Seattle City Council Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts Committee 2/26/2019

Good morning, and welcome to the meeting of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee on February 26th.

It is now 9.37 a.m.

I'll call this meeting to order.

I'm Lisa Herbold.

I'm the chair of the committee and the council member representing District 1, West Seattle, and South Park.

Today's agenda, we have a number of reappointments at the beginning of the agenda, two reappointments to the Museum Development Authority Governing Council, and then we have a couple briefings, one from the city auditor, a review of the navigation team's 2018 second quarter report, and another briefing from the Human Services Department on the navigation team's first quarter 2019 report.

That will be followed by two pieces of legislation.

One is a bill relating to the city of Seattle's datum point.

This is a follow-up to a meeting that we had had previously, where we had a public hearing on this piece of legislation.

And then finally, we're going to hear an ordinance authorizing the execution of a contract with waste management for construction waste collection services.

And with that, we'll start with public comment.

Oh, did you already give it to me?

Oh, sorry.

You're right.

Cultural spotlight before public comment.

Jumping right in.

Thank you.

Let's kick things off with cultural spotlight.

Jenny, you want to get us going?

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Good morning.

My name is Jenny Ku, and today we are joined by Marilyn Riegel from Art of Alzheimer's, currently on view in the Anne Flock Gallery.

Hello, thank you very much for having me.

I am the Director of the Art of Alzheimer's, and there's an exhibition down in the Ann Folk Gallery.

I would just like to start by saying, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Seattle is a national leader in the movement to build a dementia-friendly city.

And the programs that we have in Seattle are quite abundant, and more and more people around the state and the country are interested in what we're doing.

And this exhibit is an example.

I love this art.

It not only is a source of enormous accomplishment and joy for the artists, but it completely changes the conversation about how we feel, about persons who live with dementia.

The art exhibit in the Anne Folk Gallery features seven artists with seven completely different views of the world.

This is a painting of a forest, I think, as you can never be sure.

It is by Jane Kippenham, who passed away last year.

And this is another one of her paintings, a still life.

which I love.

This is Gloria Kinney.

She passed away last year.

This is probably taken about two months before she passed away.

And as you can see, she is still living with joy.

And this is one of my favorite paintings.

It is what we call the apotheosis of a pumpkin.

And the fact that it is a giant pumpkin nestled in a forest is so delightful.

And the model on the table was just a plain old pumpkin.

And she transformed it.

This is Rafe Schwimmer.

He was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's at the age of 62. He's a former lawyer, and he paints and draws constantly.

You can tell when he's painting because he has amped up the Dylan records that he's got.

He is fascinated by eyes.

All of his paintings have eyes in them, lots and lots of eyes.

And this is a pastel.

It is one of many, but eyes figure prominently.

This is Lenny Larson, who is a co-founder of the Chicken Soup Brigade, which is a very important organization in Seattle.

He is 90 years old, and he grew up at the foothills of Mount Rainier.

And you can see Mount Rainier in everything he paints.

So beyond those flowers, down at the bottom, you'll see a mountain peeking through.

This is a painting of Mount Rainier, which he must have seen every day of his life.

A lot of paintings of mountains.

This is Rosemary Freeman, and she paints a completely different vision of the world.

I call this Starburst.

I don't know what she was painting, but it's lovely.

This is her painting of a tomato.

Again, I love the transformations of everyday objects into something we would never have imagined.

This is a house by Pat Christopherson.

Her daughters say that she paints this house a lot and they don't recognize it.

They don't know what house it refers to, but it obviously means a great deal to her.

And this is Julia Blackburn with another completely different view of the world, just swirls of art.

And so the art, Completely, I will tell you that most people, when they first see the art, their first reaction is, I had no idea.

Because we tend to think of persons living with dementia as empty shells, where someone used to be.

And as soon as you see the art, you go, oh, oh, no, no, no.

That's not the way it is.

They're still there.

They are living with joy.

They are living with purpose.

they are living with dignity.

And to the extent that this art exhibit can reach people with that message and engage them, it is my belief that thinking about dementia, for anyone who experiences it, will never, ever be the same.

Marilyn, can you talk a little bit about how this exhibit came to be?

About what?

About how the exhibit came to be.

Well the exhibit came to be, actually the first one started in 2016 and it was inspired by my mother Jean.

She started painting at the age of 89. She was living with mid-stage dementia and they raised us that when they got Alzheimer's, which everyone expected, we should walk away.

That they were not going to remember anything and that We should not sacrifice our lives for them.

And we all tended to believe it, and then Mother started to paint.

And then we quickly realized, no, no, that's actually not true.

So I started sharing her art with friends, and more and more people wanted to see it.

Everyone was so grateful to experience a story about dementia and Alzheimer's that was filled with joy and hope, and that led to the first exhibition that opened here in 2016. It ran for two years.

About 60,000 people saw it, and now this has led to the second exhibition, which is also booked for two years.

It will close next year at the Washington State Convention Center, and there are plans in the work to take it to eastern Washington.

I personally think it should go to Paris, but that's my feeling.

And so the artists who participate in the exhibit, are those folks who have come to art with the onset of their dementia?

Or are they people who were artists and held on to their art?

A very few were artists before.

Jane Kippenham, the very first one, she was a professional artist, but everybody else had really not painted since they were children.

And is painting introduced to them as part of treatment or therapy, or is it something that they come to on their own?

Usually therapy.

That's where there's this huge demand for programs like this.

There are dementia-inclusive art programs.

There's a wonderful program called Elderwise in Seattle.

The challenge is that a lot of these programs are available to fairly affluent members of our city, and our goal is to expand access to them by everybody.

And how do you do that?

Grants.

Grants and sponsorships are largely from senior living facilities who are very interested in providing programs for their residents.

But again, most senior living facilities that can afford this are incredibly expensive.

So the challenge to expand this to everyone in our city, that's where the grants come in.

Yeah, there's a number of facilities here in Seattle that are doing a lot of memory care work and a lot of expansion into that area.

So that seems...

Eral livings, ageist living is very, but again, you have to have the money to participate.

So a lot of our programs are trying to reach out to senior centers, community centers.

We work a lot with Greenwood, with also Lake City, and the Latino Seniors Program.

It's just trying to give everyone the opportunity to do this.

And the other thing I believe is true, that until we think of people living with dementia as valuable human beings, we will not put resources into their care and treatment.

which is why this is important.

Yeah, as you say, the joy comes through the art for sure.

I look at that and it reminds me of sunlight coming through leaves.

And it was very funny at the exhibit that opened at the Anfolt Gallery, we had two of the artists here, Rafe and Lenny, and they were downstairs in front of their art, expounding with joy, and Lenny said to me, I will talk to the press any time you want.

All right.

Well, thank you for sharing this with us.

I have a couple of senior centers in my district, West Seattle Senior Center and the South Park Senior Center, if you'd like me to help you make some connections.

Oh, I'd love that.

I'd be happy to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, now we're moving into public comment.

We will start with Alex Zimmerman followed by Carol Malone.

Newell will be your timekeeper.

Keep an eye on him.

He'll let you know when your time is just about up, and he'll let you know when your time is up.

Alex.

Thank you.

Say hi, my Dory Fuhrer, fascist, anti-Semite, and cretina.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

I once spoke about navigation team.

For how many year I see this BS, and nothing change.

And nothing will be changed.

Because situation what is we have right now within city, even city management, is a critical.

And nothing change.

And I come to this chamber for 10 year.

2,200 times in talking this look like everybody in the city who work for government and council have dementia.

My proposition very simple for make work more productive in real management director of department will be more responsible in accountable unit Q&A every month for each director.

Counsel, you sit in this chamber for 20 years, work for 20 years, 20 years, and you don't understand how this simple, what is my proposition, and I'm talking about this 100 times, make every director responsible Q&A.

So when this asshole, pardon for my French, will come in every month report to the people and people will be talk to them, not for two minute, a conversation, Q&A, this will be change everything.

Every civilized businesses in this planet doing this.

Our employee, supposed to be report to shareholder.

You employee, we your bosses, you supposed to be report to us.

Every month your job never happened and I talking about this for years hundred times when you stop and acting like a cretina Like a pure fascist with your Nazi Gestapo principle stand up Seattle.

We need cleanses dirty chamber Will be followed by Damon's Duras and Carolyn I

I am Carolyn Malone.

With the exception of one City Council member, all other members continually claim Seattle cops, especially white males, are in compliance with federal mandates to stop their brutality, corruption, and racial profiling against residents and the public, especially persons of color.

Yet escalating claims and complaints and lawsuits against the city prove otherwise.

On February 21st of this year, I went to St. James Cathedral, where I usually go to eat a meal and use the restroom.

A rogue cop, B.

Conway, Badge number 6149 prevented me from entering.

I was stunned to see his presence.

I asked, why are you here?

He said, I'm a volunteer.

Since when, I said, I've never seen you here before.

His response, you keep talking, I will prevent you from entering.

I asked, on what grounds, why?

He said, keep talking.

And I took out my camera, took photographs, which angered him.

He yanked my bag, I yanked back.

Our arms met in contact.

So my question is, since when is a cop on duty working as a cell cop, but volunteering at the church unannounced?

The church members and volunteers came out to see what the commotion was about.

They know me.

They didn't know his agenda for me.

So I was barred from going and eating a meal at a church because of this row of cops.

vendetta and continuance, retaliation against me for having the audacity to stand against Engstrom, Haskin, Bender, and now Conway.

So my question is, when will you stop saying cops are in compliance?

They are not.

Thank you, Ms.

Malone.

We'll look into this.

Damon Durazan.

My name is Damais Teranzon.

I'm here today to talk about some issues with civil rights and the potential of my future with the navigation team.

I'm currently dealing with an employment issue with a city contractor named Cher.

They have discriminated against me and retaliated against three four of my co-workers for trying to support me in a situation where I was having to deal with medical issues due to treatment from cancer.

Currently I'm in between them and it's a great situation for me to try to continue with this future.

My concern for this council and for Ms. Herbold is that I've tried to contact multiple committees regarding several issues that may pertain to my situation starting in January and before.

January 7th was the last time that I tried to contact your office to try and get some assistance and some recognition from any of these committees.

I'm extremely frustrated because going forward, my future is likely having to deal with the navigation team because of homelessness and affordable housing and other issues that are relevant to the city council and things that the city is hopefully going to address in some time in the future.

They're here with me today, people who fought to defend me from discrimination by a city contractor and retaliated themselves.

I was terminated and so were they for trying to stand up for basic civil rights and basic situations that any person should never have to experience.

It's very frustrating going forward thinking that I'm not getting any kind of assistance, any kind of help trying to deal with things that the city should be responsible for.

There's no oversight, there's no assistance, there's no, you know, any way that I can find any other forms of help.

And I would really appreciate the opportunity to sit down and talk with some of the city council members or even some representatives for these committees to try and get some help in dealing with these civil rights issues and other matters on that topic.

You know, I've gone to HSD to talk with them because they're the ones in charge of this contract and the individuals that are contracted to provide the services.

Hopefully today, hopefully sometime soon, somebody can help me and talk to me about the things going on within the city and their contracts.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

There's not a contact information here.

If you'd like somebody to contact from this office, my office, we're going to need that.

Thank you.

And it looks like somebody else is, who didn't have a chance to sign up, might want to speak.

Sir, were you looking to speak?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Absolutely.

Step on up to the mic.

Introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Rudy from Ballard.

Do I have to say my last name?

Social Security number?

No.

Just kidding.

Hey, I'm here.

I've been traveling between here and Ballard and Shoreline.

And I just want to encourage all of us to embrace spring.

Spring is about to sprung.

I know it's kind of cold today and a little windy and stuff like that.

But I'm encouraging people to plant annuals and perennials.

and create a diversity of color within our gardens in Seattle and King County.

Gardening, diversity is not taught, diversity is learned, and you can learn by planting pretty flowers in all communities here in the city of Seattle and King County.

Now that may sound a little flippant and corny, but we love, I know the ladies in my community love color.

lots of color.

They say, Rudy, can you stop by the nursery and get some annuals and some perennials?

Because I'm thinking, lots of color.

And so I'll plant the little pots or the little borders around the trim.

They go, oh, that is so beautiful.

Thank you, Rudy.

And I think us men can do that, too.

I mean, it's not being It's it's a gender-neutral thing to do and and so let's embrace spring and make Seattle beautiful again.

Thank you very much.

Okay and with that we're going to move on to the items on our agenda.

First two items of business are appointments to the Museum Development Authority Governing Council.

Agenda item one is appointment 01257, reappointment of Douglas A. Raff as member, Museum Development Authority Governing Council for a term to July 11, 2021. Agenda item two is appointment 01258, reappointment of Bob Strong as member, Museum Development Authority Governing Council for a term to July 11, 2021. Thank you.

Welcome and introductions, please.

Kenny Pittman, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.

Fantastic.

So we're here to reappoint two members to the Museum Development Authority Governing Council.

Can you start off with just a few words about the entity that we are talking about here today?

Sure.

The Museum Development Authority is one of eight public development authorities chartered by the city of Seattle.

And the goal of the Museum Development Authority is the development of a downtown museum and also working with the sculpture park.

They're located basically within the Seattle Art Museum, and they also are owner of about a 13-story building that's attached to the new Chase, formerly Washington Mutual Tower.

They're governed by nine members, three of them are appointed on mayoral appointments, three of them are appointed by the Governing Council of the Museum Development Authority itself, and three are appointed by the Seattle Art Museum Directors.

All of the members have to be confirmed regardless of their appointment by the City Council.

And so today I'd like to present to you two members for reappointment, Mr. Douglas Rath who's an attorney by trade with Riddell Williams, basically in business planning, mergers, acquisitions, and family businesses and corporate law.

Long history with them.

This would be his seventh term, seventh three-year term.

And Mr. Robert Strong, who's an appointment by the Seattle Art Museum.

And the way with the Seattle Art Museum is that no existing board members can be appointed.

So this is a person that's not a board member for the Seattle Art Museum that is appointed to the Museum Development Authority.

And he is a financial advisor and director of the Strong Group, which is part of a larger group called Robert W. Bard and Company.

And this would be his fifth term.

Thank you.

And just give me a little bit of flavor on what it is that the Governing Council does on a sort of day-to-day basis.

Basically, they manage and review the operations of the tower that they have built.

They also lease out space.

Right now, their largest tenant, I believe, is Nordstrom's that purchased the, that leased the space on a long-term lease after Washington Mutual went bankrupt.

And they had an empty space, and there was concern because we issued over $60 million in bonds to back the construction of that facility.

And so they basically manage that contract.

And it looks like folks have a tendency to serve for quite a long time.

Yes.

There is a new member coming up that was submitted to your office, Stephanie Smith.

Okay.

And she would be the, probably the second new member over the 16 years that I've worked here on this.

and the terms are three-year terms three-year terms okay all right well I have no further question please send my gratitude to both mr. strong and mr. Raff for their continued interest in serving and with that I have the awkward process of having to move and second and vote all by myself, but here we go.

I will move appointment 1257 and appointment 1258. I will second that appointment and I will call for a vote.

All in favor, vote aye.

None opposed, none abstaining.

And these two reappointments will move on to full council on Monday.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm glad you didn't ask me to name all eight PDAs.

No, next time.

All right, thanks a bunch.

Item three.

Item three is the City Auditor's Review of the Navigation Team's 2018 Second Quarter Report.

Thank you.

Hello.

Greetings.

Hello, thanks for joining us.

I'll do a round of introductions first.

David Jones, City Auditor.

Claudia Gross Shader, Office of City Auditor.

Megumi Sumitani, Office of City Auditor.

Jeff Sims, Central Staff.

And who would like to kick us off?

All right.

First of all, thanks for inviting us here to talk about our latest report on the City of Seattle's Navigation Team.

And the Navigation Team, for those in the viewing audience who aren't familiar with it, is a city entity that works with people living outdoors in unauthorized encampments.

Those in the viewing audience who want to read a report can go to our website, www.seattle.gov slash cityauditor.

First, I'd really like to thank Auditor-in-Charge Claudia Groschater and her teammate Megumi Sumitani.

They really, really worked hard on this report, and I just want to extend my thanks to them.

So next slide, please.

So the report we're discussing today is our second audit report.

You can see here is a list of, you know, reports we've done and what's expected in the future.

So the one with the yellow circle around it is today's report.

And what we're doing is reporting on four of the 14 reporting checkpoints that we recommend that the City Council track.

So just as far as what the process is that the council, with the help of the auditor's office and HSD, have created is that there are a series of checkpoints.

And the Human Services Department, and with other executive departments as necessary, reports on a set of checkpoints, and then the city auditor reviews that report to determine adequacy with that from the executive's report on that set of checkpoints and perhaps recommendations that might come out of that review.

Is that more or less correct?

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

And so we did, we received from the executive the first 14 checkpoints.

The city auditor reviewed those and issued about I believe it's about 30 recommendations from that first report.

And then we will, at the end of the year, hear from the city auditor what of all of the recommendations, starting with this first report where there are 30 recommendations, how the executive has complied or acted on otherwise those recommendations.

or in a case where they may not agree, indicate that they are not acting on those recommendations.

So we'll get a sort of a wrap-up on that at the end of the year.

Yes, and that's par for the course for us.

Anytime we make a recommendation in one of our reports, we do a follow-up on that.

Great.

Fantastic.

So let's jump right into the quarter two.

Claudia, take it away, please.

We'd like to begin by saying that the navigation team does very hard work under very difficult circumstances.

Their report for the last quarter of 2018 that they're presenting today indicates that the navigation team made over 1,800 contacts with unsheltered individuals in that quarter.

And during our big recent snowstorm, the navigation team was working in treacherous weather.

They were reaching out to folks on Seattle streets and even driving them to emergency shelters to get them in from the cold.

So no doubt that lives have been saved by the good hard work of our navigation team.

The good hard work of our navigation team needs proper support from city leaders.

That includes number one, making sure that we the city are very clear about what we expect the navigation team to do and not to do.

Number two, making sure that we the city are equipping the navigation team with strategies that are proven to be effective and the right resources to do their job effectively.

And number three, making sure that we the city are rigorously tracking the outcomes of the navigation team efforts and making course corrections as needed.

Those three things are basically the elements of a theory of a change.

Theory of change can sound wonky and academic, but a theory of change is actually quite simple.

Are we clear about the problem that we're trying to solve?

Are we using proven strategies to solve the problem?

And are we measuring our results to know if we've been successful?

That's a theory of change.

And these are essentially the questions that the council has asked us to look at in this continuous improvement process.

The next slide, please.

Thanks.

Our office is independent, and we follow the government accounting standards, including standards for quality assurance.

We'd like to thank Jackie St. Louis and Tara Beck and the whole team of folks from the Human Services Department, HSD, who reviewed our drafts and provided input.

Thank you also to the staff from the Police Department, Seattle Public Utilities, Parks, Seattle Office for Civil Rights, and Seattle and King County Public Health.

Your input was very helpful and we incorporated your comments in our report.

Per our protocol, our report was also reviewed by the Budget Office and the Mayor's Office.

We also are fortunate to have a great team of researchers who have provided input on our reports.

This includes the UW West Coast Poverty Center and a team of researchers from Arizona State University who are currently working with some California jurisdictions on homelessness research.

And then I'd like to give a special shout out to Dr. Karen Snedeker from our own Seattle Pacific University.

She shared with us some notes from interviews that she and her students conducted with residents of Tent City 3. And this really helped us to incorporate the voice of those living unsheltered in our work on this report.

So thank you, Dr. Snedeker.

Next slide, thanks.

As David Jones mentioned, this report includes our assessment of the executive's responses to four checkpoints, dealing with early outreach, prioritizing hygiene, rigorous evaluation, and incorporating input from unsheltered individuals in the evaluation of the navigation team.

And so 14 checkpoints is the entire reporting plan, correct?

I had a misstatement earlier when I said the first report covered 14. Fourteen is the entire reporting plan number of checkpoints.

That's true.

So 14 checkpoints comprise the original reporting plan that we developed in 2017. And then our previous report that we issued in the fall of last year covered seven of those checkpoints.

We're covering four today.

And then, our report that we'll get you this spring will cover the final three checkpoints.

And then, you mentioned correctly that our first report had 30 recommendations, and there are a total of 13 recommendations in this report.

So that is a lot of recommendations.

We'll talk about that in a second.

Okay, this slide shows the dual mission of the navigation team.

And this is included in the report that HSD is presenting today, their quarter one proviso report.

And their report states, the navigation team serves all members of the community through a dual mission.

One, to assist unsheltered people living in hazardous conditions, and two, to mitigate the negative impacts that unauthorized encampments can have in public spaces and adjacent neighborhoods.

Simply put, and this is the way that I like to think about it, the navigation team approach deals with both people and places.

So when we as a city are trying to understand whether the navigation team is effective, we need to consider how well it's doing in meeting both missions, people and places.

And is there more clarity there than we had received before?

Because I remember in previous engagements with HSD and executive departments that there was some lack of clarity of whether or not the theory of change was focused on people or places or both.

So are we getting into a little bit more of a sharp focus now?

Well, the navigation team has always been built and budgeted around people and places.

So there are a group of outreach workers, and the police do some outreach, and then there's also a group of staff who manage the cleanups.

So it's always been budgeted in that way, and it was built in that way.

We are looking forward to receiving the revised theory of change from the human services department for the navigation team.

And we understand that, yes, there has, there have been a number of conversations that human services department staff and others have been having to really achieve more clarity around this dual mission.

And you can see that reflected in their quarter one report.

Okay, so we're going to start to get into the checkpoints that we covered in our report.

And in our original reporting plan, the one with the 14 checkpoints, we asked the executive to provide an assessment of opportunities for early outreach intervention.

This is important because research shows that the longer a person remains unsheltered, the more difficult it becomes for that person to break out of homelessness.

So it makes sense to try to reach people with outreach as quickly as possible as soon as they become unsheltered.

In our report in 2017, we provided examples of early outreach intervention from some other jurisdictions including New York City and London's No Second Night Out program.

However, the executive's response indicated that early outreach to unsheltered individuals was a gap in the city's approach.

So to understand why the city has a gap in its ability to reach, to provide outreach to the newly unsheltered, we created a picture, and here it is.

It's also in our report.

The chart shows all of the things that the city funds to engage unsheltered individuals in the field.

And I'll walk you through a few details on this chart, but the main takeaways are this, that engagement with unsheltered individuals is a significant city-funded field operation.

And this chart also shows how decentralized that field operation currently is.

You can see all of the lines of reporting structures.

So here we drew a not very pretty line around all of the components that comprise the navigation team.

We wanted to show how the navigation team fit into the larger picture.

So you can see all of the green boxes on the chart.

And those are organizations that the city funds to provide outreach to unsheltered individuals.

This includes in the middle, in part of the thing that we encircled, REACH, and they're the outreach providers on the navigation team.

Plus there are six other organizations that HSD contracts with that provide outreach to unsheltered individuals in the field.

And then over on the far left, there's a green box.

And you can see that HSD also provides funding for the King County Mobile Medical Van.

And then over on the far right of the chart, there's another green box.

And that shows the contract with the Hepatitis Education Organization that SPU, Seattle Public Utilities, funds to provide outreach associated with its encampment trash pilot.

So now looking down at the bottom of the chart, there's a yellow box.

And you can see that HSD also funds the LEAD program.

And although the vast majority of LEAD clients are homeless, LEAD is actually a crime and diversion program that helps keep people out of the criminal justice system.

So referrals to LEAD are made by the police.

You can see the dotted yellow lines coming from the blue boxes to denote that.

And turning to the blue boxes, you can see with the navigation team, there are currently two sergeants and 10 officers who serve on the navigation team.

In addition, we learned from Seattle Police Department that increasingly, the community police team officers in each precinct are regularly dealing with issues related to unsheltered individuals.

SPD estimated that this has become 60% to 80% of the workload for the community police team officers.

So this chart is just a partial picture.

So for example, it does not show organizations that engage with unsheltered individuals in the fields that are not funded by the city, like the MID and Union Gospel Mission.

But you can see it's a very decentralized structure.

We also found that there's no system in place for systematic tactical communication among all the groups.

And we also found that there are no central mechanisms for receiving requests for outreach and dispatching outreach workers.

If the city improved these coordination and communication issues, it would have more capacity to reach newly unsheltered individuals.

And the next few slides highlight some of our recommendations in this area.

Before we move on, can we ask a couple questions about the slide?

Sure.

So the green box on the far right, the HEP outreach,

Those folks aren't doing any work in unsanctioned encampments.

Yes, they are.

They are, but they're not part of the NAV team.

They're not part of the NAV team.

Now, so their work is very limited scope.

They go out just 15 hours a week.

There are three outreach staff.

They include a nurse.

We did go out in the field with this team, and they are supporting the SPU trash pilot program in unsanctioned encampments.

And the...

trash pilot program, the SPU staff that are doing that, and the HEP outreach workers are not coordinating with the NAV team, that is what I'm hearing.

Well, so in terms of the organization structure, it's very decentralized.

Now, we know that there are weekly meetings that include other departments.

What is not happening is the kind of really routine, regular, tactical coordination that was occurring actually when the navigation team first began.

So that's a great segue into the

One more question before we segue, sorry, to ruin the good segue.

You had mentioned that the community police team officers are doing, I think you said up to 60% of the work that they're doing in communities are focused on homelessness.

Can you give me a little bit more detail about what that work is doing, given that there are 10 officers that are part of the NAV team?

What are the other CPT officers doing?

Yeah, we'd like to get more information about that.

The information that we have from Seattle Police Department so far is that the community police team officers are helping in emphasis zones.

So through the navigation teamwork, they have created emphasis zones and the community police team officers go out and support maintaining those emphasis zones.

And are we still sticking to the standard that's in the MDARs that there are 10 emphasis zones or no more than 10 emphasis zones at any time?

So, I don't know what the current state of that is right now.

I know that one of the measures of system performance that we asked the executive to report on and it's included in their quarter one report that they're going to be presenting later is compliance with the MDARs.

So they should be able to respond the extent to which they're in compliance with that MDAR.

And for the viewing public, can you remind us all what it means to be an emphasis zone?

These are zones that, again,

Sorry, you're focused on the report, not what the definitions are for the MDARs.

Right, it's a trick question.

Yes, not intended.

I believe there are areas that they can be fenced, they don't have to be fenced, but there are areas where if they are sort of reoccupied, I don't believe the protocols require them to do outreach and engagement and prior notice if that area has repeat camping on it or repeat outdoor sleeping on it.

That's my recollection, but we'll look more into that.

But I just want to flag that because if we have officers spending 60% of their time sort of policing those areas to make sure that people don't return, that says a little something, I think, about the effectiveness of the entire system.

You know, this has been one of the overarching questions since we started work on the navigation team, is just what is the appropriate and best role of the police so that we can see the most effective results?

We had asked as one of the checkpoints for the navigation team to create an organizational staffing assessment.

And that's included, the response is included in the report that they're going to be presenting today.

And one of the things that we had hoped for in terms of that organizational staffing assessment was that there would be more clarity about the appropriate role for the police.

So that is an issue that we'll be looking at when we do the review on that checkpoint.

So back to the segue question about the frequent tactical communication among all of the players.

As you can see, there are a lot of people involved in the field operations.

And when the navigation team was first initiated in 2017, they used a strategic coordination framework developed by the federal government, by FEMA.

And this framework helps multiple agencies coordinate response efforts.

And this lends itself to that regular checking in, coordination.

Some of the elements of the framework include a unified command structure.

So you can see when there are multiple agencies, it's hard to know who's in charge.

And the framework helps create that command structure that everyone buys into.

Action planning, information management, and dispatch and deployment are also elements of the FEMA framework.

It's called ICS.

At some point in 2017, the city stopped using the framework.

And one of our recommendations is that the city consider reinstating this framework or finding another strategic coordination framework to use.

And interestingly, we learned that San Francisco is using the FEMA framework for its homeless response.

And Snohomish County is using the FEMA framework to coordinate multiple agencies for its response to the opioid crisis.

Another one of our findings was that the city does not have a central system for receiving requests for outreach and dispatching staff.

In our report, we presented examples from London, New York, and this new outreach portal app from Los Angeles.

It's pictured here on the left.

In addition, we learned that one of the HSD-funded agencies, Mary's Place, has developed its own portal to receive outreach requests and dispatch outreach staff, and that's pictured on the right.

We think that it's really laudable that Mary's Place has taken the initiative to do this, but it would be better if this city had a centralized portal.

And so what does a person using this app, this Mary's Place app in particular, what is the outcome?

What is the result?

Right, the outcome is that it allows people to have a place where they can clearly go to make a request for outreach to someone who is unsheltered, or in the case of Mary's Place families.

The other great thing about the LAHOP app, that's Homeless Outreach Portal, and the Mary's Place app, is that it provides really clear guidance for community members on when this app is appropriate to use or under what circumstances you should take another measure like, you know, perhaps calling 911. But it provides really clear guidance to folks who would like to help someone who is unsheltered about what to do.

And then it takes in that information and allows the organization to dispatch outreach to that individual.

In New York City, for example, Their goal is to dispatch an outreach staff within an hour.

So that is very timely dispatching of outreach to people who are unsheltered.

One of the things that we hear a lot from our advocacy community is outreach only works if there's a place to outreach people to.

And so a tool that facilitates outreach when we have a severe lack of spaces for people to go to, I'm just questioning how it actually works in its application in a way that actually, provides alternatives for people who are sleeping and sheltered.

Well, you're right.

These things are all interconnected.

And in our previous report from the fall of 2017, we performed some analysis which showed the daily availability of shelter beds in the various shelters, the basic shelters, which are mats on the floor, and enhanced shelters.

And we noted that the navigation team has been very hamstrung by the lack of shelter availability, especially in the enhanced shelters.

that are open 24 hours a day and have bathrooms and laundry and showers, and you can bring your pets and your spouse.

But also, one of our recommendations from the last report, and we also talk about it in this report as well, is that the city could do more and the navigation team could do more to reach people with diversion.

Diversion is a strategy that has been used successfully in other jurisdictions, including Pierce County.

And by diversion, they mean diversion from the shelter system.

So this is, diversion can take a number of forms.

Diversion is a rapid assessment, working with the individual to figure out what their options are.

So their options may be, trying to work something out with a landlord, or trying to work out if there had been a problem with a roommate to try to resolve that.

Also, if there is a family member that might be able to take the person in, what are the strategies for reunification?

So those are some of the tools that can be used with diversion.

And what we found in the last report that in 2017, the navigation team only reached about 17 individuals with reunification efforts.

So there's more capacity there.

We highlighted San Diego, California.

They have had excellent success with their reunification program.

They reunified almost 700 people, and they're really tracking the results to see whether or not folks are staying in those reunification places, and a large extent are.

And so these diversion services historically have not been available to NAB team workers to connect folks to those services.

That's correct.

Now, we noted in our report that late in last year, HSD produced a new diversion manual.

And so that is progress.

And I believe, and the executive can confirm this, but I believe that in March, so next month, The navigation team will be receiving training in diversion.

So, yes, our enhanced shelter availability is limited.

But we do have other tools and resources, including diversion, that outreach staff can use.

You know, especially if you reach people quickly, when they first become unsheltered.

And so on the previous recommendation regarding the use of the emergency operations center or a female-like approach, there's that recommendation and there's also the recommendation to have frequent systemic tactical communication among outreach providers.

I have a hard time visualizing how those things are two separate recommendations.

They sound like a description of very similar things, but as I understand it, the recommendation for a FEMA-like response is focused on the NAV teamwork.

And the recommendation to implement frequent systemic, systematic tactical communication among outreach providers is about outreach providers throughout the system, not just NAVTEAM outreach providers.

Is that right?

Right.

Well, so what we found is that currently, And you could see all the green boxes on the previous slide.

The efforts to bring those groups together to meet, the meetings had been somewhat infrequent.

We checked the logs for attendance and the outreach providers had, not all of them had attended those meetings, and the meetings, the coordination meetings among the outreach organizations had tended to be on broader topics rather than what's going on in the field, what needs to be done, what's shifting, how should we respond.

And so that is what we're recommending is that there be some sort of forum for those kinds of frequent tactical communications.

And that could be subsumed within that FEMA framework.

They do have lots of tools.

And from our understanding from Barb Graf from the EOC, the FEMA framework is adaptable.

You can pick and choose pieces that work to meet your needs.

Thank you.

I'm going to go through this slide quickly, and I won't read all of our recommendations.

I would like to make one point, and we touched on this earlier in our previous report.

We made 30 recommendations.

In this report, we make a total of 13 recommendations, and we know this is a lot of recommendations.

So we framed many of these things as things that the city should consider.

We've presented some specific ideas, and we've noted examples from other jurisdictions that might be helpful.

And in a continuous improvement process, you always want to be looking at what you can do that might achieve better results.

So moving on to the next checkpoint, this was looking at prioritizing hygiene.

And we developed this checkpoint in 2017 shortly after San Diego experienced a hepatitis A outbreak due to poor hygiene available to unsheltered individuals.

So this checkpoint is associated with the navigation team's PLACES mission.

That is to mitigate the negative impacts that unsanctioned encampments might have on public health and safety.

In our site visits, we noted a number of health and safety risks.

This included human feces in public spaces and around unsanctioned encampments.

This poses a risk for communicable disease and can impact public health and safety, and we wanted to understand why this was occurring, and we discovered gaps in the city's approach.

We very clearly found that unsheltered individuals currently do not have adequate access to bathrooms, especially during the night.

There are approximately 4,500 unsheltered individuals in Seattle, but we found that there are only six city-funded bathrooms that are open 24 hours.

And of those six, four had significant health and safety issues, including three that had broken or missing parts.

Without adequate access to bathrooms, it's understandable that we would see the things that we saw on our site observations.

Human waste on the sidewalk, human waste in buckets, human waste in green spaces.

The cleanups conducted by the navigation team often involve removing human waste from public spaces.

However, letting human waste accumulate until the point at which it may be removed by the navigation team is not an effective strategy for mitigating the negative impacts that authorized encampments can have in public spaces and adjacent neighborhoods.

So the gaps in our ability to address the hygiene needs of our unsheltered population is resulting in difficulty in meeting the place-based side of the mission.

Absolutely.

And so I seem to remember, I'm looking for it here, and I'm not finding it.

There was a comparison of the number of toilets that we have open 24 hours a day in the city, only six, to what the international standard is for, I believe, the UN human rights for refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a metric it's on page 21 of the report and their metric is Basically it says in Seattle in order to meet their metric and I can't remember what it is Claudia you may remember what it is, but you know we need 224 of those kind of bathrooms that we now have six of.

We would need 224. Yeah.

Well, the metric is one bathroom for every 20 individuals.

And this is a metric.

It's not quite apples to apples because this is a metric for refugee camps.

But the standard is one restroom for every 20 individuals.

And then they also have standards about maintenance of those restrooms and the access to the restrooms and including the lighting and safety on the path accessing those restrooms.

Thank you.

So communicable disease can also be spread by lack of access to handwashing and bathing.

Handwashing is incredibly important as well.

And unsheltered individuals can't use the showers that are restricted for use by shelter clients only.

So we looked at the availability of city-funded drop-in showers, and we found more gaps in the city's approach.

I mentioned to Council Member Warris the other day, because I knew this was coming up, the complete absence in District 5, knowing that she would be interested in that.

Yeah, and I just want to note, so that was the chart that you're referring to is the chart on the left, and it shows the earliest drop in shower time for city-funded providers by district and day of the week in 2018. Now, I do want to say about District 5, there is a non-city-funded provider that did provide some showers in District 5 in 2018. That's God's Little Acre.

and the city has funded them now in 2019. However, Megumi went out to that site, and it's a very small facility, and they told us that they only have capacity for 14 showers a day.

So it's still very limited availability in District 5. And what we were trying to do with this chart was we wanted to understand what it might be like to be unsheltered and needing to take a shower in the morning before going to work or looking for employment.

And so you can see, Council Member Herbold, in your district, District 1, that the earliest time you can drop in to take a shower is 1 p.m.

at the Delridge Community Center.

And in your review of these different hours and different offerings, did you, what's the, is there a good reason for why one center is open at 1 and another one is able to open at 5.30?

Are these all city facilities?

The facilities on the chart and the facilities in our report are all facilities that receive city funding.

Some of them are actually city facilities like parks, community centers, and in terms of the geographic distribution and the distribution of hours of operation, you know, it does not seem to be very well thought out.

And that's what we're asking for in our recommendation is that there are clearly gaps here.

And what we're asking for in our recommendation is that the city address those gaps by using data, doing some kind of analysis like this, and also receiving input from people who are currently unsheltered so that we can put together a strategy that makes more sense.

And did you say District 1 was Delridge?

What about Southwest?

I thought Southwest was providing showers as well.

Yes, they do provide showers for students in Seattle Public Schools and their family members.

So if you are wanting, we looked at just the drop-in showers, and there are other pools that provide showers for Seattle Public Schools students.

and their family members who come with them.

But if you are an individual who is on your own or with your spouse and you are just looking to take a shower before work or before seeking employment, the drop-in showers are your only options.

So we also found that there's no consistent signage to let unsheltered individuals know that this is one of the city's drop-in shower facilities.

And towels and toiletries, things that may be difficult for an unsheltered individual to carry around, like a wet towel, they're not provided consistently at all the sites.

So what you're saying is we need to have a consistent standard of care.

That's the term of art.

But that basically means that what is provided in sort of under best practices at a hygiene facility is provided at all of the locations.

Yes, absolutely.

And on the next slide you can see one of the things that we recommend is that the city consider consistent signage.

And on the bottom right there is an example of some consistent signage that is used as part of the San Francisco mobile pit stop program.

So it's really clear people can see those signs and know this is a safe restroom for me to use.

So mobile pit stop, great idea.

The city has funded some mobile pit stop type facilities.

I believe they're only being used right now at the sanctioned encampments.

And it seems that either those facilities should be opened to a broader segment of the population or they should be mobile and rotated to some other locations.

There, I believe, My summary shows, I believe, that there were five hygiene trailer purchases.

And at the time of this email with central staff, Lehigh was looking at an additional donated shower trailer for Myers Way because they were one of the only sanctioned encampments that did not actually have a mobile hygiene facility.

So I totally agree with where you're going on this.

I do think we should look at making the facilities that we have mobile be available to more people.

But also for the other six locations, It seems that there are things that we could be doing in order to improve their operations as well.

I think you noted a number of deficiencies related to either not having sharps containers, the general condition of the locations, either their cleanliness, their lack of toilet paper.

It seems to me that we could do more in making those facilities more able to serve more people.

And I've just, one of the ideas that I had been sort of throwing around was the idea of trying to staff those facilities.

Would that be a way, one way to improve how they work for the unsheltered communities?

Well, that's been the experience of San Francisco.

We talked to the folks in San Francisco about their mobile pit stops.

And those units are staffed.

And it really is a win-win situation because the mobile pit stops are staffed by people who've had significant barriers to employment.

And this becomes a career path for them.

And in terms of use, San Francisco has documented that the use of their pit stops has increased after staffing was deployed.

So it makes it safer for all folks to use.

a human contact that could be a conduit to outreach and other services.

So the mobile pit stops were developed in San Francisco.

They have also been implemented in Los Angeles, Denver.

Miami and Sacramento, and San Francisco has been very generous with sharing information with us, and I know that they would be happy to speak with folks from the city about this.

So the ideas that you mentioned are great.

We have included a number of other ideas.

additional ideas in our report, including looking at some community centers that do have showers that are currently not being used for drop-in showers.

So that would be another way that we could leverage the resources that the city already has, as you suggest.

Just getting back to our The main recommendation here is for the city to use data and use input from unsheltered individuals to make a better plan going forward related to hygiene.

And so, does your report actually list the community centers that have showers that aren't making them available?

Yeah, we do.

All right, thanks.

All right, we should move on.

Thanks.

Okay.

The next slide.

How will we know if the navigation team approach is having a positive effect on both people and places?

Rigorous evaluation can help the city know if our strategies are effective or if they might be unintentionally causing harm.

In our previous reports and in this one, we've presented a range of options, including low cost and no cost options for rigorous evaluation.

And our colleagues from the evaluation group at Seattle King County Public Health, they are terrific.

and they are also willing to provide the City with evaluation ideas and assistance.

So, in our recommendations for this checkpoint, we ask the Executive to reconsider its options for rigorous evaluation of the Navigation Team approach, and we look to get an update on the Executive's plans to meaningfully involve unsheltered individuals in the evaluation.

And when you say re-evaluate, are you saying that the executive is declining to try to develop an evaluation plan?

Yeah, I think if we flip back to the previous slide.

Oh, no, I didn't put it in there.

In our report, we quote from the executive's response, which indicates that they are not considering a rigorous independent evaluation at this time.

The executive concluded that they're costly and that they should be done after many years of implementation.

And we have provided examples of low cost and no cost.

There are certainly grants that you can apply for in partnership with a research partner, so somebody else picks up the tab for a rigorous evaluation.

And they should be started sooner rather than later.

A really great example of rigorous independent evaluation is the LEAD program.

And the LEAD program did a rigorous independent evaluation when it was first getting started.

They found that 58% of the LEAD clients did not get rearrested compared to the control group clients.

And they've used those evaluation results to help inform their program and make course corrections over time.

So it can be done, and we have a great example here in Seattle.

And I don't know if this was a council-initiated policy or an executive-initiated policy, but I'm pretty sure that we have stated that it is policy that in the development of new programs that we actually include evaluations as part of the program development.

When something starts out as a pilot, before we make a decision to have continuous investment in it, we evaluate its success.

So that's something I'm very interested in following up on.

So thank you.

That's it.

Our report's available online at seattle.gov slash cityauditor.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate your work and you've given us all a lot to chew on.

And I think the work of the auditor is about creating a foundation for policymakers and implementers to act.

And so really, it's on us to act on your recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Agenda item four is the navigation team's first quarter 2019 report Greetings

Were we able to get your report loaded?

That was low.

I'm sorry.

We weren't?

Did we go?

I think so.

We got it loaded, yeah.

All right, great.

Let's start with some introductions.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tiffany Washington, and I am the Deputy Director of Homelessness in the Human Services Department.

And I am Jackie St. Louis, Director of Unsheltered Crisis Response with the Human Services Department.

Great.

Who would like to kick us off?

So I'm going to kick us off, and we actually want to, while we'll talk about the things on this PowerPoint, we actually want to transition and talk about each of the recommendations that the auditor's office has in the report.

We'll try to fit that in.

I think I'm pretty sure we can do both, so that's great.

And so first, I just want to say that we're committed to your goal of continual improvement of the navigation team.

We've worked closely with the auditor to review the findings, and we appreciate their effort to provide constructive guidance in improving our response on the ground.

We saw earlier this month an incredible response from the nav team during the snowstorm, or snowmageddon, as we've called it.

And because of the nav team, People were able to get sheltered who otherwise would not have under really harsh conditions.

Most of the NAV team worked 15, 16 hour shifts.

Jackie worked.

two weeks straight and so I want to just put that out there because I think it highlights the importance of the team.

What I do want to do for today is just remind everybody that the navigation team is one resource in the homeless response system.

The auditor's report and Claudia's recommendations really span the whole homelessness response system.

And we are not here today to talk about the entire system.

We're happy to come back and do that.

But what we are here to do today is talk about the NAB team.

With that said, I actually want to make sure that y'all know that the mayor requested a meeting with the city auditor to discuss how to better align in the future.

and be aligned on clarity and scope, because from my perspective and the executive's perspective, this report went way out of scope.

Well, you know, I think we've had those conversations as well with the city auditor, and I think a very compelling case has been made that the ability of the navigation team to meet the objectives of the theory of change are very impacted by the rest of the system.

And we are committed together to have an approach of continuous improvement as it relates to the NAV team.

But when the other parts of the system aren't working, not only does it make it difficult to meet your desired outcomes, As currently defined, it also makes it very difficult to embrace that culture of continuous improvement because everything else around the garbage pickup, the hygiene services, you know, the access of your folks to diversion services, all of that stuff is really intertwined.

And I'm very supportive of looking at the big picture.

because I'm also committed to making sure that the NAV team can be as effective.

as it can be to meet both of its missions.

And I would say three things about that.

One is what you just described is exactly why the NAV team was moved to HSD because they were a piece sitting in FAS and therefore couldn't connect to the whole system.

I would also say that that is exactly why the executive is working on regional governance because Seattle is just a piece of the entire system and we need a regional response.

And then I would just say Today we have to stay focused on the NAV team because this conversation, when we start getting into system, it can swirl to a place where we can't recover from.

And so Jackie and I are here today to just focus on the NAV team.

While other system aspects will come in, we can't go down that road.

Understand this presentation is not intended to be about the city auditor's report.

It's intended to be based on the numbers that you are reporting consistent with the council's request during budget for this particular report.

So I'm totally supportive of, you know, putting some brackets around your presentation today.

I didn't intend to ask you to respond to the auditor's report.

Okay.

So what we'll do is Jackie's going to go through the slides and then I, if time permits, I do believe it's important to address some of the things that the auditor said because some of them were not factual.

Some of them were and some of them weren't.

And so just for the record, we want to make sure that we address those.

So who's doing the slide?

I can move down there.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thanks once again.

So, navigation team, our presentation.

So, we have a dual focus.

One, people, and secondly, of course, the place.

So, we'll be talking about today the mission and responsibilities.

We'll review the quarter four data, talk about trends and opportunities for improvement, training highlights, and then our 2019 goals.

So, we've spoken about the dual mission.

It's been reiterated in the, Previous presentation, we have four major responsibilities, one being engagements, needs assessments, and referrals to shelters.

So that is that people-focused piece of the navigation team.

We're also gathering data and assisting with the storage of personal property.

So individuals that are engaged by the navigation team have the capacity to have their possessions stored and then returned back to them.

We also are removing waste, we're trying to mitigate public health and public safety risks that can be associated with encampments.

And then enforcing lawful orders to vacate unauthorized encampment sites.

Key data from quarter four, site cleanings, there were a total of 240 site inspections completed.

The site inspection happens prior to any engagement to the site.

There were 81 obstruction hazard cleans.

There were 28 72 hours cleans.

There were 319.9, almost 320 tons of trash removed.

And in 2019, the total for 2019 was almost 1,200 tons of trash removed from encampments.

Outreach numbers, 1,800 contacts, 301 referrals to shelter.

Basic shelter referrals were 89, enhanced shelter referrals 196, and then 16 referrals to tiny home villages.

Can I just interject something here?

This is a place where I feel like there's confusion.

When we say outreach, and Claudia showed that large chart, there is a difference between nav team outreach and then the system outreach.

And so those green boxes really are not disjointed parts.

They're made that way by design.

We don't want 90% of our outreach workers to be in the field responding to cleans.

We want our outreach workers to be in the field developing relationships with people that are unsheltered so that by the time the NAV team gets there, they have a connection and it'll be easier to connect those folks to resources.

So at a later date, I just think that that's a place of huge confusion of it's not disjointed, it's created that way by design.

I think the point that the auditor was making is not that the green boxes or the outreach teams represented by the green boxes should be doing the same work.

as the NAV team outreach workers, but that there should be coordination across all outreach functions in the city, whether or not they're focused on locations where there are planned removals or focused on other locations.

I also want to highlight the fact that HSD has come to my committee in the past and told me that the NAV team does spend some of their time in areas that are not scheduled for removal.

And it seems to me that that is something, and I'm not being critical, I'm just identifying it as a practice that I believe has changed because I don't believe that NAV team outreach workers or the NAV team is engaging with people except in locations that you're planning to do removals now.

Sure, so in responding to the issue of coordination and collaboration across the continuum, not wanting to segue the conversation, but there is Coordination is happening and increasingly so there is the the group of individuals that are contracted by city the continuum who are working collaboratively to think about better ways to Work collaboratively with individuals who are being contacted by the nav team not only the nav team but folks across the continuum There's also that coordination happening at the prep meeting and then at our dispatch meetings that happens weekly We have a Wednesday morning meeting where we bring in partners to as well to have discussions about client-specific issues.

So that was another piece of the conversation that preceded our current presentation.

And I think that's a bit of a misnomer that there's not collaboration happening when it is.

And that does not only include partners who are contracted by the city, but even folks who are not too as well.

And so how frequent is that?

So the outreach continuum work group meets once monthly, and then there is another group that meets previous to that.

The prep meeting meets once monthly, and then the dispatch meetings happen weekly, and they happen Mondays through Thursdays.

And I understood from a meeting that I had with Director Johnson, I believe that the dispatch meetings have been sort of re-begun, that they hadn't been happening.

Well, there was a transition happening for, remember, we never had a full-time space.

We were being afforded an opportunity to use the space at the Emergency Operations Center.

We've since secured an office space in Soto, and with the transition to the Human Services Department, we have the ability now currently to use spaces at the Central Building and at the Municipal Tower.

You were credited for?

getting that going again.

Well, I don't know.

I don't know if it should be attributed to me, but the groups are meeting.

They're meeting in multiple spaces and the conversations about client-specific needs are happening.

I think, oh, go ahead.

I'm wondering, it would be, I think, again, we're talking about two different types of coordination.

There's the FEMA style approach, and then there's the across all outreach workers, whether or not they're NAV team focused or not, those types of tactical, or maybe that's more strategic, ongoing collaboration.

As it relates to the latter, the city auditor didn't say it wasn't happening.

I believe what was reported is that they aren't very well attended, and there was some question about the utility of those meetings.

So I would really love to see sort of what a typical agenda looks like.

It seems to me that an agenda would be sort of illustrative of how you're using those meetings.

So maybe that would help clarify sort of.

I think this highlights the point that the report we're reviewing is from a year ago, a point in time a year ago prior to moving to HSD, prior to having access to all of the resources in the homelessness response system.

And so a lot has changed.

And we have some of those updates that aren't reflected in here that we want to provide.

Well, coming back to this, as it relates to the update, the number of contacts, this is for the fourth quarter of 2018, so the number of contacts for the fourth quarter of 2018 were about 1800, but the first six months of 2018, the contacts averaged 3,500 per quarter.

Yeah, and that is expected.

There is a ramp down that happens during the final months of the year, particularly so in December.

There's a lot less operations that happen.

So generally, you find in the months of November to December, there's less activity.

And why is that?

There's just a ramp down.

You know, the weather, too, as well.

There are some encampments that can't be engaged based on safety reasons.

There's more rain, there's cold.

Those things are associated.

And also, I think, human beings, too, as well, have the tendency to, after working a very long year, want to take some time off, too, as well.

So the work is very much dependent on people's ability to be present and to do the work, too, as well.

But in the latter months of the year, there's usually a ramp down.

And most nonprofits close the last two weeks of the year.

I was fortunate for the last 15 years of my career to have the last two weeks off paid.

So when I came to the city, that changed.

And so my guess would be REACH and other agencies offer the same benefit to their employees at the end of the year that the nonprofits I worked at did.

My, and this is very anecdotal, I haven't done the analysis myself, but I receive weekly reports of the prospective encampment removals for the following week.

And I review those weekly when I receive them.

My perception is though that the number of contacts is decreasing, but the number of encampment removals has increased significantly.

Well, I can't respond to that.

I don't have those numbers in front of me, but we're willing to look at it, yeah.

Okay, so trends, observed trends were individuals were more willing to accept referrals to enhanced shelters and villages.

Enhanced shelters being shelters that offer folks to be there for 24 hours and provide supportive services.

And conversely, people were less willing to accept referrals to basic shelters.

And then there was an increase in the number of average daily bed vacancies reported, that increased by four.

And then we also looked at the trend of referrals to alternative living arrangements from 2017 as well as 2018. And what we have seen is a correlation between the city's work in setting up enhanced shelters in villages and a spike in the amount of individuals going inside.

So we saw a similar trend in 2017 as we did in 2018. The trend being when new places opened up,

acceptance to referrals increased.

Yeah, and those new places included villages as well as enhanced shelters.

But still, I mean, maybe nothing opened up in the first six months of 2018, but that's not my recollection.

The rate was 1 to 15 in the first six months of 2018, much higher in the last quarter, 1 to 6.

So, more resources available whenever there are more resources available, then we're able to make better offers.

And offers are not solely predicated on cleans, right?

So, um, our outreach teams are out daily, even in cases when, for example, during the most recent weather, um, we were not doing cleans, but we're still engaging people, still getting people inside.

I think, um, the evidence shows that over the past, uh, three weeks or so, when we were engaging folks, uh, during the nighttime hours, those were not associated with cleans and about 170 or more people accepted offers to go inside.

So that's not at all predicated on cleaning.

Yeah, my thinking about the fact that there were no encampment removals during the storm and my assumption of why that practice stopped during the storm was, I believe, out of a concern that destabilizing people during the storm and driving them deeper into places where they're more isolated would put them more in harm's way.

I think also to as well, you know, the navigation team and shelter crisis response, our primary responsibility is to the safety of all the individuals of Seattle within our purview and with the uptick in severe weather, our primary goal was to make sure people were safe when we're inside.

And a part of that conversation was communicating the risks associated with being in a tent that was going to be taking on snow, dense snow that was going to be collapsing on people's heads.

So we were very concerned about making sure people had safe places to be.

So not necessarily thinking about, okay, the impact of cleans as much as how can we respond in a way to ensure that our citizens are inside and safe and are not at risk.

But you had a better response, partially because of the weather.

But my point is that you made a decision to not do cleans.

I'm not talking about so much the improved response to offers of shelter during the storm.

I'm talking more about the decision.

I believe that the decision to not do cleans, unless you tell me otherwise, was based on a concern for people's safety.

We made a decision to make sure people were safe.

We focused all of our resources on getting people inside.

So cleans became a secondary concern.

It was not anything that we were considering.

We had to ensure people were safe.

And the staff, we had our field coordinators out doing outreach.

We had our police officers out doing outreach.

We had administrative staff out doing outreach.

We purposed all of our resources to focus solely on getting people inside and making sure they were safe.

rather than making a specific decision to not do cleans.

It wasn't like a decision point.

Everybody just rallied around getting people safe.

But that in itself is an interesting message, an interesting takeaway for me of the improvement in outcomes if you're really focused primarily on getting people safe.

I think just to kind of push back on that, I don't think that the change in focus is what brought people inside.

I think it was really cold outside and people knew their tents would not sustain.

And so people who otherwise would have declined services in a normal weather situation felt an urgency to get inside.

And I say that just because I don't want a connection to be made that if you stop doing cleans and you just focus all your efforts on asking people to come inside that they will just magically accept.

And I think our numbers, as the severe weather went down, you saw naturally people started to self, they started to leave and go back outside.

And so I think it's both and, but I'm just cautious about saying that if you do this, then this will happen.

And I think the education piece that we try to communicate is there are public health, and from the genesis of the NAV team, we've always tried to communicate that there are public health and public safety risks associated with living outdoors, unsheltered.

The act of God just made it that much clearer in people's mind, right, where there is sort of an immediate risk, people associated with being outside because of the snow and the cold.

as opposed to, well, if we continue to be in an area that is within sort of a slide zone, that potentially someday something may happen.

The risk is not as immediate.

So that switch flipped, not only with the folks inside of the city, but also folks who are in-house as well.

We also looked at the reasons why individuals declined services.

And as you can see, some of the data points that stand out were folks saying they wanted to live outside, and some individuals wanting to wait on housing.

some individuals reporting they had other arrangements, and then tiny homes not being available, tiny homes being one of the more popular options for individuals who want to go inside.

That's a really useful slide.

I think the written report only provided the, or I only saw the 40% number about declining services.

It's helpful to have all of the numbers, I think.

It tells a different story.

And that's not 40%, 40 total people.

Thank you.

And some planned data improvements.

We are looking at data points for services that are most frequently requested.

We are looking at improving the way we collect client demographic information.

And that will be done while we also schedule trainings for our team to think about how to collect data in ways that are client-centered that are also culturally sensitive to as well.

And then we're looking at instances that diversion strategies have been used.

I think one of the things we also wanted to respond to was that in the contract for our provider who supports the NAV team in outreach, they do have flex dollars that they have been able to leverage for diversion strategies.

So we have not been able to collect that, and that is on us.

We accept that responsibility, and we want to do a better job of being able to capture that and tell that story.

I'm so glad to hear that.

Some of our training highlights.

We've had our team trained on first aid and CPR, de-escalation, and crisis intervention.

And then the entire team went through the two-day undoing institutional racism training.

We had a facilitated, this was upcoming because this was from quarter four, but we have had since an equity and inclusion training from a national leader in sort of equity with the navigation team.

And then we are also, speaking about diversion, we are coordinating to have all of our providers, not only in the NAV team, but within the continuum, complete the diversion training, which would allow them to have access to the central fund to be able to leverage those to support people.

Can you talk about how Diversion showed up during the severe weather response?

Absolutely.

So when Diversion showed up, we reached out to our partners who are doing Diversion.

And we provided it as a resource for folks who were both inside as well as folks who attended the resource fair.

And we are still tabulating our numbers.

We'll have a report available shortly, we anticipate, by the end of the week.

But we're able to utilize Diversion funds to support people in returning to be home with families and that sort of thing.

So we were able to leverage those resources.

recently.

And the partner agency that manages the diversion funds they let down on some of the tight regulations during severe weather so that because the team hasn't been formally trained we had to find a way to ensure that we use diversion dollars creatively.

And I think this speaks to the benefits of being integrated into the Human Services Department.

We were able to lean on our coworkers to negotiate reducing the requirements for being able to access those diversion dollars.

2019 goals.

We've spoken a little bit or we've heard a little bit about competencies and staff analysis, staff assessments, a mental health professional, We are currently in the process of hiring a part-time mental health professional to work with the NAV team, potentially 20 hours a week.

And this is a competency that we desperately need.

We work very closely with DESC's host program, but they are really stretched for resources.

We appreciate the work that they do, but we want to be able to support it internally.

And this is why we're moving to hire a part-time professional to work with us.

And then once again, all of our staff will be trained on diversion, including our police officers.

a more streamlined data collection process, more targeted outreach, meaning to have more elongated periods of spending time with individuals, and then increase coordination among the outreach continuum.

I hope one of those goals is getting us that organizational staffing assessment.

Absolutely.

So the organizational staffing assessment, it's taking longer because it has to be looked at in the, looking at it from the system's perspective.

Because remember, the first step was to move the NAV team to HSD.

Now we are trying to figure out what the NAV team's space is in the system's response, and then we can do the staff assessment.

I appreciate the description of what you're thinking for a staff assessment.

I think that's an important first step.

I didn't see it listed as one of your goals, and so I'm hoping that it is.

All right, great.

A couple other questions.

As it relates specifically to the numbers of people who that you've identified are in locations that are exempt from the 72-hour notification requirement.

In the past, the reports that I received would indicate whether or not those folks still received the benefits of prior notice in outreach and engagement.

I'm not really clear here.

It says that 74% of the 109 encampment removals were determined to be exempt from the 72-hour notification rule, but I don't know what impact that has had on the work.

Did that 74% still receive, as per prior practices, receive the advance notice and engagement or not?

Could we follow up with you?

Yes.

It's one of those Things that I'm, this is the issue that used to be referred to as the owl pool rule.

Back under Director Patricia McInturff, there was a lot of talk about the approach that HSD should, prior to the existence of a NAV team, but there was still the need for this type of encampment response.

Mr. Poole had made commitments to advocacy communities that even in locations that had previous removals, that they would still follow the engagement policies.

of the city before doing subsequent removals.

And even though I was disappointed that the most recent iteration of the MDRs didn't reflect this practice, it was a practice that the city was still following.

And so I'm, and I was seeing that on a weekly basis.

I'm not getting a lot of good information about that now.

Also, we heard in the auditor's report about the work of the CPT officers that, can you confirm, do you think of them as part of the NAV team or not?

They're not.

They're not.

And they're not part of the NAV team because they're focused on the work in emphasis areas and you guys don't work in the emphasis areas, is that more or less accurate?

I would say NAV team is a very specific group of officers.

That's the way I think would be best, that's best to respond to this question.

We have officers that are contracted to work specifically with the NAV team and those are our officers.

But you are not working in emphasis areas, is that correct?

That the navigation team is not working in emphasis areas?

So the navigation team does, it does have the capacity to do that.

So both?

the NAB team and CPT officers are working in emphasis areas?

So I would say we have to get back to you on that because I want to talk to Chief Best to make sure that we're providing the accurate definition of her CPT staff.

But what Jackie said is correct.

The NAB team is responsible to go out into the field and some of those include emphasis areas.

And then I just want to flag for ongoing discussions the requests during the budget process for inclusion, weekly reports, more information about the notice that is given to folks before encampment removals and the average number of visits of outreach before encampment removal.

I understand you can't predict what is going to happen in the future week, but It's knowable information that you have for up to the date of the Friday report.

You could be producing that information.

But I understand.

I'm just going to kind of, you know, I'm noting that for my interest in having continued communication about it.

Yeah.

Great.

Jeff, have I missed anything down there?

No, I think you covered the primary points actually.

Okay.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us.

I really appreciate it.

Agenda item 5 is Council Bill 119420, an ordinance relating to the City of Seattle's datum point, updating the vertical and horizontal reference datum for City of Seattle departments and outside entities as a standard elevation reference plane.

requiring certain measurements for preliminary plats to be based on the updated vertical and horizontal datum and amending chapter 1.20 of the Seattle Municipal Code and amending sections 23.22.020, 2375-100, 25.06, subsection 030, 070, and 090 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Great.

Introductions?

Yep, thank you.

Brian Goodnight, Council Central staff.

Fantastic.

What are we doing here?

I know we had a public hearing about this before the new year?

January 25th.

After the new year.

So at the previous meeting, at January 25th, staff from Seattle Public Utilities provided a presentation on the ordinance and a description of the legislation.

As a quick refresher, a datum point is a reference point that's used in surveying and construction to provide a known location for measuring the position and height of an object.

In 2003, the city's code was updated to recognize national datum information from 1983 and from 1988. And from now on, instead of referencing a specific instance of the national standards, this ordinance would amend the code to simply reference the national standard system, including any updates or successor systems, thereby preventing the need to update the code whenever those national standards are modified.

Since this ordinance is amending the land use code, as you mentioned, the committee had a public hearing on January 25th, and there were no comments from the public on the item at that time.

And then lastly, the original bill as transmitted and introduced contains some errors, and so therefore there's a proposed substitute in your packets.

The proposed substitute is indicated as version D2, and it makes only technical corrections to the bill.

And can you remind me, it seems like a datum point, as it's been described, would not be a thing that changes.

Can you remind me why it changes?

Probably not to the best ability that SPU could.

I know that historically, the city of Seattle had a physical point that was here.

And at some point in the late 20th century, we switched to reference the national standard system.

Therefore, everyone was working off the same basis.

And all jurisdictions across the country have their own datum points set?

I believe it is possible.

My understanding is that Washington State also uses the national standards, so this would be conforming us to...

the systems that are used, yeah.

Okay.

And it's conforming us, but there is a datum point for every jurisdiction, right?

Or is there just, are we, we're not changing it to be a single datapoint for the whole country, right?

No, this is just for the city of Seattle's datapoint.

All right.

That's correct.

It's just, it's an interesting little tidbit that I never knew existed, but it makes a lot of logical sense for why we would need it.

And so with this legislation, we will not need to refresh it when it changes because it will just automatically change when the national standards are changed.

That's right.

My understanding is that the next update is in 2022. And so this way, we're just referencing the national system.

All right.

Sounds good to me.

With that, I will move Council Bill 119420. Oh, we have substitute?

I have version D-2.

My apologies.

I will move substitute D-2 of Council Bill 1194-20.

I will second the substitute.

I will vote in favor of the substitute.

Nobody is opposing and nobody is abstaining.

And now I will vote on the substitute.

I will move, I feel like I'm saying the same thing that I just said, but nevertheless, I will move the substitute.

I will second the substitute and I will vote in favor of the substitute.

With that, Council Bill 119420, we'll move on to full council on Monday.

Thanks.

Item 6 is council bill 119464 an ordinance authorizing the general manager CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a contract with Waste Management of Washington for constructing waste collection services and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you.

Greetings and welcome.

Good morning.

Introductions please.

Ken Snipes, Chief Administrative Officer and Solid Waste Deputy Director for Seattle Public Utilities.

Hans Van Duzen, Solid Waste Contract Manager for Seattle Public Utilities.

All right, take us away.

All right, so we are here to discuss the upcoming Seattle Public Utilities construction waste contract.

The proposed ordinance would authorize SPU's general manager and CEO to sign a new six to 12 year contract with waste management for construction waste hauling in Seattle.

It would cover delivery and collection of temporary drop boxes at the construction sites, and these are for non-recyclable waste.

And I'll take it from there.

This is a contract that's outside of our regular large solid waste contracts that you're familiar with.

It's a specific item of construction waste for disposal in Dropbox, as covered in the presentation.

And in addition to that, most of the construction waste material in the city, I'll note, is collected outside of this contract, both either self-hauled by large demolition construction firms or also as a recycling material by independent recyclers.

really only ends up governing about 10% or less of the construction waste collected in the city.

But nonetheless, as covered in the last bullet, it is required for us under the regulatory waste network of Washington State and the City of Seattle for us to have a contract in place so that this service is available.

And so the other 90% is covered by independent recyclers or self-hauled by large construction firms.

Do we have Do we have a breakout of construction, recycling, and waste?

Yeah, we track it every year.

It tends to be around 60% to 70% is diverted each year to recycling.

Thanks.

Yeah.

And so we had an expiring contract with Waste Management for this service, so we went ahead and competitively procured future services.

We did a request for information from vendors to get input, and then we did a formal request for proposal in the fall for services starting in April of this year and beyond.

We got interest from six firms, two submitted final proposals in October, Waste Management and Recology.

Both proposals were excellent.

We worked through both proposals with evaluation criteria that were established prior across their operations, their customer service provision, their past performance and history, and of course, the prices that they're providing.

Waste management was slightly higher across all the criteria evaluated by the evaluation committee, and so SBU selected them to move forward as a finalist and negotiate a contract.

And I'm just interested in the fact that 90% of the waste is not covered by this contract.

Is there a reason why construction companies are more likely to use the self-haul option?

I assume it's more cost effective for them, but they're kind of running their entire operations on their site and whatnot.

It's been that way for quite some time.

That's been the norm in terms of how they manage that.

There's also a piece there that is for large, large sites is directly hauled to the rail.

And so that's also outside of this contract that trucking firms will haul rail containers directly to the rail to allow for that efficiency.

So I think it's both out of efficiency and cost effectiveness that they probably pursue that.

So why are we, if only 10% are using the city contracted services, why do we continue to offer them if these other alternatives are out there?

Yeah, I think the point is that it's not an alternative that works for everyone, so for every site.

So it's important that we, as the city, provide a regulated disposal waste collection infrastructure for all waste streams.

And so we provide that service so that people can use it.

Some of the large construction firms won't need it, but small operations, household operations, neighborhood operations will need it, need someone to take their disposal materials if it's not recyclable away.

And so we need to provide that safety net across the city.

And just touch on some of the service highlights briefly in the new waste management proposed contract.

They'll be using all renewable natural gas fleet, so this further expands our carbon neutral fleet.

As you're familiar, we have a new solid waste contract starting next month that have all carbon neutral fleet, and this expands that.

And what is the size of this fleet?

Size of what?

The fleet.

It's probably about a dozen or so roll-off trucks, you know, because they just do continual laps to get the services.

And is there, are we, like we have in our other contracts, are we doing anything to encourage the use of electric trucks?

Yeah, this one didn't fit as well for the electrification.

We definitely probed on it and asked what alternative fleet opportunities the contractors were planning to use.

But this particular fleet is shared across a variety of services, and so it was a little harder for us to identify and provide an added incentive like we did with the other contract.

I think we're going to keep our eye on the future as we move forward, whether it's our own operations or whether it's contracted, about how that technology evolves.

It's really just coming.

And so, yeah, I think we'll keep pushing on that frontier.

And we are paying really close attention to that technology as it develops.

We want to be there on the ground when it happens.

And then also customer service, there's some enhancements there, just making it easier for customers to instantly reach pickup services from the construction site, kind of eliminating some of the steps that's required to have immediate service.

This will be a smooth transition with the current vendor transferring as the new vendor.

And then we've included some elements there to help further increase our recycling by having them help us continue to monitor loads and make sure that recyclables are going in recycling loads and not in disposal loads.

What are our goals for this line of business?

It's 70% diversion, yeah.

And we're seeing 60 to 70, you said?

Yeah, yeah.

And I'm sorry, that 60 to 70, was that?

what we're seeing only for the 10% that we're responsible for, or are we also monitoring the...

That's the entire waste stream.

It's the entire waste stream, okay.

And so, do we know if we're seeing better numbers for this contracted work than we're seeing for the self-haul?

Have we parsed it out?

No, that's a difficult...

Question to answer Because the the recycling the numerator recycling part of it covers all sectors and so it's hard to say with that when that recycling material comes in whether it was from the demolition firm or from Contracted so I don't think we could clearly answer that question, but just make sure we're reaching all segments of the of the construction community.

I

Yeah, I think the requirements are essentially the same.

The opportunity for this market will be when more materials are available for recycling.

And so that's going to be the opportunity there.

Right.

It seems like if you know the answer for the entire waste stream, and if we required our contractor to track what happens with what it is getting rid of, that we would, by process of elimination, be able to figure out what's going on in the other, the self-haul system.

Yeah, it's a good question.

We can definitely divvy out the waste disposal, where it came from, but the recycling is harder, like in terms of that's the other part of that equation, is like all the concrete that came into concrete facilities, saying whether it came from a small operation using our contract or a big operation, that's a little trickier.

Okay.

But good question.

And then on the financial side, the prices for the customer are similar to the current contract, so we're pleased with that.

It has very minimal impact on the SBU budget, partly because of the way this contract is set up.

It's a franchise arrangement where they retain the revenue from the customers, and then we just retain a franchise fee.

SPU Solid Waste Fund, and that franchise fee will increase slightly from $15,000 to $20,000 a year, a fairly small amount.

And then even the contract value itself is not too big.

It's $400,000 a year for waste management.

And what's the duration of the contract?

Six to ten years.

Great.

I have no further questions.

Am I missing anything?

No.

OK.

Well, with that, I will move passage of 1194-64.

I will second.

And I will vote in favor of Council Bill 1194-64.

Nobody's voting against it.

Nobody's abstaining.

And it will move on to full council on Monday.

Thanks so much.

And with that, we will adjourn.

It's 11.32 AM.

Thank you.

Okay.