Public Safety Committee 7/14/2026

And good morning.

Bonjour.

I should say to the Public Safety Committee will come to order.

It's 9.34 a.m.

July 14th, 2026, Bastille Day.

So I thought I'd throw that in.

I'm Robert Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Lynn?

Here.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Council Member Sacca?

Good morning.

Here.

Chair Kettle?

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Great, thank you.

For chair comment this morning, I wanted to start off with a thank you.

I wanted to thank you from the federal down to the local, starting with the federal level with the security effort that was done for the FIFA World Cup, starting again at the federal level, the Secret Service, which has the responsibility at the federal level, but also obviously was supported by the FBI.

At the state, actually at the state level, the lead is the Office of Emergency Management, but also with Washington State Police and others.

And from the county level, King County Sheriff, King County Metro Security, plus basically all the other jurisdictions that were providing mutual aid, thank you to them.

But more importantly, not more importantly, but want to emphasize a thank you to the Seattle Police Department, the Fire Department, and the Care Department, our first responders for all the work that they did in support of our FIFA World Cup 26 experience with all six games, matches, if you will.

being held here and being done well.

So thank you to all of them.

Now for my main chair comment, I wanted to note that recently I've been contacted by folks related to different challenges that we're seeing, North Aurora and Little Saigon, as it turns out, which are two areas that I've been speaking to in my chair comment.

I've been getting reports from North Aurora that things are sliding back to the norm.

I've seen some drawdowns to Little Saigon, you know, partly in terms of the partnership between, you know, SPD and King County Sheriff and the like, so it's being noticed.

And this is what I've spoken to before in terms of the challenges that we face as we try to move forward on public safety.

At the bottom line is capacity.

That's always going to be a key factor here.

And this goes to staffing of SPD and other departments.

But we also need the leadership that is sustained.

And this is where it becomes important because North Aurora and Little Saigon and other areas in the city will notice that whether there is a follow-up and a follow-through of the effort or not.

and as I said before too, implementation of laws, bills passed into law.

This is so, so important and this shows up with our, and since we're talking public drug use and possession, with our stay out of drug area bill, soda bill.

It's been mischaracterized.

It's often been characterized as like a Republican city attorney bill.

Well, that's not true.

That was actually a mayor's team bill, a SBD team bill, a city attorney, obviously a city attorney team bill with data scientists from both the SPD and the city attorney's office along with me and my team.

I would argue that it was a very positive example with respect to the development of SOTA law of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches working together.

And SOTA was having an impact on the drug markets in places like Belltown.

It was a cruel tool to be in the toolbox.

It wasn't gonna solve everything by itself, but it was an important tool in the toolbox.

And I remember being in Belltown when an officer came to me and said, sir, we had our first SOTA order violation arrest.

And it was making an impact.

But as I said before, like in terms of what we're seeing in North Aurora and Little Saigon, the effort wasn't sustained.

In fact, it was pushed against.

And it was portrayed negatively.

which wasn't true.

Think about the diversity of the leadership of those teams, the mayor, the chief of police at the time, a female city attorney, and ours, in addition to the diverse teams that were present creating that law.

But here we are today, looking at public drug use and possession, talking about drug markets, and a bill that could be helping is not.

So if we wonder as a city why we don't make progress on the public safety challenges that we face, well, this is part of the answer.

Okay, colleagues, that's chair comment.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now move open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee.

Claire, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have seven signed up.

Two of those are remote.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes and we'll start with the in-person speakers.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

I think we have one more.

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

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

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

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

Public comment period is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Steve Rebstello.

Good morning.

Morning.

We need a better Seattle, and we've got a lot of room to move.

I'm still waiting for a police force that is effective.

Since COVID, we have not had one, in my not-so-humble opinion.

We need to bring back the squads that do things like miners' car prowls, and go up to rape and other serious crimes, because I'm not seeing follow-through, which I find very, very difficult.

We're not even catching the low-hanging fruit.

People can put up scan-mes.

on other signs, steal money.

Now this goes to an account which should be traceable, but this appears to be too much effort for the city of Seattle.

If you can't get the low-hanging fruit, you're not gonna get the really big ones.

I'll drop this here in your comments.

I have pulled many, many, many of them, so this is not a great loss.

Also, I see the time that police officers are spending.

Now, I don't think that they shouldn't protect firefighters and other people dealing with homeless and tough situations, but they spend so much time trying to help people, they're not really spending time actually protecting people.

and the Seattle police at this point seem to have an attitude like the old no problem charts.

I don't know if you ever remember those black and white with all the arrows going around.

Everything ends up at no problem.

And, you know, people who call them and are assaulted are silly.

They're wasting their time.

Now, it may just because I'm an old white man, but I did see one who did the same thing with a black woman that did go away in handcuffs.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Garno Robinson.

Sorry, couldn't read it.

Hi, my name is Garrett.

I'm speaking on behalf of LEAD.

I have been in this program since probably the very beginning.

I have been pulled out from my work, just basically to speak on my experience, I guess.

I had started out in 2013, and where my life is today is a dramatic experience.

Yeah, so the resources that they have are what transformed me, definitely.

And I'm sorry.

Oh, no worries.

Just tell me about Lee, just directly.

Tell you about what?

Just pretend you're having a conversation with me.

Don't worry about being here in chambers or anything.

Yeah, so my life had definitely took a turn.

And so they have reached out to me.

My daughter had reached out to my counselor and basically pulled me from the streets and gave me another meeting.

It's probably what pulled me away from everything.

I didn't think that this was going to happen.

I was way more put together.

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys so much.

Thank you for your public comment.

Next up we have Johnny Busquette.

Good morning.

First, I want to thank City Council members for being here.

Thank you, Council Chair.

My name is Johnny Bousquet.

Before people called me Johnny Bousquet, in 2014, what people called me was a drug addict, a bum, a thief, a liar, somebody that was resistant to services.

Today, people call me Sir.

They call me Johnny Bousquet.

A lot of people know how to say Johnny Bousquet.

And that started with, I have to start at the beginning.

In 1991, my relationship with the criminal justice system started.

and that cycle perpetuated all the way up until 2014. I was forced into treatment.

I was involved in a lot of compliance-based programs that did not support long-term change.

And in 2014, I sold a small amount of drugs to an undercover officer.

instead of going to prison, I was given an opportunity, an opportunity like I was never given before.

This opportunity came with best-in-class case management, where people that didn't call me names met me where I was at, had the same amount of empathy as accountability built in, and they asked me, what did I want to do instead of telling me what to do.

That changed my life.

It didn't change that day.

Over the next four years, I went to treatment five times.

Every single time I went to treatment, I would do good for a little bit.

Sometimes I would get kicked out of treatment.

But what was different is my case managers, my lead case managers, were there to meet me. and rallied the troops again.

What the hell went wrong?

And what can we do different next time?

They asked me.

They didn't tell me.

That changed my life.

After going to treatment 15 times in my life and...

Failing miserably in other programs, I was able to be able to get a job, join the formal economy, and today I am a lead project manager, the lead project manager for the North Precinct and the Southwest Precinct with eight years clean and reconnected with my son after almost 15 years, 14 years this Saturday.

Lead works, I am proof.

Thank you and congratulations.

Next up, we have Liz Steve.

Hi.

I'm not a speaker.

I was up until 1 AM trying to recover our family's accounts for some school.

Our family was hacked, seriously hacked, through Google, Facebook, Square Business.

All the accounts.

All the accounts.

I don't know if you're familiar with some of the problems of the tech companies, but essentially Google has become like the Ford Pinto, where if you're rear-ended, the car just explodes.

So we were essentially rear-ended or had a minor accident with a disgruntled client three years ago, and he was able to use these tech companies and their product to just destroy our family's life.

It's been awful.

and part of dealing with this is we've discovered that this is pretty common.

You become part of this club where people find you and they've also been hacked and they've also dealt with identity theft and they've also gone through the circles.

And I have to say, I mean, every interaction that I've had with Seattle Police has been really good.

Their training is great.

They've been respectful.

They've been organized.

They've been great.

I think CARE has maybe some issues with record keeping.

They've lost some files.

They've lost some files.

They've lost some paperwork.

But nothing too serious.

Dealing with the city has been great.

I just think that the city is missing a revenue opportunity, because why aren't we regulating Google?

And I'm not saying tax them.

We can just find them.

There are usage fees.

I work for the, not work for, I volunteer at the King County Law Library, and they're mostly funded by filing fees.

and people will pay, we will pay to file a request for our own data if we had a privacy, just a regulatory structure.

And that's all I'm asking is to please consider a regulatory structure that the city can use for funding and to protect families like me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Ashley Nurbevig.

Hi, this might not work, so if it goes terribly, let me know.

But this is from one of our LEAD graduates.

My name is Yulia Ruskina, and I was one of the first clients LEAD took with their first batch of people.

Leeds got me through pregnancy, homelessness, drug addiction, years of going in and out of jail.

They helped me in court.

They got me housing.

They were there for me when I checked into rehab.

Actually, my worker was one of the only people that came to the treatment center to check if I was OK.

They helped me with my mental health, my physical health, and were there for me in tough times.

They were the people that cheered me on the most when I got sober.

Currently, I am 15 months clean, going to college again.

I'm working and I am living with my children, something I didn't think was going to ever be possible, honestly, when I was in the depths of my addiction.

Thank you for giving me the chance to share my testimony with you guys here today.

For the past week, all I've been doing is interviewing our previous graduates who have made it through this program.

And some of them are plumbers now.

A lot of them are with their kids.

A lot of them are going back to school.

So I just continue to appreciate the council's support for this program.

I can see it making a difference in everyone's lives.

And Garrett is someone who's been one of those people who's just very impressive and managing buildings now around town.

It's been a beautiful experience talking to all of them.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

I think we have another 15 that have signed up outside.

I don't have the page right now.

They're still signing up.

I've got four online.

You want to pivot to those?

Yes, do the four online.

Okay.

The first remote speaker is Chris Pletinek.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you have been unmuted.

Chris, if you can press star six.

All right, we'll come back to you if you're able to at the end.

Next up, we've got David Haynes.

David, please press star six.

Hi, David Haynes.

How is City Council ever going to get it right in public safety when they keep doubling down and approving and attempting to cosmetically prettified legislation that was flawed from the beginning in its philosophy that thought that it would be more effective to make it more difficult for pimps and pushers to find their customers while exacerbating public safety.

It's disingenuous to claim that you're dialing down the amount of people arrested by purposely running interference for them.

And then after all the 911 calls that they created and caused, they don't get any legitimate requirement of focusing on their addiction.

They just get rewarded with more and more housing first as they trash everything that they live in.

Deny innocent homeless access to capacity.

Remember when Tammy Morales quit the city council because she had mental problems?

Before she left, she took her scorn-lived experience lens and dumped it on the rest of the community by weaponizing the racist racial equity toolkit where you're required to judge people's skin color and their interactions with law enforcement and if there's a disproportionate amount of let's say black drug pushers who are committing crimes against humanity somehow because that's wrong they claim you're not allowed to judge those people or throw them in jail because they've had a different historical perspective and people sympathizing with the devil who are destroying people's lives daily and basing your assessments on skin color because of racist perverts in our government have undermined the integrity of the lens that you look to when you judge people on the merits and the proper policies.

But instead, we have a ignoble agenda by central staff who, let's see, central staff claims that it's all about the racial equity toolkit, but yet they're They're experts at environmental design, urban planning.

They have nothing to do with public safety, other than making sure that the cops have overtime.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Steven Gaston.

Steven, please press star six.

My name is Steven Gaston.

I've been a lead client since October 2020. At the time, I was homeless using fentanyl and meth and committing crimes to survive and support my habit.

I don't remember much of that time, but I remember coming to their drop-in and getting coffee, snacks, a tent, sleeping bag, and clothing to survive.

After going to jail in 2022, I entered treatment.

When I got out, my case manager, Danielle, checked in with me every week about my goals and had a ton of I had a ton of warrants all over Washington.

She helped me navigate the court date strategically, reconnect with my family, budget, and balance all this while working full-time for the first time in many years.

LEED also helped me pay for many things, including my CDL sober living and move into my first independent home.

In the winter of 2024, Danielle referred me to the LEED legal team of attorneys who could help me with more complicated issues I was facing.

They supported my goal of becoming a parent to my eight-year-old son, They helped me navigate the confusing and complicated legal process, and tomorrow they'll stand with me in court as I seek full custody.

Without lead-reelding, my life would have been much harder.

They gave me the support and guidance I needed to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, and then we're going to revisit Chris Pletanek.

Chris, if you can press star six.

My name is Christopher Pletnik.

I've been in the LEAD program for well over 10 years.

Just like a lot of these other clients, I committed a lot of crime and did a lot of drugs for a long time.

The biggest thing LEAD did for me was they were there to give me the time I needed to work on myself.

for my recovery.

They let me do it at my pace.

The housing that they gave me let me stop everything around me and focus on my recovery, which is very, very hard to do and it takes a very, very long time.

I was up on 180 milligrams of methadone.

It's taken over five years to get down to what I am today, which is under 19 milligrams.

It's a very slow process and it takes time and time is what you need to recover.

Today I'm full recovered.

I have a full-time job, my own apartment, a cat, a car.

I pay for my insurance.

Life is normal.

And I do have the lead program and counselors to thank for that.

Thank you.

All right, we have 14 more in person.

Sam Wolf.

Next up would be Lisa Baker after him.

Good morning, Sam.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Sam Wolf and I work for PDA as the Seattle King County Policy Director.

Just wanted to say making a plan for a place or a neighborhood is an assignment that's very distinct from making plans for individuals.

This is why LEAD complements the efforts of law enforcement, ambassador teams, and other entities around the city as they work to care for places and neighborhoods.

all of whom in the course of doing that complex job are going to run into individuals who need some combination of shelter, housing, financial support, recovery, other behavioral health supports, and above all, a plan.

You've heard the age-old mantra, there's no one size fits all solution.

If everyone's issues could be solved by simple plans or singular connections to resources, just sending somebody to a place, our city's issues would look very different than they do today.

LEAD contends with this reality by making individualized plans for participants that focus on sustainable recovery strategies and work towards the ultimate goals of stability and behavior change.

Sustainable long-term recovery does not often coincide with overnight change.

But our data speaks for itself.

Just a month or two ago, we sat here and gave a presentation about LEAD outcomes, which mirror the many evaluations that have been done on this program over the years.

LEED is the most rigorously evaluated diversion framework in our region, and what you're hearing today are firsthand accounts of how this has worked for individuals on a human scale.

As Seattle continues to change the outlook for neighborhoods around the city, it's more important than ever that we have a strategy to change the outlooks for the individuals in those neighborhoods.

Thank you to Council for putting these pieces together and continuing to build a system that will work for all.

Thank you.

Next up, Lisa Baker to be followed by Ernest Blakeney.

Hi, all.

Can you hear me?

OK.

Hi.

I'm going to be here on behalf of Lisa Baker.

I'm her case manager, Morningstar.

I'm going to go ahead and read off for her.

She's a little nervous today.

Lisa is a BIPOC woman in long-term recovery.

She has almost 100 days clean and sober, which is the longest that she's had in over 10 years.

She has completed a 28-day inpatient treatment and is now an intensive outpatient treatment program through Lakeside Milam.

Her biggest supporter has been me, her case manager at REACH, and also has had everyone at the Jubilee Women's Center.

who has also been extremely helpful and supportive through this journey Recovery Cafe has also been a safe and helpful sober support for her in her times of need.

Lisa also attends 12-step meetings several times a week.

Lisa has had a tremendous sober support system that she has never had before.

Pathways has also been a huge help.

Pathways is where Lisa receives her Vivichol injections, which has had a huge impact on her cravings.

Would have been a little bit better coming from Lisa.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ernest Blakely to be followed by Aaron Johnson.

Hi, my name is Ernest Blakely.

I'm a member of the LEAD program.

Basically, I've been an addict since the age of 16. Up in about two and a half years ago, I was at the lowest point in my life and I just didn't think I could ever get right.

But I ran into the LEAD program and from then on, I've had two and a half years sober.

They've helped me get my income straight.

They've helped me get a place to stay, a stable place to stay.

They have been just a force in my life that I'm very thankful for.

You know, I'm able to be a father to my kids now.

You know, I'm able to have gained trust back in my family.

I'm just at a good place in my life today.

This is the longest I've had sober in my whole life.

I've been in and out of institutions, on the street, living in a tent.

I've never had a place of my own up until now.

So I'm very thankful for the program and what they've done for my life.

Thank you.

Next up we have Aaron Johnson to be followed by Darnell Williams.

My name is Aaron Johnson.

I run into the LEAD program through being homeless and trying to figure out what I was going to do in my life.

And my major concern was getting my relationship back with my kids healthy.

And so that's really what drew me towards LEAD.

Anytime I called them for help or needed to understand or figure out whatever was going on in my life at that moment, I could call my case manager and he would come to me. was some type of answer.

They never left me hanging, ignored me, or dismissed me, or forwarded me out, whatever the phone.

Especially my last case work I've ever had, and he's been like my real deal, like Garden Angel, like my place I have now.

I've been there for over a year.

It's my own place, it's stable, clean.

I don't have to worry about being on the street, or people stealing from me, none of that.

It's very important to me to get situated so I can see my kids and have a better relationship with them.

So that's what it means to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Darnell Williams, to be followed by Sandra Saperito.

Good morning, counsel.

Hi, I'm Darrell Williams.

I'm a client of the LEAD program.

Before coming to this program, I was homeless, on drugs, and low self-esteem.

I actually had no help.

Since I became a client, I have housing, I've been through treatment, I'm a full-time college student, and I now have higher expectations of myself.

My case manager has a huge impact in my life.

She has shown me that it's okay to live again and to love myself.

I believe this program saved lives and helped people like myself believe in themselves and have hope and become a positive product in society today.

And they will also have a positive outlook in life and themselves.

Yeah, I think that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

Good morning.

My name is Sandra Zapparito and I'm here to ask for continued funding for the LEAD program.

Before the LEAD program, I was facing a massive mental health breakdown, legal issues, drug addiction, and living in a very unsafe environment.

LEAD gave me more than a resource.

It gave me hope.

My case manager was always there when I needed support.

He listened without judgment.

He offered guidance and genuinely cared about my success.

Because of LEAD, I was able to stay in stable housing.

I've since been reunited with my children.

I've been employed for over a year and a half with a very large gap in my employment.

I've been able to focus on my mental health.

I've been clean and sober since July 1st of 2024. People like Edward Jackson don't just do their job.

They answer a calling.

He understands what it's like to navigate difficult systems with compassion.

Because of his support, I felt seen, guided, and empowered.

I ask for continued funding to help people succeed just like I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, I can't fully read this next one, but I think it's Ellert Ramos.

I'm going to try it.

Elliot.

Elliot.

Elliot?

Any Elliot?

Okay.

Sorry, I couldn't read it.

It was in cursive, if you wrote in cursive.

The curse of the younger generation.

It's like Elliot Duman, I think is what it says, but I might be wrong.

Sorry, my man.

See, it's good to be a Gen Xer who can read cursive.

The name is pronounced Elbert Dumas.

Good afternoon.

I don't have much to say, but I didn't have my ups and downs in life.

I had a good time, and I had a bad time.

I had drug issues, alcohol issues, you name it.

But I met the REACH program, and that's one of the best things that's happened for me.

Since then, I've been living a normal life.

Got my own place, doing good, raising my kid, everything's lovely, and I appreciate you.

God bless you and thank you.

Thank you.

I think we've got Eddie M next.

Eddie who?

Eddie M. It just says M.

It just says M, so.

Good morning, good people.

May God bless and keep you.

Good morning.

Hi, y'all.

I've been through leap and leap.

Oh, man, just brought me up, man. 10 years.

Steve Curry, George.

Oh, man.

They're good.

They're good for people.

They're good for Seattle, okay?

They bring us up out of the dumps where we dived head first, okay?

Trying to do some stupid stuff.

Man, I've been hit in the face.

I lost my eye, shot in the chest, over some drugs.

It's just, it's not worth it.

If God blesses you and tells you to keep away from it, you better go pay attention.

It's just not no good.

God bless you guys, and thank you.

Thank you.

Maribel is up next.

And then after that, Edward Jackson.

Either one?

Either one.

OK.

Good morning.

I had to write this down, so I'm going to read it.

OK.

Number one, what your life was like before lead.

My life as a woman was sad and I couldn't find a program that could help me, like LEAD.

It was a disappointment how others not really care about my needs.

And this program really did.

I appreciate their hard work and care for others, too.

Being connected to this program through a client of them that I met in my struggling life, he was very helpful.

Thanks to him, I started taking care of my issues, my problems.

and my case manager not only support me but every single worker of LEED has been so helpful in my needs and guide me to reach my goals one day.

Services and resources they be helping with mainly is my legal support that made me sure I make it to my courts and treatment and everything that I need to get done, issues, et cetera.

Very important.

They got me a secure place to live.

And also, my life has changed, sweet and short, my life has changed 360 degrees.

That says it all.

And I do believe lead program deserves to continue for the simple fact that they are really doing what the program offers.

And there's too many souls out here to rescue in any manner.

I ran out of time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Edward Jackson.

John Morris will be after that.

Good morning.

My name is Edward Jackson.

My case manager with lead.

Continued funding for lead means that we are able to provide services for clients.

That aren't able to reach a lot of services.

I come to you.

I stand here.

A guy who went through a lot of those things that my clients have been through.

which makes me a good resource for them because I'm not speaking to them of things that I've been told about.

I'm speaking to them about things I've lived through.

When I was out in the streets, they didn't have these programs.

There was no one to show me a way out.

I stand here today being grateful for 30 years of sobriety and being able to reach out and help others to get to where they want to go.

Maybe sobriety is not what they want.

That's okay.

But people want to do better.

And thankfully, I've been put in a position to help them.

And thankfully, you all are in a position to help me help them.

Please continue to fund the LEAD program.

I work in the Rainier Beach office.

We have a milieu site that allows clients to come in, get snacks, get things that they need, and just have a safe place to sit and breathe.

That means a real lot, a whole lot.

When you see someone that's been up for three or four days coming to the milieu and just sit down, and they're able to just close their eyes for five minutes and know that they're safe.

That means a lot.

And it also means a lot to me because I didn't have that.

So please, please continue to fund the LEAD program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Morris to be followed by Anel Ruiz.

Hi.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I just got a testimony written here.

My name is John Morris.

I stand before you as a participant of the LEAD program.

I first heard a LEAD back in 2021. At that time, I've been on the streets for about three years.

I was addicted to opiates, amphetamines.

My addiction was running my life at that time.

And I just want to be honest about where I came from.

I had never been on the streets before until I came to Seattle and was addicted to drugs.

But during those times, I was arrested for stealing, trespassing, drug possession, and paraphernalia.

I was in and out of jail over and over again.

I was at the lowest point of my life.

And during those times when I When I thought everybody had forgotten about me, LEAD was there that showed up for me in jail and in court.

They advocated for me when I couldn't advocate for myself.

My caseworker, whom I credit for helping me save my life to where I am today, she treats me with respect, with dignity as a human being.

She never gave up on me.

She's still there right today.

And I wrote, if it weren't for the LEAD program, I don't truly know where I'd be today.

LEAD, they advocated for me.

They helped me with housing, medical needs, mental health support, and just checking in with me on a daily basis, that makes a difference.

I've been in recovery for about a year now and LEAD has been there every step of the way.

I will forever be grateful for the LEAD program and my caseworker.

That program really works and it helps.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anel Ruiz and to be followed by Danielle Hammond.

Good morning, my name is Danelle Ruiz.

And I started with the LEAD program five years ago as a case manager.

And during my time, I've really been able to see just the impact that we've had on the clients that we serve.

I mean, it stands today.

These folks are here really speaking on what they've experienced themselves.

And so being on this side of things as a case manager perspective, just really being able to walk alongside people and be, for many, just one of the only support systems that they have.

and being that person, that trusted person that they can call, that they can navigate these difficult circumstances with and truly see it through and see it follow through and be able to actually support them.

I had a very profound moment as a case manager supporting a client of mine who had a lot of legal things that had been sort of unattended, not resolved, and he had gotten to a place of stability where we were able to finally start making progress towards addressing those things.

and it was an old case and when I stood up there and I advocated for him and explained to the court all of the progress he had done, everything that he had worked so hard and to look at him as a whole picture and not just what that report said.

It was really profound.

My client afterwards said, I've never heard anyone talk about me so positively.

And that made a really big impact on me and made me realize that this work matters and it does actually affect change, even if it's something as small as speaking positivity and applauding people for they've done, the things that they've accomplished, the things that they have yet to do.

It really does make a difference and I'm very thankful to have this opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Danielle Hammond, and I'm a screening and outreach coordinator for the LEAD program out of the West Precinct, and I'm a resident of District 3. I've worked at LEAD for about three years.

You actually heard from my client, Steve Gaston.

He was online a few minutes ago, and I just want to say again that he has a hearing tomorrow to get full custody of his eight-year-old son.

It would not have been possible without LEAD.

It just wouldn't have been.

When I think about LEAD, I think about being able to offer people tailored support for their legal issues.

Most people I come across have at least one warrant, and usually way more than that, all across Western Washington or farther away, and the threat of jail is always looming in the back of their minds.

When people talk with me about their legal obligations, they're often overwhelmed with anxiety and hopelessness around even beginning to try to start addressing their warrants.

I met a client when she was getting arrested and referred to lead via an arrest aversion for ABUXA on 12th and Jackson a few months ago.

When I told her about the program and about the legal specialty of it all, she said, I know I have court tomorrow in Renton, but I lost my paperwork.

I've been outside.

I know it's tomorrow.

I don't remember who my attorney is.

Like, what can we do?

So I was able to say, oh, let's call the Seattle municipal prosecutor, and we put her on speakerphone, and she was able to say, oh, yeah, you've got court in actually two days.

It's at 930. Here's your attorney's number, and here's the link to appearing virtually.

She came to our office later that day and we were able to figure some things out and get her going to court.

It's just that really quick care that we're able to provide.

There's a lot of different kinds of case management in the city, but LEAD is able to move real fast with the legal stuff and we've just got that nice specialty.

We can definitely help people out with a number of other things that you've heard about today, but that legal specialty is what makes LEAD work so well.

Thanks, bye.

We have George Hazel to close out our in-person speakers.

Good morning.

My name is George Hazel.

I'm a case manager with the league program.

One of the most effective things that one can do is walk alongside of a human being that's going through a struggle.

I have been given the honor to walk alongside of clients that's going through pain.

And what that looks like, the pain of being homeless, or the pain of mental health, or the pain of going through substance.

And to be able to walk alongside of someone and not give up.

See, we're a non-give-up program.

We walk alongside our clients despite of.

We meet them where they're at despite of.

Sometimes they triumph to succeed to success, and sometimes they might drop the ball like we all do.

But one of the important things with working with the clients that lead is being available.

And I pride myself in being available with the clients where they know they can call me.

They know they can reach out and I'm going to be there, whatever that may look like.

The expectation is just to live one day at a time.

And so I have given the privilege to be able to walk alongside of my clients or clients and show them what victory looks like.

Small victories like going from unhoused to being housed, going from not having ID to having ID, going from not eating to eating, going from dirty clothes to clean clothes.

All those simple things in life that sometimes we can take for granted means a lot to our clients.

And without a program of LEAD, they won't have a place they can go and receive that support unconditionally.

And so I'm honored to be here today.

I'm honored to be a case manager with Lee.

And I thank you guys for listening.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

And we have one last remote commenter.

Please press star six after you hear the prompt.

You have been unmuted.

Darika Bosley.

Hi, my name is Jerika Boggley, and I'm a part of Co-Lead.

Co-Lead is a company that has three phases.

It has the legal phase, the housing, and the aftercare.

Before I came to Co-Lead, I didn't have any hope.

But they came and got me, and I'm here, and I'm very grateful.

It's a wraparound service, whatever you need help with, from housing to jobs to clothing, mental health.

Co-lead is here.

They give us the map and we drive the car.

So whatever we need, we have.

And I'm thankful for just the whole team.

They have really graciously helped me along the way.

And people always think that everyone out there that is unhoused is on some kind of drug.

They're going through addiction.

And that's not always the case.

I mean, people are just one paycheck away from housing.

We really need these programs.

I'm grateful for them.

I was lost.

When they came to me and said a tiny house, I was like, uh-uh, because I had no faith or hope in a tiny house.

The co-lead actually does what they say, and they ask me, what do I want to do?

I tell them, and they just give me the resources.

So I'm very grateful.

And they also have a company, I mean, not a company, but they also have Aftercare.

And Aftercare, what Aftercare does, this is another wraparound service.

When we get house, which I am, I just haven't moved yet, they do everything as well, Everything that Colee did when I was lodging, they do it when I'm housed in my place.

So if I need furniture, if I need help with rent, anything that I need, they're there.

And I'm very, very, very grateful for Colee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Okay, the 60-minute period for public comment is expired.

I should note too that normally early on I would say please no clapping, just do jazz hands or snaps.

But given that you're celebrating different individual sobriety, I figured this could be a good exception to that rule.

And with that said, I think with the number of people who have been I just want to recognize the work that they've done facing the hurdles and then as one person was saying, you know, gaining hope.

So given all that, one last round of applause for all those that have been sober for whatever, from 30 years to I think a year or less than a year or so.

Okay, now with that said, we will now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to submit written public comments on signup cards available or email the council at council at seattle.gov in the future.

So now we'll move on to our first item of business.

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

An ordinance relating to controlled substances updating city policy for the enforcement of the crimes of knowing possession and use of controlled substances amending section 3.28.141 of the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing section 4 of ordinance 126896.

Thank you.

Good morning.

We have Mr. Doss from central staff joining us, who's going to introduce first himself, but then also the ordinance that we have before us.

Mr. Doss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greg Doss here, your central staff here to discuss Council Bill 121248.

Okay.

Have a good day.

I'll try not to be offended.

Okay, so yes, let's walk through the bill and its main pieces.

And colleagues, if you want to jump in, you can do so or we can wait towards the end of his comments.

All right, so I'll begin with some background on the City's current enforcement of public use and possession laws.

Describe the provisions of the Bill 121248 and discuss the potential impacts of the bill.

I'd also note that there is a staff memo available online on the committee's website.

So by way of background, in May 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed in Gross Second Substitute Bill 5536, which reclassified as gross misdemeanors the knowing possession or use of a controlled substance in a public place.

The bill encouraged law enforcement officers to offer any individual arrested for simple possession or use access to assessment, treatment or services in lieu of booking the individual into jail or referring the case to prosecution.

In August of 2023, the Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 126896, which incorporated into the Seattle Municipal Code the state's reclassification of public use and possession crimes.

It also specified that diversion, treatment and other alternatives to booking are the preferred approach when enforcing these crimes.

In April of this year, Council Central staff provided to the Public Safety Committee an overview of the City Drug Ordinance, Ordinance 126896, and presented data on 2024 and 2025 SPD arrests and diversions.

It showed trends in how the Seattle Police Department is enforcing public use and possession laws.

The data showed that SPD increased arrests for drug use or possession crimes by 47% and decreased its use of law enforcement assisted diversion by 30%.

In the same period, SPD increased its use by 56% of charge-by-officer referrals to the city attorney's office.

These charge-by-officer referrals for personal possession can bypass jail bookings but they also transfer to the CAO the decision to divert and do not always offer individuals immediate infield access to assessment, treatment, or other services.

Chief Sean Barnes and leaders from Purpose Dignity Action have indicated that a lack of capacity in 2025 in PDA's LEAD program may have contributed to the reduction in SPD's use of LEAD services between 2024 and 2025. So with that as background, I'll move on to the provisions of the bill.

Council Bill 121248 would amend the city's drug ordinance to prioritize the use of in-field pre-booking diversion through a direct person transfer or a warm handoff of an individual to lead service personnel.

This change would not preclude other alternatives to booking, such as a charge by officer referral or an arrest and release.

but it would set a preference, a city policy preference for direct handoff to recovery service providers.

The bill would eliminate a behavioral health advisory committee that was created in the original drug ordinance but was never established by the executive.

The chair is currently working with stakeholders to determine whether a new committee should be established to provide oversight of citywide drug policies and enforcement operations.

Depending on the outcome of these conversations, the committee could adopt an amendment that would add back an oversight committee and specify its duties and staff accordingly.

Finally, the bill would make some minor changes to existing data collection requirements in Ordinance 126896. With regards to cost, the bill's stated preference for field-based diversions could increase the overall number of diversions made by SPD officers.

The additional diversions would likely create staffing and administrative costs for the City's contract with the LEED program.

These costs can't be determined until it is known that SPD will be increasing its use of diversion services.

Any increased costs for LEED would need to be addressed as part of the City's 2027-28 proposed budget review process.

Alternatively, to the extent that SPD officers continue to use alternatives to booking, such as charged by officers or arrest and release, the City Attorney's Office may have to focus additional staff resources on its pretrial diversion program, which also uses LEAD services.

Other alternatives to booking, again, such as arrest and release, are not evidence-based strategies that reduce re-offending and it is possible that fewer infield diversions may result in additional arrests or use of the city's criminal legal system and that could have other different fiscal impacts.

This concludes my presentation and I'd finish by noting that the chair is planning on having another hearing on this bill on July 28th and it will be open for amendments at that time and the committee may take a vote.

And that's all I have and am available for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Normally I wait to the end, but I'm going to this time change up and start at the beginning.

And thank you for that.

And I'm also, colleagues, I'm looking to have a couple of presentations from like PDA, LEED, also Harborview and some other entities on the 28th.

It's interesting because this bill is looking to update a bill which I view is largely unsuccessful that was dated the 20th of September, 2023 by my colleague to my left.

But there was challenges and now we have the passage of time to look at what's been happening on the ground.

One of the challenges is, and we've seen this again and again, yes, the compassion to help those individuals in crisis, but due to the circumstances of the public drug markets and then also separately the public drug use is the impact on neighborhoods.

And that's been in some places tragic, catastrophic, depending on the neighborhood.

So I think it's important, one of the recitals notes that, and these neighborhoods that have been impacted exist throughout all seven districts.

And again, I think we all know those, where they're located Also, earlier this year, and this was kind of a setup, we had an OIG report briefing to the committee on this topic, but it didn't really provide anything because OIG was never able to basically investigate because there was no data.

And that was a problem.

So one of the things that you'll see with this bill is the generation of data from multiple directions.

because we need to ascertain what is going on and fix what is happening.

One of the things they did say though at the end, because they did interviews and it was towards the end of the OIG report, was that individuals were noting that the officers were basically saying move along or doing nothing.

That's not a good answer for our city.

It's not a good answer for all those neighborhoods in crisis.

We need to be doing diversion and doing diversion right.

as seen with the testimony today.

And for those instances, particularly those that are working in the drug market that are functioning, you know, undertake the functioning of the market and some other co-occurring crimes and the like, should be going to jail.

But here's the problem.

The problem lies in the fact that the officers on the street don't have a lot of confidence in the PDA lead program so this is something that we need to address and this bill is a start in that.

They also don't have any confidence in KCJ, King County Jail, KCJ Health with medical declines and that point is also in this bill and it also goes to the data point.

So these are the things that if we're gonna move forward on the ground, we need to step forward and this bill is a step to do that.

is to acknowledge what's happened to our neighborhoods, acknowledge that we don't have any data to really make good decisions, to look to improve the diversion options and capabilities, but then when needed, again, for our city and our neighborhoods, the jail.

And then the jail has its own issues.

And these issues are impacting far and wide.

It's impacting Harborview.

Harborview Hospital is impacted by the medical declines at KCJ.

and that's a problem.

And to sum up and to bring it back to our strategic framework plan, clearly one of the pillars is a functional criminal justice system.

There's a whole lot of bumps and hiccups in this part of the criminal justice system, and this bill is looking to address those.

And secondly, is to address the seam, as I said, between public safety and public health, housing and human services, in this case, human services.

And so these are the things that we're looking to do, and this builds on the work that we've done already in these areas to include bringing PDA lead from HSD, human services department, over to the care department.

This bill builds on the recently completed CARE updated bill.

And again, this is the intent and some of the pieces that we're looking to do with these bills.

So with that, colleagues, I will go to my vice chair, Vice Chair Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for bringing this forward.

Excuse me.

I'm still working my way through the legislation and the central staff analysis memo.

Thank you Mr. Doss for sharing that out.

At a first blush, seems to be the proposed legislation and revisions here seem to be pretty rational, makes sense from my perspective, kind of modernizing the legislation to...

A lot has happened in the intervening three years, as was noted, including the original bill contemplates a then unscaled care team.

Well, now we, since at least we've been in office for the last two years, two and a half years, we are able to grow and scale our crisis care department of behavioral health specialists, social workers and the like to provide appropriate alternative responses across the city from just from and it started when we were in office from a downtown pilot operating in a limited number of days, limited number of hours during the week and we scaled it citywide and including in my district in West Seattle.

So again, at initial read of the revisions here seems to make sense but My first question, maybe I'll ask this of both the chair and Mr. Doss.

Can you help me better understand the purpose and goal here with this legislation?

What specific problem, outside of like clarification, modernization, tweaks, what specific problem does this seek to resolve.

I would say as a lead in for Mr. Doss is that the current public drug use and possession bill law and its execution is a failure for the city.

So I'll start with that.

Mr. Doss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So it really has to do with changing the way that drugs are enforced in the city by SPD.

The prior counsel ordinance, the drug ordinance, set a preference for sort of anything that wasn't a jail booking, anything that wasn't going to bring people into the criminal legal system, and didn't specify that diversion, field-based diversion specifically, was the preference.

The preference, again, just diversion services, any alternatives to arrest, arrest or release, The SPD had sort of a wide menu to choose from, but the overall message in the drug ordinance is against jail booking and criminal legal system involvement.

Consequently, when SPD began enforcing, they did so in a way that utilized arrest and release, utilizes charge by officer, which is essentially a ticket that they give to a person who is using, and then they walk away, the city attorney's office is notified, and then the city attorney's office has to make a decision about whether that individual gets diverted.

The challenge with that is that the city attorney's office, once they turn information over to LEAD, if they wish to have a person diverted, they have to find that person.

and their success rate in finding those folks on the street once they're not in the custody of SPD is quite low.

However, when SPD has someone in custody under arrest, a transfer, a warm handoff of the individual to a lead counselor, that has a much higher success rate of enrolling folks in the program and folks agreeing to participate in the program.

So I think the purpose, the problem that it's trying to solve is that the city is using alternatives to arrest, but those alternatives to arrest are not evidence-based to reduce recidivism in the way LEED is.

And so the solution is to set a city preference for a program that has proven success.

Thank you.

So that makes sense.

So setting that codifying, we're not setting that, we're codifying that preference at the legislation level.

And my understanding is that the executive, well, as the chair aptly noted, both in chair's comments and a moment ago, This is a legislative branch of government.

We write the laws, we pass laws.

We, under our democratic system of government and charter, we do not at all enforce laws.

We are not in power to enforce laws.

My understanding is that as part of the enforcement prerogatives and powers of the executive, the framework that is now being codified is essentially being implemented and executed roughly in line with the framework.

Is that currently true, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Doss, or is my understanding off in any way?

It is true that the SPD has adopted policies that reflect the city's drug ordinance as passed in 2023. and that those policies do allow for other alternatives to booking.

So that's discharged by officer.

And so the SPD has policies that say that there's a preference for diversion, but they also allow for other kinds of alternatives to arrest.

Those policies that were adopted in 2023 are being effectuated and implemented by officers accordingly and accurately.

This bill would set a stronger preference for in-field transfer of individuals.

and so it would also ask SPD to adopt new policies that set a policy for infield transfer.

And ideally, the police department would train their folks on these policies and would perform more infield transfers rather than, say, arrest and release.

Got it, that sort of warm handoff, so to speak.

Okay, now that makes sense.

And even if this, the executive is, already implementing, operationalizing certain laws substantially in line with any proposed legislative revision or fix.

there's still perfectly valid reasons to codify those practices, those internal policies or executive preferences and perfectly valid reasons to codify those because it ensures that, well, it makes it more durable because any, executive has a lot of flexibility to determine how and, as we learn, if to enforce specific laws or at least prioritize them.

So perfectly acceptable and justifiable reasons to codify those practices, even if they are substantially in line with how they are today.

Thank you for this.

One final more That was a kind of series of higher level questions.

One kind of specific, more technical question in the section, the revised section one, I think it's one.

Yeah, revised section one E.

the heading of diversion of the proposed legislation.

It speaks to field-based pre-booking.

It talks about the warm handoff to recovery service providers who utilize the, quote, the city's law enforcement diversion framework.

Is that a defined term somewhere under this legislation?

How are future bodies, executives, courts, to understand what the city's law enforcement diversion framework is.

Yeah, thank you, Councilmember.

The term recovery service provider is not defined in this legislation.

It's also not defined in a single authoritative federal, state, or local statute.

However, SAMHSA, the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Organization, defines recovery at a federal level in a way that likely captures the recovery-based services performed by Evergreen Treatment Services or REACH when they're executing their LEAD program.

Additionally, the RCW has a definition for recovery navigator programs.

and it mandates that the state fund such recovery navigator programs and Evergreen Treatment Center is the state's recovery navigator program in the city of Seattle.

So there's good reason to understand that lead services that are provided by Evergreen Treatment Service and REACH under the PDA are recovery services.

although the Council could choose to define it further if they so wanted, if you so wanted.

The one cautionary note on defining it further is that this is a very general description, recovery services.

Defining it further might create a barrier for others to get into field-based recovery services.

Currently, the state law does define elements of a lead program.

And only at this point in time, Evergreen Treatment Services and REACH qualify under that.

But other providers, if they decided to launch a field-based program that met the qualifications of the RCW, under this statute, under the bill, could be seen as recovery service providers.

It's talking about it in a general way.

We only have one provider right now that meets that description, but because it's a general description, other providers that sort of, if you will, get into the business later on could meet that definition.

Thank you.

As a trained lawyer, I've been trained to sort of anticipate, you know, potential issues, look around corners, quite literally, and so I'm just wondering, you know, Shall this provision be litigated at some point, if there's sufficient clarity in there to help folks better understand what is specifically intended there?

I agree on the one hand that it could potentially be limiting once you start venturing down that path.

On the other hand, it also depends on how you structure it.

If you structure it in such a way so it's flexible, it's both durable and flexible, using, for example, language like including without limitation or including but not limited to X, Y, and Z, that leaves room for more flexibility.

I generally have a bias for clarity, but I do appreciate this legislation, and thank you, Chair, and Mr. Doss.

Thank you, Vice Chair, and for the people in the chambers, for those watching on Seattle Channel.

It should be noted I'm the only one without a JD.

and this committee.

And so this committee is, and there's some out in the audience that have JDs that no doubt will be looking at this ordinance as well.

And so I think we're going to be well covered on that front.

I will add to your point about executive legislative pieces.

I noted earlier in Chaircom about how the soda bill actually came about.

You know, there was actually executive line edits in that bill.

before it came from the city attorney's office, and that showed the partnership.

I bring that up, A, because people don't realize that with the SOTA bill, because it's been so mischaracterized over the last couple of years, but two, we have been doing a lot of engagement with Mr. Doss, with central staff, with PDA, with the executive and others on this bill, in addition to starting to reach out to other elements as it relates to some of these touch points, actually getting success and diversion, and as I noted, the issues at KCJ, King County Jail.

So we'll continue that engagement, because you're right, at the end of the day, it's about implementation, and that's been a challenge sometimes.

Okay, Councilmember Lin has his hand up.

Thank you, Chair.

And one, I just wanted to say thank you, even though folks have left, for everyone who came and testified, just incredibly powerful and moving, and just to hear the stories of the many lives that have been saved and the many families and children that now have parents back in their lives.

Pretty compelling.

I want to thank you for bringing this.

I have a few questions.

I had the opportunity over the past six months to meet quite a lot with SPD, with PDA, to learn about the history of LEED.

Sort of the sense that I've gotten is that we were seeing a lot of success with the LEAD program.

And then COVID hit.

We had the Washington Supreme Court case that threw our drug possession laws into turmoil for a bit.

And we had a lot of turnover in SPD.

and so I think and some of the funding for LEED was cut for a bit and so I think some of that success that we were seeing we saw a drop off because of all that turmoil that was happening and I see a real opportunity here to build back on the success of this program.

And what I have heard is, and I think for some of the officers who have seen that success, they understand the benefit of this program, they understand the frustration of arresting folks time and time again and then just seeing those same people back on the beat and that that's not a good use of their resources and that they've seen how this can change lives.

and that that warm handoff is incredibly important.

So one question I just want to clarify, when it says field-based, I've heard that oftentimes that warm handoff happens at the precincts, that that's a good place to do those warm handoffs.

I just want to clarify that field-based does not preclude warm handoffs happening at the precinct.

So for either chair or Mr. Doss, if you could clarify.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I have been told by SPD that officers are not enforcing that way as much anymore.

Arrest and taken to a precinct and then a handoff to LEAD.

I think that the point of field-based is the idea that the representative of the organization, in this case LEAD, comes to meet the person and the officer wherever they're at.

as opposed to other recovery services like, say, DSA, where you have to go there to be assessed and enrolled.

Like the question that Councilmember Sacca asked about definitions, if the council wanted to further specify that, that would be an option via amendment.

Okay, thank you, and I just would love some clarity, because I have heard, at least as of yesterday, I was talking to SPD about some of their efforts at 12th and Jackson, and I've certainly heard that a lot of the handoffs are happening at the precinct, and so I just don't want to preclude that if that is something that both LEAD and the police department are finding useful or effective.

So we can continue to discuss that and just sort of final point is that a lot of this I think is going to depend on the availability of LEED to do those warm handoffs and that's a capacity and a funding issue and so I think that that's just going to be a critical piece of this as obviously we're going to be heading into a very tough budget season but I do think this is critically important and so hopefully we can find a way to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

That's definitely been a piece for this committee is to work the issues that in any department, you know, for OEM there's a lot of issues with the funding and how things, you know, grant-based, you know, for the positions, just cleaning up the lines as I like to say.

We did that with OEM and it's the same thing with PDA.

They were getting their funding sources from the varied sources and just to get it organized.

And to be frank, to bring it under this committee's overview.

So that was a big piece that we wanted to do.

And so we're working these pieces from a budget perspective but also from an operational perspective.

And I hear everything that I've heard so far and I agree.

At the same time, the flexibility is key because, for example, the precincts are all different.

I've been to all of them and the circumstances with those neighborhoods is different and has different dynamics.

So precinct versus in the field and so forth.

So thank you Councilmember Lin.

Councilmember Juarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to be straightforward, Greg.

The problem I have with this is, so instead of what we did before the charge by officer of the CBO and the concerns, and I think Councillor Saka touched on this as well, on the enforcement, the implementation, this law, this procedure, this infield diversion.

I just want to go through this line of questioning.

So the infield diversion, is that something we came up with, the City of Seattle?

Is this done in other cities, infield diversion?

Yes, it is.

In working with our lead program administrator, PDA, and then also with the executive's office and with the CAO.

It became clear through discussions that the infield diversion, the warm handoff, if you will, is really the evidence-based practice that has success with diversion.

And that is something that's used nationally.

Okay, so infield diversion has become a term of art and now a procedure that we want to implement and codify into law.

It's an alternative to arrest, so you have a kind of a transition period in there.

we understand that an officer has probable cause to come up to somebody and say you're either using a drug, you're in possession, and we're making assumptions it's a misdemeanor, correct?

Okay.

So we're gonna rely on a police officer's discretion whether an individual wants or needs infield diversion.

What if somebody doesn't?

Yeah, first I might note that it's not an alternative to arrest.

Okay.

It is an alternative to arrest, but infield diversion can also be used post arrest.

So it can be used either way.

If an individual is not interested in receiving diversion, then the officer will have the option for other alternatives to incarceration.

Again, arrest and released or charged by officer.

Or the officer could take that person to jail entirely depending on the officer discretion as you know.

So do we have hesitancy within, and again I'm just asking, I'm not trying to imply anything, that SPD is open to their officers having the discretion to actually implement and ask somebody, because you know we're going to have this great period in transition where an officer is going to have to make, we're going to have to rely on their expertise that they're stopping this person for a misdemeanor crime of drug possession or use and have to make a decision and ask that person, suspect allegedly, do you want...

are they supposed to just call lead and say, hey, there's someone down here that wants treatment.

Can you just tell me how that's going to work?

Because as a former judge and public defender and did criminal matters for many, many years, I just don't see how this is going to work.

And I could be wrong.

I just want you to walk me through a scenario.

And I think Council Member Saka touched on this a little because there's two things going on.

There's we have to look at SPD and what they're willing to do and expertise.

And we're going to hear from their union, I'm guessing, if things aren't going to kind of go the way they want.

about what they think is within their job description.

And then we're gonna have to deal with any type of concerns about maybe they don't make the right decision if somebody either doesn't want treatment or would rather have a ticket and says, I will show up in court, whether it's pre-arrest or post at the police station.

So can you just walk me through that fact pattern?

Yeah, sure.

The existing law that you all passed in 2023 sets up that framework that you're talking about.

It requires SPD to write policies, and they did, write policies on how officers are supposed to engage when enforcing drug crimes.

And so those policies that SPD wrote are contained in 15150 under the Seattle Police Department Manual.

and what those policies require, again under the existing laws, is that when an officer has probable cause to believe that someone is potentially guilty of a public use or possession crime, they may engage with that individual and then they follow the SPD policy about a threat of harm assessment, determining whether this person is a threat of harm to their self or whether this person is a threat of harm to others.

to subjects in the area.

And the policy that SPD has put into place gives specific elements that are to be considered by officers when they're doing this threat of a harm assessment.

Things like whether the location is near other community members, commercial entities, businesses, or other organizations.

As they go through that threat of harm assessment, they're determining whether or not this person should be arrested and if this person should be arrested and booked into jail, depending on their assessment, they would be taken to jail.

If they choose to divert, which is more in line with the city policy overall, if it's possible or allowable under those circumstances, then they have the option to call a lead counselor.

There is a 24-7 line that is maintained by lead that officers have the number for.

It's in their policies.

They're trained on how to find that number and to call a lead provider to come out into the field and do a warm handoff.

So that's sort of, I hope I'm walking you through

Yeah, you are, and I remember some of this going back to 2023 and the line and the arguments that were going on back then, post 2020, and they kind of do no harm if people are, well, that's a whole other story.

So let me just, so basically we're saying this is the tactic that we would prefer, this infield diversion.

That's right.

Under existing laws, under the law that got passed in 2023, Just to put it simply, the city was saying, we prefer alternatives to incarceration.

We prefer alternatives to the criminal legal system, diversion being one of those alternatives, but also charged by officer or arrest by release.

You all would be updating to say, not only does the city prefer alternatives to the criminal justice system, the city prefers a warm handoff in the field to diversion providers.

Yeah, I'm always annoyed by the term warm handoff, but that's me on another issue.

Let me ask you this.

So when we were, we were doing that back in the 2022-23 in response to the state law.

Correct.

Correct?

So this still is in line with what the state law is still good law, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And then I remember that, and I had to laugh, I did read your memo, but I was, I remember that the committee was never established.

That's true.

The Behavioral Health Advisory Committee that was created to oversee citywide drug policy and operations, the executive never established that committee.

The chair's bill removes that committee, but as I mentioned, the chair is setting up a process to work with stakeholders to determine if that committee should be recreated and included in this legislation, and if so, how it might look, what its duties would be, and how it would be staffed.

And so those are sort of all open questions right now.

And in the meantime, that language is taken out.

If the Chair, and through this process, determines that something should be added back, it could be added back by amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

One of the points, this bill does not touch harm, but what is clear is any harm assessment at this point has taken the fact of all the harm that's been done to the neighborhoods through these drug markets and the use, and that's what's been happening from North Aurora, but definitely in Belltown, downtown, the CID, and across the entire city.

Mr. Chair, can I say something in response to what you just said?

Yes.

Thank you.

If I remember correctly, and you were there too, Greg, so correct me if I'm wrong, when these were being passed, and I'm glad we're doing it now, the conversations around what harm was doing to neighborhoods and businesses, and that was like politically a hot topic, like nobody wanted to address that.

while we're addressing it now.

It was politically not, you know, it wasn't, my mom was gonna say something, I probably won't.

It was politically not a good thing to say, hey, this person is on drugs, it's a misdemeanor, they do need treatment, some of them we're gonna have to arrest if they're a danger.

But when we would bring up, Little Saigon, Aurora, Lake City Way, neighborhoods, parks, businesses, particularly small businesses, where we just could not get people away from in front of buildings smoking fentanyl.

People would just nail you to the cross, like you're just a horrible person for bringing that up.

And it was just like, No, and I'm just going to say this, and this will be my last comment.

This is what I like about getting older and saying, I told you so.

Exactly what we said would happen has happened.

and that's what you have at Little Saigon in these neighborhoods.

Because we basically were shouted out of the room for saying, yes, all those other things are true, but we also have to take into account what this open air drug use does to neighborhood schools, bus stops, parks, you name it.

And that doesn't mean that you're an evil person or you don't have empathy, but that the law should have accountability.

and have all kinds of tools to address people who are in need of treatment, if indeed that's what they want.

So I'm just going to leave it at that.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Yes, misguided is the word that comes.

Was that the word we use now?

No, it's misguided, and it's clearly misguided.

And today we start with the compassion for our neighbors in crisis, but equally with the wisdom of knowing that Our neighborhoods are in crisis, too, and that goes to the harm point.

And I would note, too, this diversion is pre-booking, post-arrest.

And so this is really to set up PDA for success in terms of the diversion piece, but then also, if needed, and again with a focus on the market and those pieces, really driving.

And this is the shame of the soda bill getting punted to the side.

We need everything to attack these drug markets.

and unfortunately we're not doing it and now we're seeing some slide backs like in Little Saigon and North Aurora right now based on the people I've been talking to over the past week and it's concerning.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I wanna thank you for opening this conversation back up, actually, because you and I have been here while in Councilmember Saka for the last almost three years.

Councilmember Horace, you've been here a lot longer than that, pre that.

And this is a piece that we haven't been able to make, the inroads that we wanted to make in.

and I would say that the harm isn't, I don't think of it as neighborhood as small businesses because they're humans and that makes it seem like locations and places but it's the business, small business owners and it's the kids at the park and it's our neighbors in those neighborhoods like the neighbors, kids, families, single people up on Aurora that have to deal with the consequence of the drug markets up there.

Those are humans.

and I don't think we should be in the business of picking some humans over other humans.

So we need to have solutions that are going to work for all the humans and I think for a long time now we've been thinking about just one set of humans but we really need to take care of all humans.

So we need to take care of the humans that need treatment and we need to take the humans, care of the humans like up on Aurora who have to deal with that drug trafficking and we need to take care of the girls that are getting sex trafficked on Aurora.

That is all part of the drug trade as well.

These are all humans we also have to take care of.

So I do appreciate you opening this conversation back up because there isn't a neighborhood in the city that isn't impacted by this, some to more degrees, obviously Little Saigon and North Aurora and some to lesser degrees.

which are pockets in all of the neighborhoods across the city and every district that we all collectively represent.

And we do need to make changes to make sure that we are addressing this need.

I do have questions, Council Member Kettle about this particular, you know, we're now prioritizing field diversion I need more information in my due diligence fashion about what that means.

And if we're saying that the only ones who can meet this need in Seattle at the moment is LEED, I want to know what the impacts of that are.

And then to the point about funding, I know we gave LEED last year for this budget this year, $20 million.

So I know there is funding because we believe so much in this diversion piece.

I voted for it too.

And I want to know how that funding is actually helping people because if diversions are down, then who are we helping with that funding?

And then to the point I've made over and again about the care crisis responders, is there a way that while I believe in the warm handoff, 100%.

I've had the conversation with LEAD about the fact that if someone gets picked up and brought down to county and released and they're not there to do that warm handoff, then that person is going back to the street and then it's like the revolving door and that's helping no one, not the person we're trying to get treatment for or the humans that we're trying to help in the various locations we've spoken about earlier.

so I do want to know how this is gonna work better because notwithstanding the fact that there hasn't been a warm handoff I don't haven't seen the diversion piece working as well as I think it should because in my conversations with lead they know the folks that have been released and they could approach them if they find them and so I have questions about to what extent that how well that's working, my understanding is not well, but I don't wanna be unfair and I need more data and information.

So, and are there other, you know, in field, you know, how to, to Council Member Juarez's point, how has this worked in other cities?

Is it one main group that is doing this work or is it, multiple organizations doing the work.

I do not know.

Is it that we're focusing on the treatment facilities and are they doing the work?

Because ultimately, if someone needs treatment, that requires a treatment facility.

LEED's not doing the actual treatment.

They're the case managers helping folks get into treatment.

So that requires a whole other pot of money unless the 20 million we give to LEED also results in those individuals getting treatment, I do not know.

So I think all of these, we need more data by which we're able to make some decisions as everyone, most people up here have said today.

So thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

It's really important to have this conversation.

I'm so glad you opened this back up.

and I'm reaching back out, Greg, to get some of these answers to my questions so that as we move forward and eventually we'll have to take a vote on this, we'll see if it needs any tweaking.

Thank you, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

You know, you have to remember part of the mission of this bill is to create data because in a lot of ways there's not.

So that's a challenge.

I don't want to get you frustrated at the beginning, but stand by.

This is the reason why we're doing this bill in part is for the data sets that need to be created and understood, you know, moving forward.

But the bill also at the same time is creating this new prioritization.

So I want to understand and how that would work.

So thank you.

I appreciate that part of the bill and look forward to finding out more.

Thank you, Chair Kettle.

Thank you.

And my Vice Chair has jumped back on.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

A lot of important conversation and dialogue that just happened in the last 30, 40 minutes or so.

And I want to briefly pile on two points.

First off, with respect to the the comments in the historical context provided by Councilmember Juarez a moment ago on how the dialogue, the discussion, and sometimes debate around these issues was previously framed.

How dare you, essentially, for bringing up the suffering of neighborhoods?

and small businesses, small business owners, small business workers, their customers, their suppliers, our kits.

How dare you bring those up?

I am disappointed, but sadly not at all surprised.

That's kind of the nature of things.

And what we're talking about here, that was the nature of things then, what we're talking about here is nuance.

What we're talking about here is complexity, and that's why, Chair, I want to thank you for bringing back up this conversation so we can have those conversations anew, but do it in a manner that centers complexity and centers nuance and centers human, the human experience.

Yes, I have endless empathy for people in the throes of behavioral health, crises, challenges, whether it's drug dependency, mental health challenges, the like.

And we need organizations like LEAD, Co-LEAD, et cetera, community partners to help uplift those people suffering.

And we need to fund them from a city perspective.

And I also have, that's true, and I also have endless empathy for small business owners, are kids in neighborhoods that want relief as well from some of these broader societal challenges.

And it's not one or the other or, you know, this is why we're here together.

We're better together and we're better when we talk about these in the complete context.

So point one, the second thing I want to just briefly remark on, piling on some observations earlier from from Councilmember Lin, which I appreciate about the public commenters who took the time earlier today.

Within the last hour, hour and a half, we heard a lot of terrific public comment and feedback, especially from people with direct kind of personal experiences in various stages of recovery, overcoming the resilience there.

We heard a lot, and it was terrific.

I also want to thank the public commenters for showing up to testify.

I found it to be very remarkable, super profound.

Some of the most uniquely insightful public comments that I've heard in a while for a number of reasons, very powerful, compelling.

persuasive.

What sticks with me is certainly some of the individual stories and narratives and anecdotes.

Uniquely, one of the first times, for example, someone was spoken about in a positive manner in court.

renewed ability for caretakers to properly take care of their own kids.

And I'll remember some of those stories and anecdotes, but one of the things that sticks with me the most about some of that public comment, which we don't often hear sometimes in this chamber, was despite some of the circumstances, there was this predominant theme where people were quite literally practicing an attitude of gratitude.

An attitude of gratitude.

And I don't pretend to know what it's like to have been able to overcome any behavioral health challenges, be at a stage of recovery.

I don't pretend to know what that's like.

We've all had our own unique and personal experiences, but that is something very unique.

But I think we can all learn, all learn from what we just witnessed and observed that despite those circumstances, there is an attitude, prevailing attitude of gratitude.

And whatever it is we're seeking, I think we practice that, live up to it, we can all learn from it.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Now quickly, Councilmember Lin.

Thank you, Chair.

And I just want to kind of highlight one thing that's sort of in this name, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion.

It is not, and Chair Kettle, I've heard you speak a lot about this, about the two minds of like, this is not a police or social services.

This is SPD working very closely hand in hand with our social service, with PDA.

So I just want to, and I think that that's why those warm handoffs are so critical.

Because this is a partnership.

This requires training.

This requires folks to develop those relationships.

And really, it's a force multiplier for our police who don't have the time to spend hours you know trying to do a booking because of a medical decline or you know just don't have the resources to they know somebody needs something other than jail and so they want to get them those resources but they don't have them available so making sure that they can do that that warm handoff when we know somebody is in dire need for help so I just but I just want to clarify that this is a partnership it's not an either or situation thank you

Yes, thank you Councilmember Lind.

Yeah, this is definite partnership and that goes to the stakeholding and the different pieces that we've done and the of two minds is a more of a strategic kind of challenge that we have as a city that does show up in different areas, but to your point, this is very, very important.

Okay, we've reached the end.

I just wanted to note too, by the way, it's not by accident.

You know, we had OIG here earlier in the year talking about the challenges.

We had and April 28th of this year we had LEED and central staff doing a drug ordinance overview plus the LEED diversion, LEED utilization update.

Then we had the CARE bill that I believe the mayor's probably signing today.

and the ordinance that we just passed and now here.

It's not by accident.

The public safety walks I've done with Council Member Lynn, marches on North Aurora, it all leads to seeing where we are on the ground and making changes.

One last word to Mr. Dawson.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the permission of the chair, I might suggest that council members who are interested in an amendment, whether it is one that would clarify any terms like Council Member Saka and Council Member Lynn have suggested or any other options that you may wish to consider, I'd ask, please, that you get to central staff this week.

This subject is not just a policy challenge, but also sometimes can be legal challenges because we're talking about the criminal legal system.

So it is possible that any of the amendments that you all want to seek will take some time for the Law Department to review.

So I'd ask, please, if you could get a hold of me this week, that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Of course, this is a beautifully drafted bill, so I, you know...

but yes, yes, please colleagues, look at the OIG report that we had, the April 28th meeting, what we've just done with CARE and so forth, and then work with Mr. Doss and obviously my team as well.

Okay, with that, we've reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

If there's no further business, not seeing before we adjourn, nope, nope, nope.

Hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.

Thank you.