a lot of vacancies or it could also be when we want to hire a particular person for uh...

uh...

particular set of of of skills uh...

that we might have to look in cities across the country or jurisdictions across the country to fill that position uh...

and so this is an area where uh...

Diaz has expressed a real interest in having some additional flexibility to pay for the relocation costs when he is doing lateral hires from other jurisdictions, other jurisdictions that may have a lower standard of living and a lower salary for those particular applicants.

And they have found that because they have a lower salary where they're currently working, they haven't been able to save money.

for a big move across the country.

And so it's been really helpful to the police department to use sort of what was originally designed as sort of a general bonus incentive program, but specifically for that function of paying relocation costs.

And so when I heard that, I became very interested in sort of what the city's policy is across all departments for different types of jobs.

You know, not just offering relocation costs, for instance, for a department director.

or a deputy director that you wanna maybe have come to the city, but for other positions where we're having some challenges recruiting and hiring for sort of what is the existing policy across the departments and whether or not if we wanted to see more of that and address what I think might be some equity issues in the practices that might tend to focusing the compensation for relocation costs to higher level workers.

Where are we at on that?

What does the sort of personnel policy scan tell us about that right now?

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Yes, so we do have a personnel rule, this personnel rule 4.2.9, and it's under moving expenses.

And as you read through the rule, please note that it will talk about salary range 400 and salary range 300. These ranges referred to the city's salary schedule for pay grades.

So for 2022 grade, it was basically the 300 level salary range is anything between $35.74 to $41.66.

And grade 400 is $52.41 to $60.78.

So, uh, kind of read through the rule and kind of go over it in general a little bit.

Um, but the positions identified in the salary orderance as admitted by salary range 400 and above or salary equivalent to or higher than the top step of range 400 when no range is given or positions under salary range 400 but over salary range 300 or the equivalent there to for which the employee in the immediate employment area who possess the unique skills, expertise, and or educational qualifications, therefore, or positions assigned to basically our APEC, SAM, Executive's Program, Manager's Compensation, or the Strategic Advisor Compensation Program that do not otherwise meet any of the eligibility criteria in this section.

So just kind of long story short, there is some opportunity here to utilize moving expenses, relocation expenses, but just looking at those ranges first.

One thing I would need to go back and I'd basically be able to get back to you and make it more clear, you know, is there, can we go below that level?

Can we go below the 400 or the 300 level?

I understand it's for feeling critical and hard to feel positions.

And if they are out of state, it's a great opportunity to bring in that talent from out of state.

That's one of the things I'll, above many, I'll say the great things about the recruiters across the city.

They really, really focus in on recruiting talent out of the state, but also retaining our talent here within the state and keeping them here if we can with the city.

But if they're unable to find some of that talent, they are able to go out and utilize the relocation moving expenses.

Um, packages here.

Thank you, Mr Mosqueda.

Are you here with us?

Come from us.

Get us your hand up.

I am.

Can you hear me?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sorry, I am doing dual screens here today with my phone, and so my audio is having issues.

Can you hear me OK?

Excellent.

OK.

Colleagues, I want to thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions.

And Madam Chair, I really want to appreciate your leadership here in bringing forward this item on today's agenda, and also your leadership during budget.

I want to remind folks about the reason that we are having this conversation.

And it's because during the budget, deliberations.

We've heard from a number of individuals within various departments about the need for us to look at ways that we can create a stronger, healthier recovery to the pandemic and look at stability within our departments.

We have sponsored, I sponsored SLI 013A002 along with the partnership of Council Member Herbold because we've been having years of conversations with folks within the city family conversations with frontline workers and city unions about ways in which we can improve retention and recruitment strategies, ways that we can create a healthy work environment that promotes stability, ways that we can create an attractive place for people to come who are maybe younger workers, and especially as Mr. Goulet said, diverse workers.

And so I think it's in the spirit of looking across our city family to see how we can address diversity and stability within these departments that this slide was brought forward.

Mr. Goulet, I do want to apologize to you on behalf of the council.

I think that the work that you've done was impugned in some way by one of my colleagues who deduced it to being a consultant work, the work that you described and the in-depth conversations that you had.

with the departments and the surveys that you created I think yield very important not only quantitative analysis but qualitative analysis that should be taken to heart and weighed against one individual's comments.

That is not steeped in this work.

So I want to thank you and the team that you pulled together the robust conversations that you had about what data driven recruitment, and I believe retention strategies should look like.

I think it's important for us to have a conversation about what you highlighted in your summary comments.

And if I might just read from that, Madam Chair, offering incentive programs is a short-term strategy meant to induce the prospects of accepting a job offer.

And as you said, and the good chair repeated, it does increase the pool of applicants.

However, you went on to note that there's clear evidence that must be weighted against situations where this has the potential and inherent drawbacks and embedded equity issues for both employer and employees.

Once an employee is on board, even a structured sign-on bonus with additional payout tied to time in service has limited impact, limited impact on retention, The money is a one time quick fix that may not compensate for uncompetitive wages, which we are also working to address via a budget item that we included last year to look at competitive pay salaries across the board.

And as the city unions and frontline workers have asked for a competitive analysis of how we can create your disability and use our wages as a recruitment tool once we've adjusted for those wages, which has been asked for for many years.

The money is a one-time fix that cannot compensate for uncompetitive wages, difficult or unsupportive working conditions, specifically child care and the ability to have flexible schedules to pick up kiddos when we don't have sufficient child care in the city is one of the main things that we've also heard directly from frontline workers and the Coalition for City Unions.

And importantly, as you noted, it does not compensate for the lack of opportunities to develop career relevant experience and skills and limited promotion opportunities.

I really appreciate, Mr. Gulate, you emphasizing these, but also noting that there are programs in place that if had adequate resources and perhaps investments over time, could build things like t internship programs that heard directly from worke that what they're looking that allow for them to h kiddos and flexible time for their parents.

And t trying to build the child trying to promote and buil And I think that there's a lot of work to be done in this arena, like in D.C., where they have made child care a part of each of the federal buildings there to really make sure that workers have access to appropriate, accessible, and affordable child care across the city.

That signing bonuses are for newly hired talent outside.

can negatively impact employee morale.

And I wanted to comment on this for a second, because in this moment of COVID, which you mentioned as well, this is the time for us to be looking at how we can make sure that workers not only feel respected in the workplace, But we're putting money towards making sure that they feel that this is the place for them to stay.

In this highly competitive work environment that we now have, as we emerge from COVID, it is critical that we're doing everything we can to really look at retention strategies.

And again, I bring up the intent of this slide, because it's not just retention strategies in one department, given that there's been a lot of focus on that.

It's retention and recruitment strategies in every single department.

And not every single department has had their hiring incentive plan fully funded.

SPD did for the two years that I've been budget chair.

They have had their hiring incentive, excuse me, their hiring plan fully funded, but not every department has had a full hiring plan that allowed for them to continue to have growth.

And I think that this is the time for us to look across these departments as the good chair and I were interested in what the strategies and data-driven approaches might be for retention.

And I think it harkens back to what the original intent was coming from those conversations directly with frontline workers to see how we can create a more equitable, diverse and thriving city family for core government functions that allows for our local economy to then thrive and succeed as well.

So I look forward to continuing the conversation about the key takeaways from this analysis.

While it is short in length, it is deep in substance in terms of what the potential unintended consequences would be if we were to be shortsighted and look at only hiring incentives and not take into account the impact on existing employees and the ways in which we can diversify our workforce, strengthen our workforce, and create a more stable work environment.

for employees who are currently here and for those who we want to recruit.

So I'm very interested in the takeaway from your comments about what existing programs or built-out programs should we be looking out for retention and also recruitment for that diverse workforce.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I see Council Member Lewis's hand up.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Council Member Herbold, Chair Herbold.

So, you know, given that Given that we're kind of having this conversation a week in advance, I think I might take the opportunity to maybe queue up a couple of discussion items for presenters to be prepared for when we do take this up at the 26th meeting in more detail, this discussion around the pay incentives for the police department or whatever.

I think for the next committee meeting, Council Member Lewis, we're going to be having a different panel of folks.

Yeah, no, I know, but I'm sure they're watching and listening to the committee right now.

So, you know, because we've been going back and forth a little bit right now around hiring incentives, what we're really talking about is the council has put forward a 125 officer hiring plan.

I assume the entire council, or at least the council majority, would like to see that plan realized.

So the fundamental question is how do we hire 125 people?

It's not necessarily debating square peg round hole on what thing is going to get those 125 positions filled, right?

So we're going to discuss, and I know that there's some evidence on both sides about whether the hiring incentive is something that can help us realize that goal.

That's a discussion we can have, and we are having, and I look forward to having again in a week.

But what I would just ask is that we also maybe have a bit of a broader focus, and I know that this is in line with what Chair Herbold would like to do in how we talk about this, of also just kind of You know, what would be helpful for me is maybe just hearing what major American city is actually able to hire officers right now at a rate higher than the attrition of losing.

And maybe see if whatever that city is doing is working good work here.

I'm not currently privy to any major American city that is having that experience.

I think there's generally an understanding in the media and, you know, particularly in our local media that this is sort of a unique Seattle problem.

Beyond that, I think there's an understanding that maybe this is a unique West Coast problem in like Portland, San Francisco, L.A.

and us.

There's a great article from the Dallas News from last September discussing, you know, in Texas discussing that In the same period they hired 80 officers, they lost 145 officers.

That in the same period that they hired 150 officers, they lost 204 officers.

It's projected that that trend is gonna continue for the next two years for the Dallas Police Department.

I only bring that to raise that nationally police departments are having a difficult time hiring and retaining police.

I would be interested to hear from people who are observing this if there are examples of major American cities who are able to attract and retain police and what they're doing.

I guess that's all I'm just putting out there.

And I really appreciate the work of the Human Services Department in responding to the sly in the first quarter of the year.

And I appreciate having this information to help inform our decisions.

But I also just want to make sure we're not so limited that we're debating the efficacy only of hiring incentives as a strategy to realize the council's 125-officer hiring goal.

And I think it would be interesting to see examples of other jurisdictions and some of the other things that they're doing in addition to hiring incentives you know, to make that up in cities that are outpacing, where we're hiring is outpacing attrition.

So I just wanted to say that in anticipation of our next meeting, if folks are watching and coming with information, it would be interesting to hear some of the other strategies.

Thank you so much, Council Member Lewis.

Keith, did you have a response to that?

I did, I did.

And thank you for that information, because I think that's really important to bring in.

As a recruiter, I think very objective.

Like when I'm doing my job, I look for talent.

It doesn't matter what department they're in.

And it's my job is to lead as a talent acquisition director across the city and making sure that all of our departments are staffed and taken care of.

So trends are very important to me.

So I do look at these trends.

There's some great trends that departments that see SPD or not SPD, but police departments are doing as far as pay time off, you know, flexible schedules.

Um, like I mentioned early, um, earlier around recruitment, you know, providing extra resources for the recruiters within SPD and maybe, you know, having maybe three or four pockets or five pockets that are just dedicated to outreach.

I know the gentleman who does the recruiting there right now and he does this by himself and he takes officers with him, but literally he's driving Seattle PD for across the state.

So it's just those little things, but it's just those resources that our departments do need and our recruiters need that.

And like I said, if we're able to build those teams, we're able to mobilize and go to outside of the state or go to Eastern Washington or go to, you know, down to Tacoma or Olympia, whatever it is, but really to bring that talent here.

But you can't just do it, you know, alone or on somebody's back, you need that team effort.

So there are some different ways to do this.

Council Member Lewis, you brought up some great, great points besides, you know, the hiring incentive, but I think some other benefits would be, you know, those flexible schedules or paid time off or travel incentives or something like that.

I know that those things would have to be bargained, but there are some different things that are, as far as departments are doing and being creative about it.

So I just wanted to add that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, can I do a follow-up just real quick?

Very quickly.

We are way past time for this item.

This was not intended to be a deep dive.

It was only on this particular report, and we have a couple other council members in the queue.

So go ahead.

Understood.

I just wanted to comment in response to Keith's response.

Keith, that was a great response about how we could just maybe take a step back and look more holistically on what we're really trying to do here.

I guess it is less a follow-up question and more underlining.

I think this conversation gets more productive when we are not just incentive bonus or not incentive bonus.

I think it gets more productive when it is like how do we realize the 125 person hiring class and let's put everything on the table including these bonus discussions.

It is frankly a more productive conversation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

And I really want to thank our human resources experts and leaders for spending so much time on this issue and with us this morning.

Thank you, Chair Herbold and Council Member Mosqueda for asking for this citywide look at this issue.

I'm glad HR was able to identify the job classification issues so that can be improved.

That's going to be really important for improving recruitment and retention for several positions.

The two-page report listed 14 city government positions, such as cashiers, recreation attendants, electrical inspectors, and others critical to the city and challenging to fill.

Of course, with the loss of 350 police officers and detectives over the past two years and the shortage of 911 dispatchers, I'll focus on that right now.

I appreciate Councilor Nelson's focus on that as well.

I agree that the hiring incentives were not in place for long enough.

And I have the same question as Council Member Lewis, what can we do that other jurisdictions are doing?

Because that is the goal, is to make sure we hire at least those 125 officers this calendar year, and we're running out of time to do that.

And so I was glad to hear the creative thinking about potentially paying relocation costs and other incentives that were mentioned today.

My question is, can you clarify whether the Seattle Police Department is coordinating their recruitment efforts with the talent and expertise at the Seattle Department of Human Resources?

Are they leveraging, are they coordinating with you to discuss these various recruitment strategies?

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Yes, so we have been in discussion, so that team does sit on our talent hub meetings that we have every other Thursday, or we really talk about those best practices.

One of the things that, you know, like I talked about earlier, the LinkedIn social media page, that is something that we have as a resource for all departments across the city.

And like I said, it's free.

And the great thing about it is, can really take over a full life tab and talk about, you know, your specific projects and what's going on in the community, how are we serving the community, all those things.

So I do have conversations definitely with SPD, Mike Fields, we do talk about different things and different different things to be able to attract talent.

But I really feel like as being in this profession of recruiting for more than 20 years, if you really want to change the culture and the face of a company, it usually takes about five years in recruitment and selection.

But one of the biggest things is really given that recruiting or that talent team, those additional resources, when I say resources, additional recruiters to go out.

And like I said, when I was a kid, SPD, Seattle Fire Department, they'd come to our school.

I went to school, high school right up the street from SMT and they used to come to school and talk about opportunities and it really got you excited about those opportunities.

So I think the more we can embed ourselves in our local high schools, not even in Seattle, but also the schools down South and up North and over in Bellevue, whatever areas, and then really focus in our community colleges, our local universities, building those relationships, but you can't do those without adding two or three other recruiters and they become a team to mobilize and bring that talent back to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Again, I really appreciate the discussion.

We will be coming back in two weeks to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee to discuss the resolution that Councilmember Nelson has brought forward and some other options as well.

Will the clerk please read, and thank you again, SDHR for being with us this morning at such short notice and for your wonderful presentation.

Really appreciate it and all the work you do year round.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item number two.

Committee agenda item number two, Seattle Municipal Court Probation Evolution 2022 update for briefing and discussion.

Fantastic, thank you so much.

Really appreciate that we have such a wonderful panel here to present this next item.

Can we start off with some introductions, please?

Thank you.

Yes, this will be presented by presiding judge of Seattle Municipal Court, your judge, Willie Gregory, and our program and services manager, Carol Bell.

Thank you so much.

Well, let's just let's just jump right into it.

Normally, I would do a little bit of framing comments, but again, appreciate ongoing work that you have as it relates to making changes to how.

Seattle Municipal Court manages the probation department and its probation-related outcomes.

And just hand it over to you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

First thing I'd like to do is thank the council for the invitation to present today on Seattle Municipal Court Probation Evolution Project.

And thank you, Council Member Herbold, for that.

And so I thought we'd be best if we started with a little bit of overview of Seattle Municipal Court, starting with our mission.

The mission here is for us to provide a forum to resolve alleged violations of the law that people have in a respectful, independent, and impartial manner.

We're a judicial branch of the city government.

We have seven elected judges.

We have five appointed magistrates, and we have an awesome staff working here at Seattle Municipal Court.

Here at Seattle Municipal Court, we take care of all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases.

as well as civil infraction in certain civil cases that occur under the Seattle Municipal Court and certain revised code of Washington statutes.

For the highest volume, court of limited jurisdiction in the state of Washington.

We process thousands of criminal and civil infraction cases each year for the city of Seattle.

We can go to slide two, please.

Now let's go to slide three.

Thank you.

Well, we've presented to the council concerning our probation evolution project before.

Since we last presented to the council, we've made progress on the project, and we're going to highlight some of these progresses today during this presentation.

One thing that has changed is the development of a set of organizational values.

So what happened here is that our judges and our court staff work together, we identified and we built a shared commitment to the court's values.

We came up with the six values that are listed here.

First was service, second is fairness, equity and inclusion is third, innovation, excellence and integrity.

These values will guide all of our work, including our organization's strategic planning, And with that, I'll go ahead and hand it off to you, Carol.

Thank you.

Good morning.

And thank you for the opportunity for me to share a little bit about what is happening in our probation division.

So before I really update you on where we are with our probation evolution project, I want to share a little bit about how probation works here at Seattle Municipal Court.

Probation is a post adjudication option that the judges use.

It's a case management program.

Judges have the opportunity to implement probation at sentencing.

They will order several obligations or they have a menu of several obligations to select from.

These obligations are often negotiated through agreed orders or plea agreements between the city attorney the Office of Public Defense or a private defense attorney and the client.

For example, someone who has committed a domestic violence offense may agree to participate in a domestic violence intervention program, commonly known as our DVIP program.

Many of you council members are aware of that.

And then with this, probation counselors, they really rarely have an opportunity to weigh in on what sentencing obligations look like.

Sometimes judges do call for a pre-sentence report to support them in gathering information on what a client's background may look like.

Once a person is ordered to probation, the probation counselor's role really is to serve as the support to the client.

in ensuring they successfully complete the court-ordered obligations, they help them to achieve self-identified goals, and also with goals of just really transitioning them off of or out of the criminal legal system.

And Judge Gregory's gonna share a little bit about our Probation Evolution Project.

So why Probation Evolution?

In 2020, we began redesigning our approach to probation.

We talked to our stakeholders as well as community.

We got community feedback.

And we also wanted to, and we talked about this to the council before, eliminate disproportionate impacts on those we serve, especially at the probation level.

So what we did was we incorporated the findings and the recommendation of the 2020 Vera Institute assessment, as well as the 2021 city audit concerning our probation department.

Over the past several months, we spent time ensuring that the effort we made was resourced appropriately, and we wanted to come up with a clear, unified vision backed by the shared commitment of all of our judges.

We have a probation evolution project manager who's led our team to develop the following goal statement for the project.

and actually it's listed in the PowerPoint, but I'll read that.

It's basically to transform our probation and services division by stepping away from traditional incarceration, reactionary approaches to misdemeanor supervision towards one that's going to be hopeful, it's going to be equitable for the people that come before us, and we're going to support the client's success and their growth.

So we're going to be working in the coming months to complete some very important vision work around the future of our probation department at Seattle Municipal Court.

We want to make sure that the way that we go and the journey that we take and achieve that we can achieve our goals and expand on what we're doing here at Seattle Municipal Court.

We've learned a lot.

We're going to keep on learning.

We're going to keep on listening so that we can make probation work for the people that come.

into our probation department and the people that need services.

We wanna continually improve our engagement with our clients so that clients can get better outcomes.

So Carol, what's changed in regards to the probation department so far?

Okay, so some notable changes that we made in our probation program so far is first, we're focusing on probation, focusing our probation on high risk case sites.

Judges maintain the discretion on the cases they refer to probation, but for the most part, the clients that are getting referred have cases such as DUI, DV, or mental health.

We discontinue the practice of monitoring cases for criminal law violation checks only.

This applies to all case types with the exception of DUI cases where an IID monitoring obligation has been implemented, and that's part of a legislative mandate.

As of early 2021, this policy reduced our caseload or the specific caseload by 78%.

So that's 1,640 less clients that are being supervised by Seattle Municipal Court of Probation.

Can you say the percentage again, please?

78%.

Thank you.

That's remarkable.

In September 2020, Many of you are aware that our judges voted to eliminate all discretionary probation fines and fees.

This eliminated the probation supervision fee and our record checks fee, among others.

Probation and record checks fees were often waived by judges as they consider what the client's full financial situation was.

But when they were imposed, they often totaled anywhere from 600 dollars, $240 per person.

The judges also approved a case closure policy.

This allows for the counselors to administratively close out clients from probation monitoring once they have completed their court order condition.

without having any formal action by the court.

This is the area that we really identified as a bottleneck in some of our auditing practice when the auditing was happening.

And it often resulted in cases being held on terms of probation longer than they really needed to be.

After this policy was implemented, the number of clients on active supervision was reduced by 16%.

We also started collecting client-reported race and ethnicity data.

This was an area that was really highlighted in the audits that came out as well.

The court previously relied on demographic data that was provided by law enforcement.

With this improved data, it will allow us to better understand the outcomes for different groups and address disproportionate impacts.

We've implemented a client exit survey with over 12 months of feedback.

One I'd really like to highlight is something that we came out in December.

74% of the people that took the survey agreed that their counselor had a positive influence on them.

In addition, we're seeing some positive early results in the probation performance data that is published on our website.

So you can always check that out because we keep it up to date.

In 2021 we saw a significant improvement in the rates that clients were completing their probation.

And we can give a little bit more information to you about that either later on or in further conversations with you all as we do meet with you all throughout the year.

I just want to transition to our other slide here.

Because I want to share some specifics for 2022. We're really early in the year.

We as Judge Gregory mentioned we hired a probation evolution project manager.

Her name is Mara Talman.

She's also serving as the organizational change manager for this project.

We found it necessary to have a staff person that whose primary focus is to drive this work product while our other managers are ensuring operations and other work continues.

Mara's helped us get aligned around the remaining work to be done and develop a project schedule.

So we're excited to have her here.

We also have a division-wide training calendar.

It will include trauma responsive care harm reduction and motivational interviewing.

All of that is targeted to be completed by July of this year.

Many of you also received a notification from Presiding Judge Gregory about the decision to eliminate the use of a risk assessment tool for determining probation clients' reporting frequency.

This will be talked about in detail in some of the upcoming slides.

We've also made a couple of other new hires that we'd like to highlight.

They're not specifically tied to the Probation Evolution Project, but their work does support some of the efforts that we have moving forward in this specifically and throughout the court.

We welcome Victoria Moreland as our Community Outreach and Engagement Strategy Advisor.

And we've also welcomed our Community Resource Center Systems Navigator.

This is a contracted position that we have with the YWCA.

And it was something that you all permanently funded in the 2022 budget.

So we're excited to really have that come to fruition.

And she actually just joined us a week ago.

So now I'm going to turn it back over to Judge Gregory, who's going to talk a little bit more about the why in eliminating a risk assessment tool for probation.

Thank you, Carol.

Risk assessment tools are used in many courts to address the risk of a human's implicit bias in decision-making.

However, we found that these tools often include questions or consider factors that perpetrate bias towards people of color.

So effective March 21st of this year, I directed our probation services staff to eliminate the use of risk assessment tools for determining a probation client's reporting frequency.

This was based on our research on these tools used in other jurisdictions, community feedback, and the concerns we had with the court's existing risk assessment tool.

The court's risk assessment tool was found to be failing in order it did not differentiate between risk levels and was especially shown to have adverse effects on Black people, African-Americans, American Indian, and Alaska Native clients.

So probation is required by court rule to use a standardized classification system to determine people's community risk levels.

That's what the minimum of monthly face-to-face interviews that's required to be had by probation with the person who's classified at a higher level, the highest level, excuse me.

Therefore, I have directed the court via the probation and services department to create and implement a new standardized classification system.

And I'll have Carol talk to you a little bit more about the development of that new classification system.

So right now we have an interim policy where all new probation clients will be required to report to probation one time per month.

Due to COVID operations, we currently have them reporting via phone or video call.

We're beginning our efforts to develop, in the beginning of looking at our efforts to develop a standardized classification system.

We are looking at the court rule RLJ 11.2.

This system will be developed in partnership with community members and legal system partners.

We're actively talking to different stakeholders out there in the community and talking to the city attorney's office, DPD and other entities.

We don't know what the system will look like yet.

We will need to rely on the expertise from community members and our partners in creating this to ensure that it's equitable, free from bias, and effectively identifies clients' needs and risk factors.

We will also be using a race and equity toolkit as a part of our design process, and our target completion date for this new classification system is June So you'll be hearing more from us about that.

So also for the next couple of months most of most of our focus for the larger program plan will be on the new classification system.

What we're working on is our community engagement strategy and designing that.

We've talked to partners such as SOCR and the VITA agency.

We will complete a race and equity toolkit to uncover and mitigate any unintended impacts to at-risk communities.

Once we've developed the system, we'll need to modify our intake policies and processes.

We will also have to train staff on this new system.

Staff will also be taking an additional training called Equity to Action, and it focuses on implicit bias before the new system launches.

When the classification system has been implemented, we will then focus on developing goal-based supervision policies.

This will really be focused on those that pose a high risk to public safety.

We hope to have new supervision policies implemented and counselors trained on these new policies later in the fall.

In early 2023, the project will focus on designing positive reinforcement and incentives to those that are on probation, as well as encouraging clients to achieve pro-social goals.

Again, our project goal is to move away from traditional incarcerative reactionary approaches to supervision and towards a model that's more hopeful, equitable, and supports clients' success and growth.

As the new system and policies come online, they will need to be held to performance metrics.

We have to make sure that we're not causing any unintentional harm and that we achieve the goals that we set out to achieve.

So you'll be hearing more from us.

We'll be posting some of these things online on our court's webpage as well.

And if I may, as you can see that, um, What we're really trying to do is make sure that the systemic racism that's been found in the court system, that we can do what we can to erase that and make sure that a person, when they're coming into the courthouse, that they're being treated in an equitable fashion and that we really address the reason why the person came in the courthouse in the first place.

So with that, that's the end of our presentation.

We'll address any questions that council has.

And thank you again for allowing us to present to you concerning our probation evolution project.

Thanks so much.

I can't tell, I can't say how much I appreciate the court taking on this work after their report recommendations and the city auditor recommendations focused on transforming how the city requires probation and manages probation for those it does require.

Really feel like over the last several years, you've gone above and beyond what I was hoping out of these recommendations and tell you how pleased I was when I saw the announcement a couple weeks ago around your decision, Judge Gregory Brown, risk assessment tool.

As you stated in your opening remarks, the risk assessment tool was designed originally to be objective, to address the bias that individuals have in making decisions on whether or not people should have probation and the length of probation, but it turns out that the actual inputs to the tool itself replicate some of the institutional biases of our system.

So really feel like you are leading the court in some important work to address these issues that have a result, if unaddressed, have a result, perpetuating the disparate impacts and outcomes for people in the criminal legal system.

I also want to, even though it So as of September 2020, I want to thank you again for eliminating the discretionary probation fees.

As it relates to maybe some work that's coming up soon, I know that there are other fines and fees that are not related to the probation program.

Some are mandated by the state.

Some are not.

I know that the court will be bringing us a report the end of July to look at the ones that are not mandated by the state.

But I also think that some of the state legislation that passed this session on legal financial obligations and creating more flexibility for people to have payment programs or have legal financial obligations waived when previously they were required by the state might allow us to do more work in this area.

view, my heartfelt sincere thanks for the work that you've been doing in this area and that you've been so steadfast in partnering with community and using their lived experience and their expertise in designing these new versions of your programs moving forward.

I'm just looking to any questions or comments from my colleagues.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Judge Gregory and team.

Thank you so much.

Echo all of the sentiments that Chair Herbold just related.

It's really, really great to work with an institution like the court that is such a proactive and passionate partner in this work of undoing a lot of the systemic harms endemic to the criminal legal system.

I wanted to ask, given that through a lot of these probation reforms, you have exit surveys, you're collecting a lot of data from the people who are moving through probation.

I think one of the biggest flaws in a lot of the work that is done in the criminal legal system is not soliciting significant feedback from people impacted in terms of what the core underlying insecurities relating to systems of recidivizing and coming back in the court.

Not getting feedback on what those underlying needs are and how to meet them is one of the big things the system struggles with and not listening to those voices.

And I just wonder if you might share, based on the information you're gathering, what are some of the biggest um, problems that are leading people to reoffend and reappear in the court and be on the caseload of probation.

I can tell you from my point of view, it's not having access to services, access to housing, um, access to jobs.

I mean, just from having been a mental health court judge and been a judge on the bench for 11 years, that's what I see.

I see a lot of inequality and also just the system in and of itself for people to have unemployment and, again, services and housing.

People don't have a chance to get themselves up by some way, again, certain services and everything else too.

It's hard for a person to be able to stop doing what they've been doing in society.

I can echo what Judge Gregory said in terms of the access to services and housing livable wages.

One of the things that we're trying to do in looking at the totality of the client and transitioning them out of the system is offering things like through the resource center that we have here to help them to transition off of probation and still have supportive services in the community.

So if somebody is coming in and they have to be supported by medication because they have mental health issues or something like that, or they have treatment needs that go beyond a lot of people that have substance abuse issues, their treatment needs goal would extend beyond the term of traditional probation.

One thing that's important for them is to have the access to community support, or even when a person is coming out of custody, it's really important for if a person has had to access mental health meds in custody, to have either the medication with them when they're transitioning out of the institution, or to have ready access to a provider when they're coming out, to ensure that they stay on the medication.

or if they're having access to medically assisted treatment while they're in custody.

Some people aren't prepared to enter into a program when they're out of custody originally, but maybe if they had access to when they were in custody and then had that supportive service set up for them immediately upon release.

As we partner with the different facets of the system, we are hoping to build out some of those opportunities to ensure that somebody has gained the stability they need and don't come back.

Thank you.

I really appreciate those responses and I think it just underscores that, you know, when we're not investing in housing and service oriented interventions, it's not like we as a city are saving any money.

like that caseload just gets put on the criminal legal system and it ends up costing us a lot more.

And I think this is really good, important work from a lot of the reforms that the court is doing to really emphasize how people can be set up for success.

And I think that data and information about housing instability being a big factor is really useful for us.

So thank you so much.

Yeah, I mean, it's not just about examining how we make decisions about people's risk, but it's also about how do we make different decisions by supporting the things that people need when they're released from custody.

And the way that we allow ourselves to make different decisions once we address the institutional biases, once we can allow ourselves to make still more equitable decisions, further reducing disparity when we're investing in the things that help people once they're released.

And really appreciate, again, you are going, you're reaching beyond just the four corners of the court in doing this work.

And I think it is going to continue to provide real benefits to our broader community and look forward to doing more work with you on that.

Are there any other comments or questions from my colleagues?

All right.

I just want to make a statement.

Council Member Lewis, you did point out the fact that it was myself and my staff, and I do want to make sure that I talk about my team because I couldn't have done any of this without my team program and services team, as well as the core team.

During the pandemic, as you all know, we've been working hard across the street at the court.

We had to close for a few days beyond that.

My staff has been working very hard and I'm very proud of my staff and my team.

And again, I do want to give a shout out to them because they're what makes this possible.

And we're all looking to make sure that we make this court a better place for people.

So again, I thank you to my team for this all coming to fruition like this.

Thank you for recognizing that council member Lewis.

Yes, many, many thanks to everybody who's made this possible, both within the court and also the community stakeholders who you've been engaged with.

And we look forward to having you back, if not before July, definitely in late July, early August, to get the report on the fees and fines imposed on the court-involved individuals, and the disproportionality study for those fines, recognizing that you have eliminated many, many discretionary probation fees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to Agenda Item 3. Please read in Agenda Item 3.

Committee agenda item number three, update on statement of legislative intent, SBD-018-A-001, federal task forces for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

Yes, so in the 2020 budget, the Council requested that the Police Department report on the activities of officers that serve on a number of inter-jurisdictional task forces.

We are joined by Interim Chief Diaz and Greg Ross, Council Central staff.

Thank you both for joining us.

I'll first pass it on to Greg to provide a brief background around about this item and wanted to reiterate the comment that I made at the start of this meeting, that among the other things, this work involves an important focus on gun violence and taking away guns from people who should not have them.

This morning's subcommittee meeting in Brooklyn is a really painful reminder of the importance of this work.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning and good morning committee members.

Also note that we are joined today by Angela Sochi, who is the finance director of SPD to tee up the item every year.

As Councilmember Herbold, the chair noted, SPD detectives work on a number of federally funded task force to address issues of violent crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking and sex related crimes, violent sex crimes within our regions.

Region agencies such as the FBI and the DEA then reimburse SPD for the costs that it accrues when doing this work.

Most of the work is done on overtime.

Each year SPD then requests budget authority for the task force related overtime.

The requests are usually made in the year end supplemental so that the department can best calculate how much it will need to reimburse for the full year of task force activities.

Last year, SPD spent about $323,000 on task force work.

The Council on November 22nd accepted the federal funding in Ordinance 126469 and then appropriated the funding in the year-end supplemental.

At the time the Council was reviewing the year-end supplemental and the 2022 adopted budget at the same time, there was not a lot of time to fully examine the work of the task forces.

So the budget chair and council member Herbold included in the 2022 adopted budget statement of legislative intent, SPD 18A001, which asked the department to report back on the activities of five of these task forces on which they spent about $246,000 in 2021. And so today you're going to hear a briefing from the department on the work of those five task forces.

Those are five of the ongoing regular task forces, and the committee will again and the council will again see those task force reimbursements request in the year-end supplemental for 2022. So, Councillor Muscata, can I?

Yes.

with the chair's permission.

I just want, thank you.

Thank you very much, Greg.

Thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

I just wanted to add a little bit of context as well to the why.

I think that the outline today and the summary of what the process is, is probably more elaborate than we had at the time of the budget making.

We asked questions during budget deliberations this year and last year about what these task force were and the information about what these task force included wasn't readily available.

So the reason I think for the slide is to really pull back the layers on what is actually being discussed, who these task force are made up of and what the purpose of them is.

Without having that information readily available to the council, it seemed like there was a big gap in information and when the work is already being performed and we're being asked to reimburse, that seems problematic.

So starting from a place of knowing what these task force are, what the purpose is, who's sitting at the tables is a much more appropriate way I think to engage in budget deliberations towards the end of the year instead of being asked to reimburse something after the fact when we don't have those details.

I appreciate that this has been put forward and the good work that's gone into this so that we can really understand what these task force are and as the good chair noted the importance of some of the work especially removing guns from the streets is important work.

So with that in mind, in terms of a good budgeting practice and also having greater transparency for members of council and the public, I appreciate that this slide was taken seriously and that we have the information going forward.

Let's jump right into it.

Thank you for being with us, Angela.

Good morning.

So unfortunately, the chief is otherwise engaged, but I am more than happy to kick us off.

I will go ahead and share the slides here.

All right, so as already noted, we were asked at the end of last year as part of the 2022 budget process to provide further detail about our federal task force partnerships.

There were specific task forces that were identified based on the reimbursement requests that we had made in the supplemental budget process towards the end of the year.

This has been a, historically we have asked for a reimbursement as Greg highlighted in his intro.

We've asked for the reimbursement for this federal task force over time that for many years now, the, Our federal partners provide that overtime reimbursement to encourage the partnership with local and regional agencies where where the subject crimes either cross jurisdictions or are better prosecuted at the federal level.

And so this is an important part of our investigative work that is done and as noted, and as you can see in the report, typically these are high level crimes that are impacting our most vulnerable either in the form of human trafficking, drug trafficking.

We are not targeting low-level crimes with this task force work.

And I think that's important to note at the outset.

So for the first one here, we've got the FBI Safe Streets Task Force.

The mission of this task force is a partnership with the FBI.

It involves SPD and other local agents, law enforcement agencies.

The mission here is to identify and target for prosecution of criminal enterprise groups responsible for drug trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking, crimes of violence, robbery, and violent street gangs.

In 2021, we had Two police detectives assigned, one from our gun violence reduction unit and another from our narcotics section, to this work.

Some of the outcomes include 45 federal indictments for trafficking weapons and money laundering, 150 firearm seizures, and a substantial amount of drug seizures, as noted here in this slide.

Also included in our response was some of the sentencing outcomes.

And I believe some of the prosecution is still taking place for this particular item.

For the next up, we have the FBI Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force.

This is also a partnership with the FBI.

In 2021, we had two robbery unit detectives assigned to this work.

This group is the vehicle through which federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies address violent crime, such as murder for hire, where you can see in this bullet the arrest of 12 suspects for bank robberies.

There was a seizure of weapons.

a robbery crime ring and the arrest of one suspect for stealing a boat threatening a Washington State ferry and attempting to lose the lead Coast Guard vessels.

There are a number of ongoing investigations that are also associated with this task force, including armed takeover style dispensary robberies in Seattle, which have been reported recently.

pattern robberies at ATM locations and armed robberies as well.

The king is back.

Yes, my apologies.

My apologies.

I was on the phone with the mayor, so my deepest apologies for Angela's done a great job, but glad to have you back.

Well, no, thank you.

Angela, do you want me to take over if you don't mind?

Yeah, you're probably better suited to, you know, address the perfect, perfect work that we're doing.

Well, I, so I entered, I know that you're on violent gang, uh, safe streets task force, but, uh, I thank you chair Herbold and all the public safety members for having me present on the federal task force work.

I know this work has been so valuable for the longterm investigations, but really the additional resources that we've been able to pull together.

Um, and with the staffing at critical low levels, the federal task force, has allowed us to pull additional resources, not only support financially and overtime, but with agents that are coming in from a variety of federal agencies.

So as we get into the violent gang streets, many of these have different titles.

So I know that this can be sometimes confusing.

So what is the Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force is also known as the Seattle Sound Regional Violent Crime Task Force, or as you see these acronyms, SRVCTF.

In this case, we have two robbery detectives that are assisting this unit, that are on the task force.

And one of the unique highlights that this task force has done was in a three month period, they did an investigation into suspects that targeted 40 pharmacies, And 32 of those robberies targeted one single company that had a total loss of about $232,000.

There was about 6,000 oxycodone pills that were sold to Seattle area teenagers.

So obviously, when you're putting oxycodone into our community and being able to also identify some of the potential losses, that task force also confiscated five handguns and two long guns.

that were associated with 11 of the rest out of that case.

It's a huge.

It's a huge win that we're able to dismantle it in a very, very short period of time.

And as as the highlight is noted, we had a murder for hire on a federal indictment.

We also had made 12 arrests for bank robberies, and so these are just again wins out of each of the units.

We did have a rest of one of the suspects for stealing a boat.

threatening the Washington State Ferry and attempting to elude Coast Guard vessels and assaulting a federal agent.

But I think overall, I mean, we just having two detectives that are able to participate as part of the larger task forces does allow us to maximize some of our extra resources.

Going into the next one, which is the Homeland Security Investigations Task Force, this task force is leading on major public safety investigations.

It does focus on disrupting and dismantling terrorists and transnational criminal organizations.

And one of the things that I just really want to highlight is that this task force, just for clarification, that we do not engage in checking on people's immigration status.

We do not address the immigration status as part of this task force.

There's so many different components of HSI, and one of the areas that we do have a big partnership with HSI is the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Task Force.

We've worked together to make 66 arrests, 63 have resulted in indictments, 43 search warrants, and 24 firearms.

But what is more profound is that this task force has recovered 880,000 fentanyl pills or doses.

And I think we've noted in working with all the different agencies, a pill is actually could cause an overdose.

So if you can imagine 880,000 pills out there that we recovered, that's enough to kill every single person in the city of Seattle.

So that is a substantial amount of work that we've done.

There's been nine pill presses that have been recovered out of this.

Some of the suspects that are arrested for these operations had criminal histories for murder, rape, and firearms, and the commission of drug trafficking.

So this is longstanding criminal activity, criminal enterprise work that is actually being stopped.

In cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, the task force also investigated a local company that claimed they developed a COVID-19 vaccine.

That company sold vaccine and administered it for a fee.

The investigation revealed three foreign companies that operated in the US.

We made an arrest and dismantled this operation.

Also in partnership, we seized 2 million counterfeit N95 masks, and that was actually sent for federal prosecution as well.

And we've initiated a third party investigation targeting money laundering.

And this investigation led to arrest for money laundering that focused on bank fraud, wire fraud, and operations of unlicensed money service businesses.

So again, some really good arrests that really focus on how money sometimes is moved, not just across state lines, but sometimes across international lines.

One of the last ones is our DEA high-intensity drug trafficking areas, sometimes otherwise known as HIDTA.

In 2021, we made 55 arrests and recovered over 100 firearms.

We continue to recover countless narcotics and fentanyl What's unique about the Haida is this is a partnership that also includes prevention and public education programs.

Haida has also funded substance use disorder treatment services and mental health and trauma treatment services as well.

The DEA task force that's a part of this, we have three different task force groups, group 21, group 22 and group 23. Each has a narcotic detective that's assigned to the task force.

And some of the accomplishments that they've had is They've been able to combine, recover, or seize 24 kilograms of cocaine, 92 kilograms of fentanyl powder, 30,000 fentanyl pills, 55,000 kilograms of heroin, and 101 kilograms of meth.

And we know each of these task forces disrupted many organized groups that have made a great impact on our community.

As I mentioned before, our federal partners reimburse SB for these overtime costs for the task force work.

Every year, the department does request budget authority for these revenue-backed expenditures, and we usually wait till the end of the year so we can have a more accurate reflection of how much has actually been used by our detectives, and then trying to see what we ask for reimbursement.

And as I continue to highlight the struggle with staffing, we are augmenting almost every shift, but I wanna continue to note the amazing work from our specialty units that have been involved with these arrests And many of these arrests have also not only addressed robbery, burglary, and drug trafficking, but we've also, it's allowed us to also address some of the homicide suspect that we've also been able to make an arrest.

Yesterday, we made an arrest in Kent regarding one of the persons that had done a pot shop robbery in West Seattle, but was also involved in a Tacoma homicide as well.

And so these are all part of that support that we get not only from all of our specialty units, but also including our federal agencies.

And then I want to just highlight a couple of things that are just probably a little bit left, which I did highlight already looking forward in some of these things that are at least already noted about the overtime costs that that we associate with our task force and that what we request for budget authority.

But also in just in noting in the month of March, we recovered 161 firearms just this last month.

This is the third highest amount of guns recovered, and it's the highest amount of guns recovered in the last 55 months.

And when I mean the third highest month over a 10-year period since 2010, so almost 12 years, this is our third highest month.

And the highest month that we had in that 12 year period is 166 firearms.

So we're only five off of what our highest level of month.

But what we're seeing is just the immense amount of guns that are on the streets.

And many of these are usually being recovered in some fashions through these task force that we've been a part of.

And I just wanted to know, we've recovered and the president had talked about ghost guns.

We recovered 24 ghost guns this year alone, compared to three during the same time period last year.

So we are seeing an increased amount of ghost guns that are affecting, that are being used in our community.

Just in the last two weeks, we've had 26 SPD-linked, what we call NIBIN hits, which is our National Integrated Ballistics, where we test all of our shell casings.

We've had 26 hits in the last two weeks.

Nine are linked to incidents, and out of those nine, five guns have been recovered.

Nine are linked to three incidents.

And so what I mean by that is they've been linked to three different shootings, and two of those guns have been recovered.

Eight have been linked to four incidents.

So again, four different areas that have had experience off of one gun.

and five guns have been recovered out of those eight linked incidences.

So, you know, there's a lot of really, really good work, but right now I also want to note that March wasn't different from the first two months.

We continue to see an increase in areas of all crime from, you know, from our shootings, to our motive vehicle theft, to larceny, to aggravated assault, and to robbery.

We continue to make arrests.

And as I noted, we, you know, made the rest of the pot shop robbery.

And so right now, this is just some of the highlighted work that we wanted to do for the city for this public safety committee as well.

Any questions?

Thanks so much.

Yeah, I do have a quick question.

We know from national studies that purchases of guns have spiked over the last couple of years.

And that I think it's something like one in five people who bought guns in 2021 are first time gun owners.

I'm wondering, so we see a huge uptick in the purchase of guns.

Are the ghost gun purchases included, since it's not data that you would get from gun sales or gun stores?

I suspect that they may not be captured in those studies.

So ghost guns are very unique.

So some ghost guns can be made on 3D printers.

So they are literally downloading the software that figures out how to actually create a frame.

And so there's that piece that you would not be able to track on gun sales.

And then there are some ghost gun manufacturers, which the president did highlight, that they're trying to regulate.

And those that don't have serial numbers associated with these ghost guns, so the frames that are being done and then people are just putting the pieces together to actually make a full functioning ghost gun.

And so some of that could potentially be tracked as far as sales from the manufacturer.

But again, that is very, very difficult and not at our level.

We would be working with the ATF to be able to do some of that regulation on it.

A couple of years ago, we did do what we call a trace data report that does track a lot of uh, gun purchases and where when we recover guns, where are they being purchased from?

And so focusing on our federal firearm licenses, however, ghost guns do not typically fit within those within that function.

So just, I think high-level, we see national reports of large increases of sales, increases over previous years of sales of guns, and it very likely does not really fully capture the increase over previous years with the advance of ghost gun technology.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I do, and hello, Chief Diaz, and thanks again, Angela, for being here.

Appreciate, again, the response to the slide here.

I do have a question about the definition of violent gang.

I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about what constitutes a gang, how that's being defined.

And the reason I'm asking is because we talk a lot about increased violence across the country, and that can mean a lot of different things to different people depending on the communities you come from.

For example, under the Trump administration, we saw a rise in white nationalists fueling violence towards many marginalized communities, but those attacks weren't classified as a gang traditionally.

And instead of being classified as domestic terrorism, which they are, they were classified as hate crimes.

So I'm interested in understanding how this task force might decide whether or not to target its resources and time based on the data and the tragedies we've seen at the hands of white supremacists.

has largely been misclassified and has continued to grow in recent years.

And notably, according to the Washington Post analysts of data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies since 2015, right wing supremacists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities.

The report goes on to state the number of all domestic terrorism from white nationalists incidents in the data peaked in 2020. And victims of all of these incidents in recent years represent a broad cross section of communities and include coming from Jewish communities, black communities, Asian communities, immigrant refugees, LGBTQ individuals, and other people of color who've been attacked by these right wing supremacists wielding vehicles, guns, knives, et cetera.

Um, you know, I also want to just remind us it was the insurrection in D.

C. Was not that long ago just last year and with half a dozen S.

P. D. Officers being in D.

C. At the time.

I think it's important for us to continue to think about what we do locally, as well as participating in these national conversations.

Recognizing the impact is not just on the individuals, but on communities broadly, including mosques, synagogues, black churches, as well as abortion clinics and government buildings.

And there have been threats, increased threats of arson.

gunfire and bombings across our country.

So in the face of these very real and rising domestic terrorism attacks and threats, is this task force looking at the issue of domestic terrorism?

And if not, which of the task force that we sit on are we both participating in and looking internally about how we address growing domestic terrorism?

So actually, any of our task force if there is a nexus to some of the criminal behavior that you've donated.

Typically, if it's involving drug trafficking or trafficking of firearms, many, whether you're looking at white supremacy groups, could fit in that alignment.

And so if there is a level of behavior or practice that we're observing and noticing, these task force do come in and are able to start working on those investigations.

Um, we've had not only domestic, but also, uh, where we had, we just, uh, worked with FBI on a, on a case where it was a, an eternal domestic that hadn't gone international.

Um, but that was one case, uh, that was a recent arrest about three months ago, but we do look at all of those, those pieces of it.

So not only, uh, it it's hard.

I know, I think what I, what I'm understanding is when we define a gang, It's really the criminal behavior that is that's associated with the group.

And so there used to be definitions.

You could say four or more people that are involved in some sort of criminal activity.

But really, it's it's the behavior that we're focused on.

So is are there involved in drug trafficking?

Are they involved in some level of of, you know, using firearms to further their purpose?

Um, and this last, uh, not this last one or one of the last ones, I did testify on just having firearms present at rallies and, uh, at protests because, you know, we honestly want to make sure that we do not have people using or pressuring people into the way they think.

So, um, that is not necessarily a part of the task force that is just when we do look at some of the protest activity that we have to be mindful as well.

Great, it looks like you have something to add to this one.

Yeah, I just wanted to add that one of the task forces that did not appear in this slide was the Puget Sound Joint Terrorism Task Force, which was a task force that received about $21,000 of overtime reimbursement in 2021. In that task force, SPD detectives were working with FBI agents on international and domestic terrorist investigations.

And so that council member may be falling into the camp that you're you're asking about.

This is a quick follow up.

So am I?

I think the takeaway, um, chief Diaz is that while it says street gangs, if it's a issue of illegal activity, including domestic terrorism, including the presence of a group of four or more, maybe that have weapons, including guns, white supremacists, domestic terrorism is part of maybe this task force on slide two, as well as the task force that Greg spoke about.

Yeah, so I believe in slide two, it did note that it did focus on local or let's see here.

If I remember right, I want to make sure.

One is criminal enterprise, so that would encompass everything from domestic to international.

And then we also have the FBI Homeland Security one, which just disrupted, dismantled terrorist, transnational, and criminal organizations that threaten to seek exploitation of the United States.

So they would fit in that.

We also have additional task force, and actually the one that Doss mentioned, I believe is the one that did the investigation that I just mentioned about three months ago, making an arrest on somebody that was domestic internally in the United States.

We also have other task force that are associated with our internet crimes and other different areas of policing as well, human trafficking, et cetera.

Thank you.

Really appreciate you making the time.

I'm asking, we do have one other item.

I see you Council Member Nelson.

If you could have your questions follow the meeting and we can certainly cover it.

I do have one.

This is kind of important.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

The slide says, It's the intent of council to review the report and seek community input on the specific task force activities before determining whether to provide appropriation authority that reimburses SPV for its work on the task forces.

Because this has already been paid for by the federal government.

So are we going to do that?

I don't, anyway, that's, that's my question.

We've, we've presented the slide report as, as intended.

Um, and it is, um, well before, um, the time where we are planning to receive the reimbursement request from the department.

Um, and we'll consider any feedback that we get from the public between now and that time.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

I want to thank everybody who took time to write us or call into public comment today about these items.

Thank you, Chief Diaz and Angela for presenting.

I appreciate the hard work of these task forces and the field.

And thank you, Councilor Mosqueda, for asking for this information and Chair Herbold for providing the space to hear it.

I know we're short on time here, but while I was listening to public comments earlier, I was being notified of two shootings in my district within the past 24 hours.

Both incidents occurred in the Wallingford neighborhood.

This is consistent with the citywide data we recently got from SPD.

Year-to-date homicide events are up 78%, year-to-date shootings, shots fired up 91%, shootings up 164%.

There was recently a survey of Seattle voters, said 73% say they feel less safe in their own neighborhood than they did two years ago.

One of the shootings this morning was in an area of repeated criminal activity along North Lake Way between Gasworks Park and I-5.

And back in December, I asked SBD Chief Diaz to walk along North Lake Way with me and small business owners.

I want to thank the chief for doing that so he could see those ongoing problems.

But for constituents who have these ongoing concerns about safety in that area.

And in light of the shooting this morning, I need to ask our police chief, was any of the task force work being used to address problems along North Lake Way?

And if not, what more are the city's executive departments doing to address the escalating challenges along North Lake Way?

And especially as we are approaching the summer months and events at Gasworks Park, what's being done to address this?

Thank you.

Yeah, so in this 2100 block of North Lake, as I think during that walk, really it's trying, I think the city is focusing on pulling all the resources together for, number one, to address a lot of the RV encampment issues and the homeless encampment issues that run along that street.

The task force is not associated with this type of work.

Typically, if there was direct knowledge on maybe something very specific with human trafficking or sex trafficking, or if we had very, very specific cases, you could bring in components of our different task force, our various task force Not one that, you know, that I had not, you know, focused on what was human trafficking, some of our human trafficking work that we're doing.

In this case, our task force are not associated with this.

There's still work that also has to be done by the city when it comes to dealing with some of the encampment RV issues, because not all of it is resulting in more of a criminal enterprise case.

In this incident, Uh, witnesses did, you know, uh, hear a verbal disturbance before shooting before the shots were had rung out.

Um, and, you know, officers did respond to the scene.

Unfortunately, you know, we were unable to locate.

Uh, we had one single gunshot victim, but we were unable to locate the suspects in this case, and we're still working on those investigations for, you know, video and other things that are associated with this case as well.

Thank you.

I'll follow up with the mayor's office to see if there's more information about what other departments may be doing as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So much.

Really appreciate that.

And we do know from SDOT that they are going to be talking to us more about specifically around enforcement of the prohibition for parking for more than 72 hours given various court cases.

They have been working on how to address some of the limitations under those various court cases, and Enesta will be talking to us, and then I think they're probably beginning to socialize some of their intentions with us on the council.

I know several of us are having meetings with SDOT about those efforts.

We also know that SPD has done a lot of really good work, even at locations that are encampments of people living outdoors in cases where there is illegal activity.

preying on the individuals who are living in encampments.

We've seen examples of also of confiscation of drugs in tents.

And so there is this concern, I think, as Council Member Lewis has raised on repeated occasions, this concern that sometimes locations where people are living unsheltered, whether or not it's RVs or in tents, often used as ways to shield the unlawful activity that's happening within the camps.

And so really appreciate that SPD does not sort of take the position of, oh, just because it's a tent encampment or just because it's an RV, we will not address complaints of unlawful activity happening at those locations.

That is not the policy of the police department.

I know many of us get constituent emails from folks who have interpreted what they've heard from police officers as they will not investigate unlawful activity within these locations.

That is not the case and there are lots of examples of SPD doing so and doing so effectively.

I'm trying to wrap this item up so we can move on to the last item on our agenda.

I do see Councilmember Lewis, you have your hand up.

I don't have a question.

I'll respectfully make a similar point.

Just to say, as Chief Diaz has acknowledged on many, many occasions, not all of these issues with public safety implications are badge and gun responses.

And that is nothing to denigrate the contribution of our officers in these environments.

But just to say that, you know, we really also need to be focused on creating an environment conducive to just naturally occurring public safety.

And we have to acknowledge that having a shelter system that is primarily based in unsanctioned encampments is not a strategy conducive.

And I just hope for people that are watching, we can continue to work on a strategy where we renew and expand Just Care, continue to expand tiny house villages so that we don't have unsanctioned encampments and ergo have less environments conducive to this kind of criminal activity.

So thank you, Chief Gaines.

Thank you.

And thanks for being with us today.

Clerk, please read in agenda item number four.

agenda item number four, council bill 120294, an ordinance relating to app-based work, labor standards establishing compensation scheme for app-based workers with minimum pay requirements and related standards for transparency and flexibility, amending sections 3.02.125, 3.15.000, and 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding a new title eight in chapter 8.37 to the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

Just a couple of very short introductory remarks just for the viewing public.

We have been meeting with a large group of stakeholders for nearly a year.

It'll be a year in June.

As of April, In 2022, there have been 13 of these large stakeholder meetings held.

Stakeholders have included a wide range of companies that would potentially be regulated by this legislation.

Everything from UberDash, Uber Eats, Rover, Instacart, and others.

It also included activities workers, council members, and central staff in the Office of Labor Standards participation.

And we've also had several committee sort of briefing items as we have been going along through the process to make sure committee members are familiar with many of the concepts related to issues in this bill.

This bill is related to minimum payment, transparency, and flexibility issues.

There will be future bills in the future to address some of the other issues, such as classroom access, anti-discrimination, and deactivation.

Before I hand it over to Amy Gore on central staff to go over her presentation, I do want address a couple things I've heard in committee.

I've heard some folks suggest this is a one-size-fits-all approach to the different gig economies, and that is not the case.

This proposal recognizes that there is a difference between what we call on-demand delivery companies and marketplace network companies with different approaches to each, and we'll learn more about that in a moment.

And then there's some reference to a belief that the city should commission a study to inform the policy from folks who are skeptical that gig workers are making under minimum wage and I just want to remind everybody that when the city considered and passed similar legislation to protect transportation network companies, was a study commissioned by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of Berkeley.

And they confirmed that workers were making significantly under minimum wage.

And then after expenses, workers were only making $9.73 an hour.

So I just want to flag those two issues, because we did hear that mentioned in public comment.

With that, I hand it over to Amy Gore.

Amy.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm going to share my screen.

Can everybody see that?

Okay, great.

My name is Amy Gore.

And I am sorry, I'm trying to move that over.

My name is Amy Gore with Council Central staff.

I am joined by my colleague, Jasmine Marwaha.

She may jump in to answer questions if needed.

Today, I have a presentation on Council Bill 120294, which would establish a minimum pay standard and related regulations for app-based workers.

In this presentation, I will give an overview of the legislation, as well as outline some policy considerations for the committee.

The committee has had three briefings on this legislation as it was developed.

So most of the basics of the legislation will be familiar to you.

Given the time, I'm going to try to go through this quickly while pointing out changes from the last committee discussion.

But I also want to hit the main points for folks who may be just starting to track this legislation now that has been introduced.

So I really appreciate your patience.

Network companies rely on a business model that treat app-based workers as independent contractors.

That means that they are not covered by employment standards established by federal and state, federal, state, and local laws.

This legislation is one of a suite of policies that the committee has been discussing under the umbrella term pay-up proposal, which are intended to establish labor standards for these app-based workers.

The suite of proposals include those listed on the slide, which again I won't go through because we have talked about them quite a lot.

This bill, Council Bill 120294, would address the first three of these policy goals.

It would establish the minimum pay standard, set transparency requirements governing information that is shared with workers, customers in the city, and it would establish flexibility standards that give workers more control over their work availability.

In addition, it would require a notice of rights for workers, establish record-keeping requirements for network companies, prohibit retaliation, and authorize the city's Office of Labor Standards, or OLS, to administer and enforce the requirements.

The legislation and the package of policy proposals, as the chair mentioned, has been the subject of community engagement since June of 2021, and has been discussed in the committee three times prior to today.

The final bullet should say today's date, April 12th.

There was not a meeting on April 8th, just in case that is confusing for anybody.

The next several slides discuss the workers and the companies that are covered by the legislation.

First, covered workers would include workers accepting offers to perform services for pay via a network company's worker platform.

The legislation would not cover workers offering the sale of rental, excuse me, sale or rental of goods or real estate.

It does not include licensed professional services.

including creative work and digital services.

It does not include workers providing transportation services through taxis or TNCs, and it does not cover workers who meet the definition of employees of the network company or the customer.

For companies, a covered company is any company that has 250 or more app-based workers worldwide and that use online-enabled applications or platforms to connect customers with workers or present offers to workers and or facilitate the provision of services by workers.

What is not covered is any company offering services that simply enable individuals to schedule appointments or process payments when the company does not engage in any additional intermediation of the relationship between the customers and the workers and does not provide oversight of the services that are provided.

It also does not cover any companies operating digital advertising and messaging platforms when there is not intermediation of the relationship or oversight of the services provided.

And similar to workers, it does not cover taxis or transportation network companies, either as defined by the city or as defined by the state.

In addition to the definitions for covered companies, as Councilmember Herbold mentioned, there are two types of network companies which are defined separately in the legislation and would have different regulatory requirements.

First is on-demand network companies.

These are network companies that primarily facilitate or present on-demand offers.

An on-demand offer is one that must be initiated within two hours of acceptance.

On-demand companies can include those that facilitate delivery from eating and drinking establishments or grocery stores, but are not necessarily limited in that way.

Second, we have marketplace network companies.

These are network companies that operate differently than other network companies.

They facilitate pre-scheduled offers where the company or customer and the worker exchange information on the scope or the details of the service and then agree to a price for those services.

The company does not monitor the app-based worker's location, mileage, or time.

And just to be clear, a company that does not fit the definition of a marketplace network company or an on-demand company can still be considered a network company and covered by the legislation.

They are not intended to be mutually exclusive.

The primary impact of the legislation would be the establishment of a minimum payment for app-based workers.

The goal of the minimum payment is to require that a network company either provide or ensure that the customer provide both the payment of a minimum wage in addition to expenses that the app-based worker is covering themselves.

The minimum payment is calculated using two primary inputs, engaged time and engaged miles.

Engaged time is the time that a worker performs services for an offer.

For marketplace network companies, because time is not monitored by the company, the engaged time is based on an estimate agreed upon before the offer is accepted.

And that is agreed upon by the customer and the worker.

Engaged miles are those miles that are traveled by a worker during engaged time.

And again, because marketplace network companies do not track miles traveled, engaged miles would not include any miles that are traveled when performing services facilitated by a marketplace network company.

So to go into a little bit more detail about engaged time, For on-demand network companies or when an offer must be performed within two hours, engage time would begin when the offer is accepted and engage time would end when the offer is completed or the offer is canceled by the company, the customer, or the worker cancels the offer with cause.

And we will get into the conditions under which an offer can be terminated with cause shortly.

As I mentioned previously, engage time is the time it will take to perform the offer.

But for marketplace network companies, it would be estimated by the customer and worker prior to the offer acceptance.

For marketplace network companies, engage time can be both flexible, for example, one hour of work in an eight-hour period, or it can be non-concurrent.

For all other offers, engage time would start when the app-based worker begins performance of the offer or reports to the assigned location.

And then engaged time ends when the performance is complete, when the offer is canceled by the company, or when the worker cancels with cause.

This slide just summarizes the calculation of the minimum payment, which is the per minute amount multiplied by engaged minutes, plus the per mile amount multiplied by engaged miles.

In the next slides, I'm going to go into a little bit more detail about the per minute amount and the per mile amount.

For the per minute amount, it includes a minimum wage equivalent, which in 2022 is 28.8 cents, as well as an associated cost factor of 1.13 to cover non-mileage expenses that are necessary to conduct app-based work and associated, and sorry, an associated time factor to cover the time that app-based workers spend working or engaged to wait for work without compensation.

Therefore, the total per minute amount is 39 cents.

The per mile amount includes the standard mileage rate set by the Internal Revenue Service, 58.5 cents per mile, as well as an associated mileage factor to cover miles traveled without compensation.

In the legislation, the per mile amount is initially set at 1.25, and this results in a total per mile amount of 73 cents.

Um, as discussed, the minimum wage equivalent for app based workers is based on our city's minimum wage for schedule one employers.

Um, and that is defined in S.

M. C. Chapter 14.19 in 2022. It's 17 27 per hour, which works out to about 28.8 cents per minute.

This slide itemizes some of the types of costs to be covered by the associated cost factor, such as payroll tax, state paid medical leave, and unemployment.

As noted before, the legislation would set the associated cost factor at 1.13 initially, and it would be adjustable by the OLS director, excuse me, the Office of Labor Standards director, after three years, though the director could not reduce it below 1.13.

Um, this slide slide 18 itemizes some of the costs to be covered by the associated time factor, such as rest breaks and time reviewing offers.

Um, it includes time to become available for tasks and for administrative tasks related to their app based work.

The legislation would allow the director of the Office of Labor Standards to review and change the associated time factor, but could not reduce it below 1.21.

This slide itemizes the cost to be covered by the associated mileage factor, such as the expense of miles driven while a worker is not engaged on a specific offer.

So the legislation would establish a minimum payment per offer of at least $5.

That would be adjusted annually at the time at the rate of inflation.

The legislation would also allow the director to exclude certain offers from the minimum per offer amount.

So that might include establishing a grace period during which a customer can cancel an offer without the minimum payment.

The legislation now specifies that the grace period set by the director could not be more than five minutes after acceptance.

And that is something that is new that was not included in the legislation that was discussed previously by the committee.

The legislation would impose transparency requirements intended to provide workers with information to help them choose which offers to accept and to verify compliance with the minimum payment standard.

It also provides customers with information on the charges of the offer, and it provides the Office of Labor Standards with regular and routine access to company records that are needed to ensure compliance with the minimum payment standard.

The information required as part of an offer has remained mostly unchanged.

from prior committee discussions.

However, I wanted to highlight that since the last committee discussion, a definition of unsealed has been added to the legislation, and these requirements have been changed to only include unsealed order contents to be disclosed to the worker.

As discussed previously, the legislation would require electronic receipts to both workers and customers within 24 hours of completion.

in addition to a weekly statement to the worker.

as well as a 14-day notice before changes to the way that payment is calculated.

And sorry, that is a notice to the worker, I should clarify.

And I also just want to note that this slide says significant changes.

However, the legislation currently specifies that this requirement applies to material changes.

That was something that was agreed to by the stakeholders.

So I just want to highlight that that has been changed in the legislation.

The final component of the legislation is flexibility requirements.

The legislation would require that app-based workers be allowed to be logged into the platform when they choose without limitation, except for health and safety restrictions, as well as giving workers the right to decide work availability, and the right to accept or reject any offer.

And that would include any type of offers or any number or proportion of offers from the network company.

Let's see.

In addition, the legislation would allow the app-based workers to cancel offers with cause under the circumstances listed.

And that would include that the offer information is inaccurate, The offer cannot be completed due to the customer actions, and that would be, for example, if the customer is not there unless it is a contactless delivery, and also that the timely completion of the offer is unsafe or impracticable, or if there is a good-faith complaint about sexual harassment or discrimination on behalf of the worker.

Finally, this is the last slide about the actual legislation overview.

So the effective date of the legislation would be 30 days after signing.

However, the provisions of the new chapter would not go into effect until 12 months after the legislation's effective date.

This is to give the Office of Labor Standard more time for outreach, engagement, and rulemaking.

Before I move on to policy considerations, I wanted to stop and see if there are any questions from the council members about the overview of the legislation.

Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and move on to some policy considerations that the committee may want to think about during deliberation and the amendment process for Council Bill 120294. First, I wanted to highlight potential impacts to workers, customers, and businesses.

As has been discussed in the committee previously, this legislation is intended to address pay for app-based workers.

But like most labor standards and business regulations, it will likely have other impacts, particularly on businesses that use network companies for deliveries and for customers who utilize these services.

For example, the pay standard would likely increase the cost of operations for network companies, and those companies could pass that increase on to customers or partner businesses.

If these increases are unsustainable, companies could choose not to do business in Seattle, which would obviously have detrimental impacts on businesses and on the workers.

However, it's very hard to predict or quantify what these impacts may be.

I did a search for any studies detailing impacts for similar regulations, but as you know, this type of regulation is very new.

And therefore, there's not significant data or analysis on pay standards specifically for app-based companies.

I also looked for analyses of the impacts from pay standards and regulations for transportation network companies, which has some similarities to this bill, obviously.

In Seattle, the fair share legislation established minimum payment standards for TNC drivers that went into effect on January 1 of last year.

There were reports like middle of last year from TNC companies that the regulations resulted in a 50% increase in cost per ride.

However, I haven't seen the data.

I haven't seen that data independently verified.

In addition, the TNC companies report that demand for rides is recovering more slowly in Seattle than in other markets, which they attribute to the higher cost of rides.

Because of this, the committee may want to consider enacting the legislation as proposed and funding a study to monitor the impacts of the regulations with the intention of modifying the regulations based on the study findings.

The committee could also delay enacting legislation in order to fund a study to examine and model the potential impacts to businesses and workers and customers, excuse me, to inform development of the policy.

The next thing that I wanted to highlight is the legislation's coverage of businesses and workers.

The legislation currently includes broad definitions for company and worker coverage to be clarified and detailed during rulemaking.

The benefit of this is that it provides more time to get into the detail of different operational models and develop rules which reflect the nuances of various companies and how they operate.

In addition, this is a rapidly evolving industry and creating this detail and rulemaking rather than the legislation can create more flexibility to make revisions moving forward.

However, some stakeholders have communicated to council that they would prefer that additional details about coverage be determined by council and codified – sorry, codified in the legislation.

So the company – sorry, the committee may want to consider providing additional clarity and specifics related to coverage.

For example, that offers performed by workers covered by an employee relationship while they are performing the offer are excluded.

They could – the committee could consider amending the legislation to change the definition of covered network companies, to provide more detail on concepts like facilitate or present or intermediation, which are all terms that are used in the definition of covered companies.

The committee may want to amend the legislation to provide other clarifying language related to coverage, or they could amend the legislation to require additional clarification through rulemaking.

The next issue I wanted to bring to the committee's attention is about marketplace network companies.

As we discussed, these companies use a model which does not track time, mileage, or geography of work.

This makes applying the payment standards very difficult.

The legislation establishes different regulations for marketplace companies, for example, that engage time is based on estimates, prior to acceptance of the offer and that miles driven during an offer are not considered when calculating the minimum payment.

This may result in less effective worker protections, but also may not fully reflect the operational model of all marketplace network companies.

The committee may want to consider amending the legislation to add regulations for marketplace network companies to strengthen and clarify the requirements.

The committee may consider amending the legislation to require additional clarification through rulemaking.

Or the committee may want to consider amending the legislation to exempt all or some marketplace companies or offers from the minimum network payment.

I do think I just want to highlight that there are some really important protections related to flexibility and transparency, such as the ability to cancel with cause, that if marketplace companies are excluded completely because it's hard to do the payment calculations, that would exclude them from those other protections as well.

So we might want to talk about the pros and cons of the level of exemption of those companies if that is something that the committee wants to pursue.

Fourth, I wanted to talk a little bit about the adjustments to associated factors.

As discussed previously, the associated cost factor, the associated time factor, and associated mileage factor are all intended to reflect the expenses incurred when a worker is performing app-based work.

The legislation states that the associated cost factor and associated time factors may be adjusted by the OLS director, but that they may never go below the initial rate set in this legislation.

It is possible that the covered cost could change significantly.

For example, if the state takes action to include app-based workers in the state unemployment insurance or paid family medical leave programs, the cost of covering those expenses could be decreased significantly for workers.

So the council may want to consider amending the legislation to allow associated factors to be decreased by the OLS director if the needed components change significantly or change or decrease significantly.

In addition, the legislation does not explicitly authorize the OLS director to adjust the associated mileage factor, and the committee may want to amend the legislation to provide that authorization as well as guidance for any adjustment that the director might choose to implement.

Let's see.

So the next-to-last issue is that the legislation would authorize the Office of Labor Standards Director to issue, revise, or rescind rules to administer and enforce the minimum payment standards.

In some cases, rulemaking is required, and in some cases, rulemaking is discretionary.

And if you're interested in the specifics of these, we can either discuss them later.

They are also included in more detail in the memo.

Similar to company and worker coverage discussed previously, using rulemaking can provide flexibility.

However, some stakeholders have requested that the legislation go into more detail on policies rather than rely on rulemaking.

And so the committee may want to consider amending the legislation to include specific policies rather than delegating to rulemaking.

They might consider amending the legislation to include more specific guidelines for policies delegated to rulemaking.

Or finally, they could consider amending the legislation to change whether specific rulemaking is required or discretionary.

I believe this is the last slide related to policy considerations.

OLS has provided the council with an estimate of the cost to implement, administer, and enforce the minimum payment standards that would be established by this council bill.

They estimate that the cost would be $1.2 million in 2023, including $670,000 for staffing cost and $567,000 for non-staffing cost.

In addition, OLS estimates that it will cost about $1.2 million in ongoing costs beginning in 2024. I just want to note that this is more than what I included in the memo in the presentation, because the OLS estimate includes full staffing in year one prior to the legislative requirements going into effect.

I'm going to continue to work with OLS and CBO to determine how much staffing will be needed in year one to stand at the program versus the ongoing staffing costs made by OLS.

Regardless of what that year one number ends up being, these costs cannot be absorbed by the department.

The committee may want to consider increasing funding for OLS to perform these responsibilities either in 2022 or in the 2023 annual budget.

That would need to be done through separate legislation or the committee could not allocate additional funding, which would allow OLS to prioritize the work within their existing resources as determined by the department.

So I wanted to stop here and see if there were any questions related to the policy considerations that I've outlined.

While I'm looking to see whether or not there are any raised hands, I want to just really thank you, Amy.

I have.

And who is also Council Member Nelson, I'm speaking.

Oh, sorry.

Well, thank you.

I want to thank Amy Gore for all of the work that you've been doing, Jasmine Maraha as well, Karina Bull.

I want to comment on one thing that I heard in public comment.

about the quality of the work, and it was a very complimentary comment.

And I just want to say that the level of detail and comprehensiveness of this very, very complex policy has just been incredible, and you've really delved into those details.

and that complexity and given us options to consider and you continue to do so.

For the viewing public, if there are issues that may not be fully addressed in the ordinance, that is not because the ordinance is poorly drafted, it's because we are recognizing that there are some decisions that need to be made in the rulemaking process.

We can continue to have a conversation about whether or not the bill as introduced does the job that the council and the committee wants as it relates to making those decisions about which things should be decided in rulemaking process and which things should be in the ordinance itself.

But that is part of the deliberative process, and this is by no means a final product.

I'll touch on next steps.

in closing remarks, but now opening it up to council members.

Council Member Mosqueda, I see you have your hand raised and have had your hand raised, so I'll recognize you first.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Council Member.

excuse me, Madam Chair, and also I want to thank you for the work that you've put into the robust stakeholder process.

I know that many folks who called in who were part of the process really applauded you for that, but I wanted to take a minute to thank you and your co-sponsor as well.

Council Member Lewis, I do also want to note, you know, the irony in having the TNC legislation in the state legislature referenced when that was legislation that I actually had the opportunity to sponsor in 2019 through a robust process and many similarly situated companies at the time criticized that process, which then led to the interest in being taken up at the state level.

So there will always be critics, but I do think that the robust process that you put into place and actually the time that you took to hit pause to really do another deep dive into the policy is something that is worth highlighting.

being very complimentary at.

I do also want to note that on that last slide related to the fiscal note, and it is my intention to try to make sure that in every presentation on legislation, if there's going to be a fiscal impact, that we do have an opportunity to look at the fiscal note.

Councilmember Peterson, for example, in his committee, I did have a chance to ask some questions about the tree ordinance last time, not to be questioning of the policy, but really to make sure that we're spending more time focused on the fiscal note.

Perhaps in another committee meeting, Amy, we can do a little bit more of a deep dive into the fiscal note, but I just wanted to note that I think there's an option C as well as related to the cost of implementation and ongoing staffing for this ordinance.

I think option C would be self-generating support, revenue source of some kind that could help go back into the department.

I don't have an idea of what that could be yet, but I don't want to rule it out.

Councilmember Herbold, I just wanted to note, I think that there's possible opportunities for us to continue to look at the sustainability, both in the immediate and long-term that would be on options A and B there.

Thank you very much.

Those are my comments on the fiscal network.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda and Budget Chair, always keep an eye on those fiscal impacts.

So thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

So we heard public comment and I don't think anybody was, let me just start again.

I absolutely support delivery drivers making a living wage and all of our public comment people, companies, I'm referring to the companies, the network companies here did say that they also support minimum wage standards.

My problem has always been the inevitable unintended consequences on the drivers, the small businesses that are supported by these apps and the customers when you impose a single regulatory framework on such a wide diversity of business models.

Um, so we got some letters this past week and, um, to flat you flagged the, uh, the notion of having a study.

I will say that I do support having a study to look at these to consider these particular impacts.

And I can go into what that study would include.

But I am not the only one saying this because, let's see, the Seattle Metropolitan Latino Chamber says, we're deeply concerned about the unintended consequences that Seattle payout may have on our community, specifically because there's been no third party or independent research or studies about this regulation yet.

And Bishop Gary Tyson of the General Baptist Convention of the Pacific Northwest says, He makes the note that his community benefits from app-based work and says, we believe this legislation must be set aside to do the work to better understand its impacts on the communities that we work to connect and empower.

And you noted a study that had been done, but these comments do call for an independent research.

And there was, so it all comes down to, well, which consultant are you gonna use?

At the minimum, we can go into the inconsistencies of the two studies that were done to inform fair share.

But my point is that there does need to be a lot more input and analysis.

And often it's the length of the stakeholder process is brought up.

Well, the advocates of the proposal have been running the stakeholder outreach and meetings, and so there is a bit of a conflict of interest there.

But just in the past two weeks, a whole new category of company has been invented, marketplace companies.

And that's because some very nuanced concerns from service providers, app-based service providers, the companies that don't just deliver things that provide services to people in need, their concerns were finally being heard.

And so And regulations were refined to address those concerns, and a whole new set of rules and regulations apply to those people.

So my point is that's basically whack-a-mole, because as soon as you solve for one problem, then other problems pop up.

And some of these companies, like Angie and Care.com, just found out about this legislation by accident.

This outreach and this study and leading into a final vote has to be more robust so that companies that don't even know they're impacted can voice their concerns.

And we just got a letter from drivers as well.

And so I am making the point that yes there's been a long stakeholder process but It has been incomplete.

And that is why I believe that we do need to have a lot more input.

And then I'll touch on the rulemaking process.

It is deeply concerning to me that so much of the details, so much of the implementation of this legislation will be decided after we already voted out of committee.

And what expertise does the OLS director have to make a lot of these decisions?

How will they come to, well, the director, how will they come to their decisions about engaged time?

What is compensable time for overnight services, et cetera?

And the list goes on.

So one option that was not presented in policy considerations is to, well, I'll say my preferred one, which is to eliminate market-based companies altogether this legislation because it was clearly designed to raise the wages out by delivery, not necessarily income, of delivery drivers.

But another suggestion I would have is to pass the legislation but delay its implementation until OLS can complete its rulemaking process.

And that rulemaking and those rules would be approved by council.

So that is one way to make sure that we don't multiply the unintended consequences of this legislation.

Before I hand it over to the co-sponsor of the bill, Council Member Lewis, I just want to real quickly respond to a couple things.

Council Member Nelson, you referred to it as a single regulatory framework.

It is not a single regulatory framework, as mentioned earlier.

There is a different definition for marketplace apps and a different regulatory standard that they have to meet.

that is significantly different than for the on-demand apps.

The stakeholder engagement weekly at one point, stakeholder engagement meetings were not run by Working Washington.

They were run by my staff with myself sometimes attending, Council Member Lewis sometimes attending, and with the assistance of council central staff and OLS participating.

I want to also just reference, I appreciate that one of the options in Amy's memo related to a study does include the ability to study impacts.

you know, just stepping back about what the goal of this effort is.

It's about making sure that people are getting at least the minimum wage for their work in this city.

So I would be interested to learning about the impacts of that of that very, very basic standard and seeing if there are things to do to mitigate those impacts, but not as a prerequisite to the legislation.

Again, this is a minimum work standard that we are looking to extend to these workers.

A local study at the University of Washington showed that the increase of, for instance, our $15 minimum wage did not lead to higher products, higher costs for products for consumers.

And the decision of whether or not to increased prices on products and services is wholly within the company's jurisdiction.

We know there are many inputs and outputs of these financial decisions, and one is the profit.

And so you don't automatically – the thing – you don't have to increase prices.

And I would argue that If you want to make sure that people are still buying your product, it's not really the best business practice to increase your prices if it's going to impact the interest of people buying your product.

There are other ways to look at it.

addressing the costs for, again, this very basic minimum standard to protect workers.

Really appreciate also that, Council Member Nelson, that you are sort of digging into the difference between the marketplace and the on-demand apps and look forward to having more conversations.

Our thinking on including the marketplace apps in this legislation is really in recognition that this particular sector of our workforce has evolved exponentially almost as in a sort of an inverse relationship to the increase in worker protections.

And so as we have passed more laws to protect workers, the numbers of people who work, who don't get those rights has increased.

We don't want to create the same sort of dynamic with this legislation that by not regulating the marketplace apps that we create a big loophole that then the model, the employment model shifts.

to sort of take advantage of that loophole.

We want to make sure that everybody is paid fairly for an hour's work, including covering the costs associated with doing that work.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council Member Gerbold.

Since it's almost 1 p.m., I just want to make some comments about how I do think that the process up to this point has been robust and very inclusive.

I want to thank yourself I want to very much thank Alex Clardy on your team for his steadfast work in really organizing and working through a lot of issues with stakeholders.

I mean, I think that it's important for this to now go in to be the work of the committee to start sorting through some of the issues that Council Member Nelson has flagged.

And Council Member Nelson, I do appreciate you flagging those issues.

Um, I think what it represents is that, uh, you know, some issues, um, really can only be resolved through the public discourse and not necessarily through the stakeholder process.

Uh, the stakeholder process has kind of gotten us to our starting point here for the legislative process.

Um, and I acknowledge that, uh, you know, it is difficult for some of these platforms to, um, uh, to engage in the stakeholdering process to a certain extent, and at the same time, you know, reserve the right to oppose the legislation.

And I understand and respect, you know, politics is politics.

And a lot of these platforms would sooner or not be subject to any kind of regulation.

And I understand that and respect that.

But I wouldn't misconstrue that to mean that they weren't involved in the stakeholder process and didn't contribute in meaningful ways to providing certain feedback that has materially impacted this initial proposal.

As you state, this draft includes a fairly detailed start in kind of talking about these marketplace apps versus delivery apps, for example, and that is a direct result of engagement with the marketplace apps talking about how their model is distinct and what the different issues and the kind of activity they engage in are.

You know, I'll own up that I still have ongoing questions and concerns about the extent to which this legislation interfaces with the marketplace apps, but that's all part of our legislative discussion, legislative process.

I just wanted to say I think that definitely this committee should delve into these issues, flag things for amendment, and that that outreach and stakeholdering should continue.

But I do think that a good process was put together by central staff, Council Member Herbold and myself, to get us to the starting point where we can parse through some of the issues that are still on the table.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Nelson.

So to answer your question, I am not saying that a minimum pay standard is the wrong way to go.

The unintended consequence, which has been documented, is a drop in demand.

And what happens to the income of drivers when demand for me to just before it not pass on to consumers and so that means now it's behavior And so that is what I was talking about when I said unintended consequence.

And we also have to think about the end customer, because there is a convenience factor here.

And we can't predict the continued, as you said, evolution of these kinds of companies, but it's being driven by demand for access and convenience.

Nowhere in this legislation is it contemplated that what is happening is that consumers want a flat fee for services.

Your dishwasher's broke, call up somebody that's going to fix it for $200.

And so the whole calculation is meaningless here.

And based in the calculation that is on the books right now, I did the math, and it is about $34.35 for three 20-minute, five-mile drives.

Again, caution, because these are very complex.

And if we are concerned about the delivery drivers, why not just take that body of work and proceed?

Because as I said, the marketplace company definition was just included in the past two weeks.

And so there is clearly a lot of work that has to be done before we get to perhaps more issue identification at the next meeting.

when we'll have other important things on the agenda.

Thank you so much, Carmen Nelson.

Really appreciate those thoughts.

And just one other point I wanted to make.

Whereas you had mentioned the implementation date or the effective date, that it should not be effective until the rulemaking process is complete, that is There's sort of an effective date of the ordinance which allows OLS to go forth and begin the rulemaking process, and then there is the ability to enforce the law, which will not happen until after the rulemaking process is complete.

I just want to- Well, I'm just simply saying that council should approve the rules before it goes into effect.

Because here we are just putting the cart before the horse by passing a set of regulations.

That's one approach.

And I think it'd be great if maybe we pulled together some information about OLS's rulemaking process in past bills that the council has uh...

adopted uh...

and the types of rules that they historically have been have been delegated to all of us on in their process for doing so uh...

they do have uh...

sort of the expertise to get no in the weeds and and they also uh...

engage with stakeholders as part of that that will make the process they do uh...

uh...

at a deep level of engagement before uh...

those those rules are promulgated.

So just on that, I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Again, Council Member Nelson, and I think being able to demonstrate OLS's history with rulemaking might be helpful information for this discussion as well.

So with that, I just want to flag that we'll have some time set aside for this bill in upcoming meetings, each the 26th and on May 10th.

And I want to just hear from Amy, I don't think, even though I know say that we're going to be putting on amendments at the next meeting, I don't think that that's accurate.

Go ahead.

Yes, my understanding, well, obviously it is up to the chair.

My understanding was that the April 26th meeting would be a discussion of amendments, but there would not be a vote on that.

But obviously that is up to the chair.

So actually, I'm thinking that the next meeting might be the time to discuss amendments conceptually, rather than expecting committee members to get you amendments that you then have to craft language for at the next meeting.

I think that's a little...

a little bit short of a time frame for folks to turn that around.

And so maybe, I would think of our next committee meeting as more of sort of a deep dive into the issue ID that you started very helpfully with in this meeting, and maybe if council members can begin to think about what alternatives they would like to have discussed in the next meeting as sort of issue ID, I think that would be a good next step.

Right.

Great.

Well, thank you, everybody, for making additional time in today's meeting.

The next Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, April 26th at 9.30 a.m.

And just want to note the time is 12.58.

There are no further comments from my colleagues.

Hearing and seeing none.

Thank you so much.

We are adjourned.