Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 10/2/19 Session I

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you so much for being here on time.

It is October 2, 2019. This is our Budget Committee, and this will come to order at 9.32.

I'm Sally Bagshaw, and thank you all so much from the departments for being here.

I very much appreciate what is coming today for a real deep dive on what we're doing around providing assistance to people who are homeless and are struggling in our city.

Last week, for those of you who are here, you know that we began our examination of the mayor's budget and we heard from many of the city departments and thank you for all of you who were there last time to come this time as well.

We appreciate that.

And I know we had touched on the work that public utilities and our police department, FAS, human services, parks, police and fire are doing, our first responders.

And I want to acknowledge that, yes, we've heard from some of you, but today is going to be a little bit different.

And I want to thank Allison McClain in my office for helping organize this so we can do the deep dive today.

So our primary focus is going to be on topics that span across many of your departments.

And because it's going to be something a little different than we've done in the past, I thank my colleagues for being here and providing us a little space to do this.

So we're not specifically talking about one department, but looking at our investments, how the investments are doing.

And for those of you that are going to be at the table, I know what we're looking for is how things are going in the department, how effective you think you are being, how our investments are being applied, and whether or not you think that the outcomes are worth, in fact, the phrase that we've used a lot lately is that whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

So knowing that we're looking at putting over $100 million into this, This coming year, we want to know, are things improving?

So those are the questions that we will be asking.

This afternoon, we're going to hear from our lead program, both Lisa Dugard and Dan Satterberg, our King County prosecuting attorneys are going to be here, plus the departments who are involved.

And then we're also going to have some presentation about TNCs.

We are not going to hear from our Office of Sustainability and the Environment, OSE.

And fortunately, I want to thank all of them for getting prepared, but we, knowing that we're just going to be up against a time deadline, thought it was better just to release them.

So, colleagues, if you have specific questions about OSE, I know Yolanda on Council Central staff can help, and we'll get information from that department as necessary.

So with that, our agenda number one is our citywide homelessness response.

And I'll invite those of you who are going to be presenting this morning, please come up and join us at the table.

And again, we will have public comment this afternoon after our afternoon session is completed.

And again, for those who are planning to come, Thursday night to our public hearing.

It begins at 5.30 here in this chamber, and we will stay until the last person has a chance to speak.

Excellent.

Why don't we start up, Allison, with you, and then just go around the table for introductions.

Allison McLean, Council Member Begshaw's office.

Tom Mikesell, your Council Center staff.

Tracy Ratzliff, Council Central Staff.

Jeff Sims, Council Central Staff.

Dusty Olson, Human Services Department.

Jason Johnson, Human Services Department.

Tess Colby, Mayor's Office.

Julie Dingley, City Budget Office.

And over here.

Great, thank you, Lieutenant, for being here with us.

Okay, who's kicking us off?

Is that you, Jeff?

Yes, Madam Chair.

As you've already done, I wanted to start us off with a little context for this session.

As council members are aware, homelessness remains a substantial focus in Seattle and the surrounding area.

Last year, 22,500 people accessed services.

The one-night count in January of this year did find an 8% fewer people experiencing homelessness.

But as we heard during council briefing last week, many of the programs funded by the city are on pace to serve more people this year than last year.

Today the executive branch will present total homelessness and spending across the same 11 departments that were included in the inventory last year These items are presented today in order to give a holistic understanding of homelessness and how the city is responding to homelessness In particular how down just a tiny bit.

I'm taking notes.

I

Oh, sorry.

In particular, how departments that are not focused on serving individuals experiencing homelessness are part of the city's response.

But all these investments are part of, sorry, I think I missaid that, how departments not typically associated with responding to homelessness are part of the holistic response.

But we do want to emphasize that these investments that are presented today are part of the individual department submissions.

The mayor's budget proposes spending a total of $101 million on a $5.5 million increase on homelessness services.

A significant portion of those increases are one-time expenses in the Human Services Department.

Some of these investments were discussed last Friday as part of the mayor's proposed response to high barrier individuals, so you'll recognize some overlap.

And in addition to HSD, we'll have presentations related to homelessness by Seattle Public Utilities, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

And with that, I will turn it over to CBO to get us started.

Thank you, Julie or Tess.

Tess is going to kick us off.

Thanks.

I'm just going to kick us off and then immediately turn it over to Julie and Jason.

And we'll just get going.

So the first thing that I want to do is just walk quickly through how the presentation will go this morning.

We will begin with a little bit of context that I'll provide for the mayor's approach.

we'll move into an overview of the homelessness budget followed by highlights of specific changes from this year across departments.

So just as some context setting, today's presentation focuses on incremental changes to budgeted activities related to homelessness in 2020. It's part of a larger whole that reflects the mayor's vision and strategies for addressing the crisis of homelessness.

This budget represents her commitment to ensuring that there are safer spaces for people experiencing homelessness, along with supportive services and paths to permanent housing.

and it acknowledges our responsibility to address safety and health risks among people sleeping outside and in the communities impacted by homelessness.

As Jason's presentation last week demonstrated, the crisis response system is advancing the long-term goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring.

City-funded programs are more successful at preventing homelessness, are providing services to more people, and are helping more people to reestablish and retain housing.

This represents an important return on the mayor's commitment to performance-based contracting, which keeps our funded providers laser-focused on a housing-first approach that places housing navigation and connection to services at the core of their work.

The 2020 budget continues to fund every aspect of the crisis response system, from prevention, outreach.

Sorry, I just saw mommy come in.

I didn't know if you wanted to join us at the table.

If you do, you're welcome.

OK.

Sorry.

Sorry, Tess.

Go ahead.

All good.

So as I mentioned, the budget contains all aspects of the crisis response system, from prevention, outreach, diversion, and shelter, to housing programs, including the supportive services that help our most vulnerable stay housed in permanent supportive housing.

This year's budget extends some existing funding, such as those for the navigation team field coordinators, adds funding for new programs, such as the partnership with public health, to increase access to nurses both in person and over the phone, and expands some existing programs, such as safe parking and RV remediation.

2020, as we all know, is also a year of transition as we advance towards establishment of a regional governance structure.

This comes with a combination of anticipation and uncertainty as we enter new territory.

Those crisis response programs I mentioned above will transition to the new regional authority over the course of 2020, but this year's budgeting process remains unchanged.

Finally, while small relative to their respective total budgets, the funding related to homelessness for SPU, parks, and FAS is critical to protecting the safety and health of persons experiencing homelessness and the communities that are often disproportionately affected by homelessness.

These programs represent the success of interdepartmental teamwork in responding to neighborhoods, just as the navigation team does in its collaborative approach to addressing the health and safety concerns in unsanctioned encampments.

And with that, now I will hand it over to Julie for an overview of the budget.

Great.

And Julie, before you dive in, Tess, I want to acknowledge the work that you and Jason and others have done towards our regional governance, whatever the authority ends up looking like.

And also acknowledge the good work that King County and some of our suburban city colleagues are doing on this.

So we know that this is something that is going to be helping us solve the problem.

And as we're going to hear more this afternoon, and I think Dan Satterberg, I can cue this up for him, is to say, we know what's working and many of the things are at capacity.

And that those are the areas that we need to really focus on and expand.

Thank you for the good work that you've done, and Leslie Brinson and others that aren't here to really share my appreciation.

Thank you very much.

Julie, go ahead.

Thank you.

As Tess mentioned, this is not only a transition year for HSD, it's also the second year of the biennial budget.

And as you heard from Director Noble last week, departments were asked to stay largely within those resources to the extent possible.

And obviously, there are some exceptions, which we will be discussing today.

The 2020 proposed budget for homelessness is now at 101.3 million, which has grown citywide significantly.

If you can, oh, sorry, that's right there.

Correct slide, sorry.

Since 2017. The categories shown here were first introduced to you guys all last year.

during the 2019-2020 biennial budget consideration, and from top to bottom include access to services currently at $5.1 million, cleanup at $5.3 million, emergency response at $51 million, housing and prevention at $33 million, and HST staffing and admin at $6.8 million.

Of note in this final category, there's a one-time $2 million for the startup for the Regional Homelessness Authority that we have discussed with you all previously that's included in there.

So that's why that looks like a significant bump year over year.

So say that again, that last paragraph, Julie.

That last bit was that the HSE staffing and admin in 2020 includes a one-time $2 million investment for the regional authority startup.

Got it.

Thank you.

So on the following slide, this table shows the same information but just by department.

During the first part of the presentation, as Tess mentioned, we'll be discussing in-depth the changes to OH and HSD, and then colleagues from SPU, Parks, and FAS will join to discuss their individual incremental changes.

There are, of course, other departments listed above whose budgets either did not change at all or changed modestly, and we would be happy to get you additional information should you have questions not answered in today's presentation.

So with that, we will begin with OH.

And this one begins with a humble plea.

Hold on, Julie, just a second, please.

Council Member Sawant has a question.

Could you go back to the bar graph that you had a moment ago?

Just first of all, one observation.

I'm not sure if the exact words you used to represent the mayor's office on homelessness.

If you are saying that it's an objective for the city to achieve, to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring, then of course I 100% agree with you.

But I think the mayor's office is implying that we are getting towards that or somehow doing it.

I'm sorry, just for the record, I want to say that I don't think that we can say this with a straight face given the problem that we're facing in our region.

And I think the least starting point we have to have is a point of honesty.

I don't think that the vast majority of people I would like to make sure that at least of all homeless people are going to agree with that assessment.

I wanted to say that.

get their presentation on performance outcomes?

I was unable to be there because I've been under the weather, but I don't need to be told.

I am looking at the presentation.

That has nothing to do.

It's neither here nor there.

What you just said, this is a response to what was said, conveyed from the mayor's office in terms of what the assessments are.

I think we have to be honest about assessments at the very least.

But I did have a question also on the bar graph.

where you say in the 2019 revised, you have 4.4 in the blue section, 4.4 million on cleanup.

I'm not sure how that squares with the fact that the human services department and the mayor's office themselves have shared with us, which is it's roughly $10 million for the sweeps.

So what is exactly, what is this reflecting and where is the rest of the amount?

I believe you're referring to the navigation team efforts and the cleanup category specifically has cleanup related from the different utilities so that the costs that come from that parks and SPU contribute and then there are SPU salaries which are captured in the emergency category that are otherwise related, and then we have outreach contracts as well that are part of the navigation team total spending, and those are in a different category, so they're not included there.

Okay, thank you.

Please continue.

Okay.

So back to my humble plea.

You'll obviously notice I am not OH Housing Director Alvarado.

She and her team are away at a conference.

And so I really, I will do my best to represent them.

They're obviously brilliant and wonderful humans.

And so just ask your patience with me.

If I can't answer your specific questions right now, I will certainly get them back to you.

Great.

And who's taking notes for you on those questions?

Several folks in the audience as well as, I'll be taking notes as well.

Super.

Thank you, Julie.

Great, so in the last two years, the city of Seattle, together with our partners, has invested over $710 million in rental housing and permanently affordable homeownership to build over 2,140 new units and maintain over 760 units as affordable.

The city currently has 16,800 affordable homes with 5,228 under development by 2022 for 0 to 60 AMI for rental housing and 80% AMI for homeownership.

A reminder that in addition to homelessness as defined by coordinated entry, OH is serving people who might otherwise be homeless but for these units.

All of OH's low-income units, even those not specifically regulated as homeless units, are contributing to homelessness prevention through direct provision of housing.

Of the current portfolio, 6,700 units are regulated for 30% and below, with 4,300 of those specifically regulated for homeless.

In the pipeline, meaning fully funded and in some stage of construction or development, there are another 900 units for under 30% AMI, and 463 of those units are specifically regulated for homeless.

This also includes 382 units for 30% AMI, just funded in the 2018 NOFA process and reflected in the 2019 budget.

So that was this year.

The 2020 budget reflects awards.

If you can go to the next one.

Thank you.

The 2020 proposed budget reflects- Sorry, I had a clarifying question.

Okay.

Yeah, please.

On the previous slide, I'm assuming the numbers you have for city funded rental housing units that are in operation or under development, I'm assuming that includes all the levy resources?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, please.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

Recognizing that you're not the Office of Housing, can you go back to the previous slide, please?

I think this underscores exactly the crux of our problem.

We are not looking at how many people 0 to 30% AMI are renting in the market rate apartments.

How many people currently in Seattle are renting market rate apartments 0 to 30% AMI?

Do you have that number on you?

I don't offhand, but I can get it for you.

I believe the number is more around 22,000 people in our region.

And so when we look at the numbers that Council Member Sawant just emphasized, and we think about how we've been messaging, our response being appropriately reducing the number of folks living outside, which I think is somewhat questionable in terms of our apples to apples numbers this year compared to last year.

I think what's more an appropriate number to look at is how many people are living in insecure housing situations, zero to 30% AMI.

And I'd love to see those numbers for this year compared to last year, the previous year.

So, 2017, 2018, and 2019 if possible.

I think that would give us a better sense of how the current portfolio of units at six, I'm sorry, at 30% AMI and below mirrors what the need is.

And that would be something that I think would be very interesting to the public as well.

Great.

We can get that for you.

Good.

Thanks.

And I think that's a question that all of us are going to have.

So, if you can make sure all of us get it, it'd be great.

No problem.

Thank you.

The 2020 proposed budget.

On that question, which I agree Council Member Mosqueda is extremely important, to see the actual vulnerability because people are rent burdened and I think looking at how many are 30% or less of AMI is extremely important.

And then one other statistic, which I'm trying to find but my phone is really slow, but the Seattle Times have reported recently, it was I think last year, I'm sure you can find it, where they said that Over 23,000 households were extremely rent burdened, and so it's not exactly what we're looking for, which is how many of them were at 30% or less than AMI, but clearly there is going to be a strong correlation.

And extremely rent burdened meaning households, of course, that are paying more than 50% of their income in rent.

So I think we should connect that as well.

Sure.

We can get ACS, there's ACS data that we can get for you.

Probably not 2019, the most current may be 2017, just because of how long it takes them to rotate the information, the data out, but we'll get the most recent.

It will be useful, yeah.

Yeah, Council Member Worth.

Just briefly, and you know I was gonna bring this up at some point, on looking at what's in the pipeline in AMI and 30, and I know we've been asking for breakdowns, I really would like a breakdown in districts as well.

What we're finding is that we're not capturing, I know we're like 22,000 people are at 30% AMI.

I know that we are experiencing a lot of that in the north end, in particular in my district, District 5. So if we could have that, that would be really helpful.

So when we tee up what our budget issues are for our social service programs, for our homeless programs, then I actually can help them with their information as well.

particularly since we're building a lot of permanent supportive housing in my district.

We're in our third unit, our third building.

So if we could have that, I would really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

OH also recently launched a part of their website that's quite helpful.

It's interactive and it has all the sites under development on a map so you can actually, if you were out and needed to pull it up with constituents, that could be helpful as well.

But we'll get you that data certainly.

And we also have maps.

Now we ask for that with budget of what the existing rental portfolio is by district as well.

And I can get that to you.

We've got it.

I just want it in the packet though for right now.

I mean, I know I can do it right now for today.

Madam Chair.

Please, Council Member Muscato.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair.

While we're taking a pause, can we go back to slide four?

Okay.

I know you're going to get into these details a little bit more, but again, as we've talked about a number of times, in our effort to try to create a regional response to the emergency that is homelessness and the public health crisis of folks not having enough places to live, let alone shelters to live temporarily, I still am concerned about the amount of money we're spending on the navigation team and the number that I've been told was that as a total, we have $7 million that are being allocated across various departments for the navigation team.

As I look at this...

I know that within these various departments, there are elements of the navigation team that are not slated to be coordinated with our partners at King County.

And that's concerning to me for two reasons.

One is, we've been making the argument that when we consolidate funding, we're going to be more efficient with our partners at King County.

which I believe to be true, and I think it'll be more efficient for the folks who are directly serving those who are homeless as well, to not have to go through multiple applications for funding, not to have different types of reporting, and to frankly have better reporting under King County's model that doesn't rely on a performance-based contract.

So I believe there is efficiencies to be Gained by merging our programs and again not for housing unfortunately, but just specifically for emergency services Where I become concerned is that we continue to talk about this budget including funding that is directly addressing the crisis that is homelessness and we're not talking about pulling that funding and And having it more efficiently coordinated with holistic services that will be offered through the regional governance effort.

And so when I hear $7 million will still be at the City of Seattle, I'd like to know how much of that is reflected in these items here.

And I'll also put the caveat out there.

I understand that we're not talking about allocating the funding that currently goes to the Seattle Police Department over to King County.

Ideally, that funding would be redirected to more restorative justice models, stay within the Seattle Police Department funds.

And I would like to know of them dollars that are listed here, how much of these dollars are going to continue to be used for the navigation team?

And is it around 7 million as we heard before?

And of that 7 million, Is it $2.3 million that is allocated from the Seattle Police Department's budget that would go continually to the navigation team?

Let me, there were several in there, so I'll work my way through and then please prompt me if I'd miss one.

So the 2020 proposed budget includes 8.4 million for the navigation team broken down as follows by department.

SPD staff is about $2.35 million.

HSD staff is $2.56 million.

The HSD outreach contract is $762,000.

The FAS cleanup contract is $1.3 million.

And parks cleanup crews come in at $1.4 million.

Let me know if you need any of those again.

Have you already sent this electronically?

I'd be happy to provide it.

Yeah, okay Let me just repeat what I believe I heard Seattle Police Department is 2.35 million finance and administrative services 1.3 million Seattle Parks and Rec 1.4 million Human Services Department is $2.56 million.

And then the HSD outreach element is $762,000.

Correct.

Okay.

And we're going to get into the navigation team a bit later in the presentation.

And just want to also call out one other component of your question was about not seeing this as part of the coordinated response.

And the 2020 budget is largely, was largely developed knowing that all of the, the really meaty issues related to regional governance and all of the different pieces that we're going to need to grapple with will have to be discussed over the next year.

And so those budget related changes will be included in the 2021 budget.

Okay, I'd like to continue but one more thought along those lines is I think that we all have heard different things about the NAV teams and as you dive into it in a few moments just to talk about what their objectives are, how they're doing because I know that among my colleagues there is definite concern about how the money is being spent and are people getting better and if we're simply chasing people around from one site to another We don't think that that's a good use of funds, but if we can focus on the cleanups and what they're doing and making sure we're using this money for more 24-7 roofs of some kind or another, that's going to be the focus of this, I know, of this council.

Thanks.

Go ahead, Julie.

Okay, if you can go back.

Thank you.

So the 2020 proposed budget reflects awards that will be made through the 2019 NOFA process for which applications have just been received.

OH expects to commit about $90 million, with about $25 million expected to be committed for housing for the formerly homeless.

This includes $45 million from housing levy, MHA, and federal sources, $25 million from REIT II, and about $20 million for local option financing, which would be used for permanent support of housing capital.

This was all discussed in OH's presentation to you all last week.

Now, it's too early in the NOFA process to know which projects will be funded in December, but looking in aggregate at all of the applications, there are requests representing 400 units for under 30% AMI.

There are requests representing another 423 units for under 50% AMI.

These 50% units are worth noting because with deeper investment by OH into a particular project, we can further buy down the rent, allowing the housing operator to offer a unit to a household in a lower AMI bracket than what is proposed in their application.

Additionally, OH will provide just shy of $2 million for ongoing operations and maintenance support for both PSH and transitional housing, which, as you all know, are critical to the success of these interventions.

HSD also provides significant funding for O&M for a citywide total of $18.7 million.

So when you talk about we could have additional buy-down, does that come at the expense of additional units?

Yes, yes, because you're using more resource to buy down those units to a lower level.

So it means that you have less to buy more units.

Thank you.

All right, please proceed.

Any other questions?

So with that, I'll turn it over to Jason to get into the HSD changes.

Thank you, Julie.

Good.

You did a nice job pinch hitting.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good to be with you again.

I do mean that.

I do.

So again, for the record, Jason Johnson with the Human Services Department.

I'm here with Dusty Olson, Strategic Advisor at HSD.

The slide in front of you represents some continued increase in department funds related to addressing homelessness.

You'll see that between 2018 and 2019, there was an 8.2% change, 8.2% increase.

And we are, you're also seeing a proposed increase of 4.7% between 2019 and 2020. And in the presentation that I have today, I want to walk through each of those incremental changes that are proposed.

I do want to highlight two things quickly, though.

One, just another reminder that in 2020, the Human Services Department will continue to administer the contracts related to addressing homelessness.

While we will be working to stand up a regional authority jointly and consolidated with King County Investments, the act of and the practice of administering the investments through contracts will continue to be the Human Services Department in 2020. I also wanted to just remind, it's been stated already, but I was with you on Monday morning and was able to highlight that the strategic changes that we've made throughout the past couple of years with these homeless investments are working.

We are serving more people than we have in previous years.

We are moving more individual households from homelessness to housing.

We have seen a shortening of the length of time that people are remaining in shelter programs.

We have enhanced more of those shelter programs.

And we are also seeing an increase in the number of people we're able to prevent from becoming homeless in the first place and having to use the emergency crisis system.

So in these numbers, this 90 million dollar number proposed in 2020, I just wanted to highlight that those programs that I went through in detail on Monday are all captured as part of that budget.

Thank you.

So first, I want to start with the inflationary increase for homeless provider contracts.

We talked a little bit about this on Monday overall for the department, but I wanted to specifically highlight that $913,000 of the increase will be part of our homeless investment contracts.

So I just wanted to sort of pull that piece of the overall $1.5 million total department wide.

to highlight that this increase into the homeless investment contracts totals 913,000.

Jason, does that include both the raise that we included in last year's budget for this year plus the 2% that we just negotiated during the summer?

That is correct.

So this includes last year's inflationary increase as well as this year's 2.6% increase.

So this increases the ability of service providers to keep pace with the increased cost of doing business in Seattle and to increase wages for their employees.

The 2.6% increase complies with Ordinance 125-865.

The next item I wanted to highlight is the on-site nursing at permanent supportive housing and shelter programs.

The homeless population is aging and experiencing greater acute and chronic medical conditions that require additional health care support to stabilize.

This funding will add on-site nursing support at five programs, two shelters, and three permanent supportive housing projects who experienced the highest number of calls to 911 requesting emergency services that were determined to be non-emergent needs.

Nurses will perform basic patient triage and address the resident's medical concerns based on Seattle Fire Department's patient evaluation approach.

The performance measure that we're wanting to pay attention to with this investment will be a reduction in 911 calls overall, especially those non-emergent 911 calls.

Right.

A big applause to you, to Chief Harold Scoggins.

our fire department.

This is something that I know we've all been talking about for a number of years and the fact that it's now being addressed in this budget gives me great hope that we're listening to the people whose boots are on the ground telling us this is what they need and I think this investment is going to show a real system improvement.

Council Member Mosqueda.

I'll just echo my colleague here from District 5 around frustrations that there's nothing reflected in the north end.

And then also I want to just double check that we have included a report back, how many calls were diverted, how many clients are getting access to the nurse, how many folks are I think it's important to be aware of that.

It's important to be aware of getting transferred to appropriate health care versus just cycling in and out.

If you have any comments on how we are tracking that, that would be helpful.

I will also say thanks to It was met with some resistance, so I'm really glad to see it included, as well as the inflationary adjustment.

I think those are really critical pieces for us to save money on the front end and to save lives.

So glad to see these two pieces.

Any comments on the tracking of how we will be measuring the success of the program?

Yeah, so we'll enter into our contract.

We will be monitoring that contract regularly.

Part of monitoring that contract will be to receive data about how this program is going in these five programs.

What we will be paying close attention to is the, we want to see a reduction in the low acuity calls.

But we also will want to understand specifically what sort of issues the nurses in these programs are dealing with.

We made a significant investment in additional shelter capacity.

When was that, 2018?

And now we're really looking at how those programs are performing and what gaps exist.

This was one of those areas that providers told us they did not have the capacity to provide the medical needs for individuals staying in these shelters and permanent supportive housing.

programs, especially after hours.

And so this is where we wanted to insert some assistance, some very targeted assistance to help them provide the care needed for the individuals staying in their programs.

I also would just highlight that, you know, there was the data in front of you shows the five programs where this on-site nurse will be working.

And it is these five locations, because these are the five programs that are getting the highest numbers of non-acute calls to 911. So we did not do a...

geographic all call to provide this service at a wide variety of shelter programs or permanent supportive housing programs.

We wanted to be very targeted in making sure that this resource existed where the highest volume of calls were coming in.

Council Member D5.

You know you're gonna hear this again, and I'm only saying this because the facts support this.

D5 has five shag housing.

We have the most shag housing in the city.

Second of all, when you talked about homeless population is aging, it is no more so apparent in our district.

And we don't have a elder community center.

And I know I've been around and around with particular mayors and Chairwoman Bagshaw knows this as well.

We have three permanent supportive housing unit buildings and we have another one scheduled to come online.

And we also have no shelter in D5.

We're the only district that has no shelter 12 months out of the year.

We got money in the budget last year for God's Little Acre to keep the shelter open for men from 6 in the morning to 6 at night.

We have faith-based with God's Little Acre and the Mennonites.

And I know people think that everyone's fat and happy in the North End.

That's not the case.

So I'm going to really push back on, again, not ignoring particular districts, particularly my district.

We have been pushing this for, since I've been on council.

I can't stress it anymore, particularly with our aging population and wanting our elders to age in place and have those services.

And we have a couple of fire stations, but that's not what we need when we're talking about having this nurse in this care.

So I'm gonna actually come back, we can come back to this issue offline as well, all right?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will add, this is one of those programs that we want to pay really close attention to.

And if we see success, if we see a reduction in low acuity calls at these five programs, this could be something that we'd want to grow and make more available in other programs.

Council Member Mosqueda.

So you've indicated that you tried to select the five sites that had the highest volume of calls.

Were we limited by just saying we're going to choose five sites or were we capping our services at X number of calls?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Did we decide from the get-go, were we going to do five sites, or were you looking at X number of calls to trigger how many people got into service?

A little bit of both.

So we definitely wanted to make sure that we were targeting the sites that generated the most calls.

In part, in grand part, because of the expense of actually doing a hook and ladder response to those when they are such a high percentage of low acuity calls.

We knew we would have the resources proposed to hire four on-site nurses.

And looking at how we could distribute those nurses, it's really important in the shelters in particular because of the size of shelters and because you can see that there's a significant number of fire department, excuse me, 911 calls in the shelters as compared to in permanent supportive housing.

We wanted to make sure that we had on-site nurses in each of those and then with the remaining two it felt as though really having them rove among the remaining three would really be about as much as we could ask of them in order to really provide appropriate services.

I will also note that after the Morrison, there is another drop.

And frankly, the remaining permanent supportive housing projects and shelters show a much lower volume of 911 calls.

So we were quite thoughtful in the way we looked at the acuity levels as well as the volume.

And then, Madam Chair.

Please go ahead.

Again, thank you for raising a lot of these issues last year, because I learned a lot through our conversations and also with my ride along with the fire department, where in the short period of time that we had, one day we basically spent our five or six trips with the latter going to see individuals with low acuity needs.

So it's very real, the experience they have with not being focused on, not being able to be focused on putting out actual fires and now having to become first responders in the sense that they're responding to the emergency of an individual putting out that fire for that individual.

And I know that this is something they've been asking for for a very long time, so I'm happy to see it.

I just want to double check on two things.

One is, we're not going to apply any performance-based contracting type models to these entities, are they?

They're not going to have to prove themselves and then get the remainder of their money.

we're going to be able to go ahead and fund up front so that we're not holding back dollars, correct?

Yeah, there's not a performance, a pay for performance contract related to this work.

We will be, however, monitoring very closely the results of these investments.

I just want to add to that that in conversations with public health and healthcare for the homeless, they already are engaged with a number of sites.

And the shelters and permanent supportive housing projects are quite accustomed to providing them a pretty broad array of data points.

And as Jason pointed out, it's mainly really to understand how well the programs are working and to understand where we might be able to get best practices to replicate and where there may be needs for tweaks.

The other is having a partner in the fire department is really great because they do some pretty amazing analytics with the data that they collect.

Great.

And I think that's important because we don't want to test this, right?

I don't want this to be considered a pilot when we know that this works.

We've seen it as, you know, as close as Kent, right?

So I just want to be careful that it doesn't sound like we're setting up another pilot to test it to see if it works.

But more along the lines of what you just said, Tess, was we want to implement this and we want to take this to scale.

And if there's tweaks that we need to make from looking at these five, then we do that.

But I just don't want us to feel like we're holding back and waiting for this program to validate itself when we've seen it work in other cities, in other states as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Please continue.

Okay.

The other investment that I wanted to highlight is the new nurse call line.

So this is a 24-7 nurse call line for shelters and permanent supportive housing programs across the city.

This is available to all shelter and permanent supportive housing programs.

And this is a call line when there is a non-emergent need.

The goal here is again to reduce the number of non-emergent calls to 911. This project is based on a pilot at DESC which determined that 80% of the calls were able to be addressed by the nurse line without redirecting to 911. This is $37,000 of ongoing cost to support 900 calls a year.

The 900 calls are about the number of low acuity calls to 911 in previous years.

And again, the performance metric on this will really be to see a reduction in the number of non-acuity 911 calls.

Great.

Thank you.

And I like what you've done here, and I like the way you've expressed it.

And again, I want to say great thanks to Chief Scoggins for the data that he collected that gives us something to stand on and not just a pilot.

you know, just on a wing and a prayer.

We really know where the areas are that need this kind of approach.

So, thank you for that.

Yeah, thanks for highlighting that.

We believe that this is needed and will work.

So, we are not piloting this.

This is an investment into what we think will be an enhancement of shelter and permanent supportive housing services.

Thank you.

You know I'm not happy with this chart, right?

Well, let's keep moving on and we'll come back to that.

We want to make you happy.

Keep going, Jason.

All right, thank you.

So we talked a little bit about this at the previous budget hearing.

This is the Family Resource Center at Mount Baker.

This program will serve families living in the new Mount Baker Permanent Housing Project and the surrounding community, providing a broad array of supportive services.

This project was previously mentioned in detail last week.

But the project has a larger scope than just addressing homelessness.

That said, homelessness funding is being used to fund one of the services as housing stability programs offered by Mary's Place in conjunction with other service providers will be part of this project.

So I just wanted to highlight it again.

It's one of the important incremental changes that you'll see in the budget.

Great, thank you.

Okay, the next project is a pilot.

This is the Seattle Rental House Assistance Pilot, or SHRAP.

The SHRAP is a pilot launched in 2018 to stabilize households at risk of homelessness while waiting for their Seattle Housing Authority voucher.

The project was originally intended to sunset in 2019, but delays in enrolled participants receiving their voucher necessitates a continued need for services in 2020. Once the pilot had begun, SHA changed the rate at which they were releasing vouchers.

Increased rental costs and more people using their vouchers for a longer period of time resulted in less new vouchers being issued and longer wait times than originally calculated.

There are currently 76 households still enrolled and receiving services and financial support while they wait for their voucher.

More than half of these households are anticipated to need services throughout the 2020 year.

And maybe this is a question for Tess on the incremental changes, but we hear over and over again that the problem with the voucher system is that we don't have enough places to direct people.

And we're cramming where we can within the city, but again, it looks like the regional approach is going to be very helpful.

And I just wonder if you can talk about, will some of these investments be available so that we can use them outside of the city?

Yeah, so this specific budget item for 2020 is really a one-time investment to continue the pilot through the 2020 year.

As Julie mentioned, during the 2020, during the rest of this year and all of next year, we are going to have many discussions about what budget will need to be part of our regional response as we stand up the regional authority.

I think there is a lot to look into here with this pilot.

We have a meeting with central staff next week to really dive into this pilot and what the findings of the pilot are.

Yes, I'd like to clarify the purpose of this investment is not related to their long-term permanent housing with the voucher.

So the length of time needed in the extension of the pilot isn't because they weren't able to find housing with their voucher.

These are individuals that are on the wait list that have not been issued their voucher yet at this time.

And this funding, financial assistance combined with case management, is to ensure their stability while they are waiting.

So they have housing now, or they have something now?

They have something now.

There are participants over the course of the pilot who became homeless and were stabilized as a result of participating in the pilot with financial assistance.

And the point is that everybody that is currently enrolled was promised at the start of the pilot that they would be eligible to receive ongoing services until they received their voucher.

Originally, when we started, that was approximately about 18 months that most people were waiting on the wait list.

That time's been extended because new vouchers are not coming available at the same rate.

The Housing Authority has been very successful in people stabilizing with their vouchers, but that's costing more per voucher from the Housing Authority to do that.

and so they're not opening new voucher spots.

So people are waiting longer than the anticipated 18 months.

So we originally believed two years would be sufficient to get everybody that we originally enrolled, and it's not been quite enough time.

So this funding will sustain the people that are already in the program waiting for their voucher to come until it's received.

Can I just put a finer point on that maybe and another way to think about it is the housing authority has the good fortune of being over 100% utilized.

So the vouchers are all in play.

That impacts not only the folks that are waiting for a voucher, what we think of as the old-fashioned Section 8, which you can take and use in the marketplace, but also the project-based vouchers that we use for permanent supportive housing.

And so it's an ongoing conversation that we're having with the Housing Authority in terms of figuring out how we problem solve this for both populations on both counts.

And when you say people are on the waiting list, are they on the waiting list to get into SHAA housing?

They're someplace else now and they're waiting for that?

Both.

Both for the voucher and for, well, actually this waiting list I believe is just for the voucher.

They open, they typically open a separate wait list for the permanent, excuse me, for public housing.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

When I went to the women's shelter in Belltown last year, It may have been 2017. The director there was talking about how in her 10 years of service at the Belltown Women's Shelter, she had never been able to not assist someone within the 12-month period that they had originally tried to get people into housing with vouchers.

And at that point, it was late 2017, She said, this year I've had multiple people who I can't help.

Not only can I not help them find housing, but if there is an apartment, it is often outside of city limits, not anywhere near bus lines, not anywhere near close to an individual's work.

And they were struggling then to find affordable housing for even those who had a voucher in hand.

What is $515,000 going to do for us?

How many people are we actually going to be serving?

And what is the total number of people who are eligible for a voucher that are currently not getting one?

So this project is specific to individuals that were on the wait list at the time that the pilot began.

There have been 146 households that were served by this pilot funding, which has been a total of $3.7 million between 2018 and 2019. 44 households have been stabilized while they were waiting.

51 households have received their voucher and exited the program.

So this is an interim stopgap measure until they move with their voucher.

There are four more households that are expected to get their voucher by the end of the year with the current funding that we have.

So that leaves 76 households that need to continue to have some type of financial assistance or support that they are currently receiving until they receive their voucher.

The $515,000 is based on our historical spending over the previous two years, based on best estimates of what we think they will need to get through to their voucher placement.

Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I remember when this pilot program was initially being proposed last year and there was a lot of questions.

A lot of questions about, and perhaps help me if I misspeak or if I misremember, questions about the effectiveness of using such a small amount of funding to run a pilot.

Perhaps I can follow up with central staff Tracy and Jeff you may remember the conversation better than I do But I know there was a lot of questions about how these dollars would potentially be allocated and who would be served So you just mentioned that there's a handful of people You know, I'm looking at my notes here, 146?

146 have been served thus far.

146 people, individuals?

Households.

Okay, 146 households, even if we assume 2, 2.3, that is a relatively small number of people.

So I'm still concerned that I don't understand the universe of how many people need access to these, this type of rental assistance.

Is this a drop in the bucket, and could our funds potentially be enhanced?

Could there be a multiplier effect if we were to, for example, take some of the $8.4 million for the NAV team and put them towards an actual rental assistance program, recognizing that, again, over half the people, between 0% to 30% of the area median income are renting on the actual market, not subsidized housing.

So help me understand how this pilot program is making an impact, especially when we don't have the housing we need.

This pilot was designed to capture a very small subset.

So it was individuals who were currently on the waiting list for SHA.

So that is a small subset of people who need affordable housing, right?

It's a system you have to get onto the wait list.

These are individuals who are already on the wait list.

The wait lists are not open very often to even be able to get on them.

So it is a small percentage of the need overall, absolutely.

But it was designed specifically for individuals who were on the existing wait list for Seattle Housing Authority.

We then applied our prevention targeting tool to everybody that was on the waiting list that we could contact.

We had multiple agencies reaching out to contact people.

we went through the prevention and targeting tool to determine those households which are most at risk of homelessness while they wait, and targeted the assistance to them to ensure that they could be stable while they were waiting for the two years for their voucher to be received.

So it is a very specific pinpoint target that we have, that we've enacted this program for.

But they have other...

Does that clarify what you're looking for?

Thank you.

Okay.

$250,000 was added in the 2019 budget to pilot a response to people living in their vehicles.

HSD has partnered with Our Redeemer's Lutheran Church to expand their current parking lot from two to seven spots.

HSD is partnering with the Urban League to provide case management and housing navigation to households parking at Our Redeemer lot.

HSD and Urban League are exploring partners with other interested faith communities to replicate this model.

There are four churches actively considering opening spaces in their parking lots.

HSD anticipates having 30 spaces open in this program by the end of the year.

Because this was only a partial year contract due to planning time necessary to establish a new pilot, there will be a remaining balance from the 2019 budget.

This amount will be rolled over into the 2020 for a one-time expanded budget for the program.

This expansion will allow for an additional 15 spots to be open in 2020, including expanding the original Our Redeemers lot by eight more spaces.

Great, quick question on that.

I want to acknowledge work that Council Member O'Brien did starting 10 years ago, and it was a program called Road to Housing.

I think it was the same idea, working with our faith community to get more places in the parking lots so that there were also access to showers and inside toilets, that kind of thing.

Why do we think this is going to be more successful?

Because I know it was a huge struggle to get congregations to say yes, and we all want that.

We want places for people to be, but it strikes me what you're talking about here is just again a drop in a bucket for what we really need for both cars and RVs.

What we really have learned over the last couple of years is that the primary driver of success in any program is the services that are attached to it.

It is the case management, it's the housing navigation.

It is the depth and breadth of the supportive services regardless of the location.

So regardless of whether somebody is in a car or in a village or in a shelter, the services that they receive are what indicate and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes.

So, the primary focus for HSD in the safe parking is yes, securing the partnerships with the faith community and all indications are that we should have lots of interest in doing that and being able to do that.

But the linchpin and the driver for the success is the contract with Urban League to really provide the intensive case management services.

And not to do that in addition to other types of, in addition to other types of outreach, they do other types of outreach, but to have a specialized team that is specifically designed to work with the individuals in this program as opposed to being a offshoot of people that are working not only with people in vehicles, but also with people in tents and other people living unsheltered.

And the needs of people in their vehicles are not any different, but the way that they generally choose to access things like shelter and housing do look different than other individuals who are living unsheltered.

The other thing that we're very excited about is we're also engaged as a community in a HUD technical assistance program specifically targeted towards people living in vehicles and learning best practices not only from our efforts but from efforts around the country about how do we maximize vehicle-specific programming to ensure increased success.

Great.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

It is a little, it's interesting to see that this model is coming back, but I can tell you that I learned, and I don't know who all was part of the program seven years, eight years ago, but my recollection was that there were lots of faith institutions that were interested.

Each church at the time was able to hold up to six, I think, spots.

And each faith institution had its own very unique, very democratic process for making decisions.

And so it seemed to often take not just months, but sometimes years to work through a process to get approval to actually locate folks on site.

And what I recall hearing, again, it was a There was a shoestring budget for this as we were coming out of the recession and things were tight.

And so there was a caseworker that was also trying to work with the churches to help move their process along.

And so if the goal is to get dozens of sites set up, I would imagine there are people that are interested.

And at least that was my understanding of the experience at the time.

A lot of hand-holding will be required to get that working.

I'll also add, when I talk to caseworkers, I think a couple things that I heard you say, which I agree with from my understanding, is that the casework is what's really important.

But it's so much easier to do casework when you know that someone is in a location for a long time, as opposed to the current situation where From every few days, they have to move.

And sometimes it's across the street, and you can find them.

And sometimes it's much further.

And then they're lost in the system.

And so there is benefit to having a stable location that folks can work in.

And then another thing that I continue to hear from folks that are working with folks living in vehicles similar to others with needs, but different, their belongings include often a very large vehicle.

And to get someone to transition into a more stable housing situation, often they're asked to say, great, and you need to give up your vehicle to do that, because we don't have anywhere to put it.

And people are understandably reluctant to give up the thing that has maybe been the one stable thing in their life for a number of years.

And so our ability as a city to say, hey, we will store that for you.

you will continue to have access to it because maybe you can't take all of the belongings that are in there into whatever new housing situation you get.

Those, at least my experience, are some of the key criteria we're going to want to get right if we want this to build on as opposed to just repeat the last time.

I do want to respond to one important point that you said, which is a contrast between this program and the previous program, which is it really was the responsibility of Compass and Road to Housing staff to help cultivate and find the churches and the faith communities being willing to participate.

And we have taken that on and have staff that are actively working through that at HSD and taking on that role.

This budget is solely for the case management attached to that programming.

And so we are developing the faith partnership and bringing the services attached to it.

That's great.

I mean it does feel it always felt like if the city put more energy into it, and that's not meant as a criticism.

There's lots of important things going on that I think that would help a lot.

I do think figuring out how to address storage of people's vehicles, at least for a transition time, when we move them into housing, to make it less of a risk that they might feel they have to take to give up something in exchange for something else, will be something that will help with the case manager's ability to get folks into housing.

There's a question down on this.

Thank you.

Council Member Pacheco.

I appreciate the questions by Council Member O'Brien.

I mean, in my district, I've heard from organizations who would like to host a safe lot, but their challenge has been, well, I wouldn't say a challenge per se, but they're trying to build a coalition with faith-based communities.

to host one, but why do we just limit it to faith-based and not open up the doors to community centers or community-based centers when they may have 25 spaces available as opposed to a faith-based center that may only have six or seven spaces?

Because I think that may ultimately give us a bigger opportunity to provide more space for folks who need it.

So just going to start my question there, and then I have a follow-up as well.

Sure, so it has to do with land use code and also this is really considered a pilot and something that if successful we can look at building on with other partners.

But currently code allows for this kind of programming.

to exist on faith-based property that they own and operate.

And so we are starting this pilot with those partners.

So colleagues, I just leave that as a pen potentially for the next council to think about in terms of changes.

The second is, I see that in the budget, it says that 19% of the total count and 41% of those living unsheltered are sleeping in a car.

So I guess my question is, does the $125,000 expansion Warrant the need that's or the the amount of people that are currently sleeping in a car It seems to me that we would we would probably want to dedicate more resources To this pilot potentially given that there are so many sleeping in their car

Yeah, so no, this does not meet the needs of everyone who is living without a home but with a car.

So this is, again, a pilot.

We are trying to work with partners to build on what, in a very small way, seems to be working.

Again, it's the stability of somewhere to park paired with case management services, and so we want to grow those partnerships, grow the pilot.

But no, this pilot itself does not meet the needs citywide of all the individuals that are living in their vehicles.

If I may just add to that, in response to your concern about the size of the sites and the number of cars that they can accommodate, there was a great deal of research done on other successful safe parking projects across the country.

And what we found, excuse me, what we came up with were two in particular, San Diego and Santa Barbara.

Santa Barbara is probably the most successful that we have identified, and they rely heavily on faith-based communities and small sites.

And I think really Dusty's point about the access to services and the availability of case management that is able to be tailored, if you will, for the folks that are staying in those lots is extremely important.

And this really is a door that we open to our faith communities for other efforts as well.

We know faith communities are an important partner in providing daytime respite, for example, for folks and sometimes overnight shelter.

And the staff person at HSD who's doing this has many, many years engaging with the faith-based communities and is really helping us to broaden those relationships as well.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing that up.

I think one of the concerns that we have with our fiscal note process here at the city, and frankly at the state level, is that they're not dynamic.

They don't show you the cost savings on the back end once the program's implemented.

Given the example that you mentioned in Santa Barbara, do we have any data that we could pull from these other cities to show cost savings efforts?

As Council Member O'Brien just mentioned, we know we're more efficient at getting at maintaining the relationships with those who are living in their cars when they're not having to move from site to site.

So do we have any data that we could pull from Santa Barbara that shows the cost efficiency that could be potentially gleaned?

And obviously with our existing spaces as well, we may have that.

And then the follow-up question I have is, are these enhanced in that people don't have to drive off the site in the morning and drive back in the evening?

I believe that part of the reason for the smaller number of spaces at any given lot is to accommodate people not having to leave during the day.

I'm not 100% positive.

We can verify that for sure.

Okay, great.

I think it's really important that we have these locations be enhanced in that those case managers, if they find out someone has access to medical care or housing, they're able to find them during the day and not have people getting shuffled from location to location during the day as well.

I think the same experience that people have if they're living outside in a sleeping bag or in a tent is the same that those who are sleeping in a car or RV have if they're being kind of pushed along and asked to move repeatedly, especially with some of the cars that might be on their last leg.

We don't want people living outside, let's be very clear, but often a vehicle is much safer than sleeping in a sleeping bag or a tent and give people a sense of safety.

So if we are trying to reach them to get them into permanent supportive housing, case management, health services, having them there at the site 24-7 with access to hygiene services and case managers is, I think, the proven model, right?

That's the harm reduction model.

So thank you for getting back to us on how many of those sites are enhanced in that they're 24-7.

And we'll certainly get back to you on the data that we learned from Santa Barbara.

Thank you.

And Santa Barbara, just to be clear, I thought their model was you come in at night and you left in the morning.

Whether it's currently that, to be honest, on all of the sites, I am less clear.

We'll find that out.

They have a large number of sites, and so I suspect there may be different allowances.

We'll get back to you on that.

I do appreciate you looking into it, and as we've talked about for a long time, Santa Barbara and San Diego seem to be the model.

that people point to is working.

But even they say it's not working as well as they'd like.

So I don't want anybody to think this is a panacea.

It's a step.

And like everything we're talking about here, they're strategies.

They're not necessarily a solution.

They're things we're doing that are trying to crack the nut.

OK.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

So I do want to note, you know, I have the great honor and privilege of being at this table and speaking with you on several occasions throughout the year, but I really am here representing the work of others.

It is a great effort by all of the employees at the Human Services Department who put their time, good planning and strategic thinking, research and implementation into this work.

And in this space here, we've just been talking about faith partners.

I want to pivot and talk about our villages, which also rely on a great deal of community engagement, faith engagement.

And so I just wanted to specifically call out Lisa Gustavsson, who has been doing a phenomenal job of partnering with faith communities across the city out of the Human Services Department.

So I just wanted to acknowledge her work and publicly say thank you.

for the years that she's put into developing these partnerships.

All right, so pivoting to villages or tiny house villages.

The overall priority is to ensure that we are maintaining our capacity for enhanced safe spaces for people who are living unsheltered access.

There are more limitations to predicting the future of village programming compared to something like a brick and mortar shelter.

because of the restrictions related to the ordinance and other potential considerations that may impact longer term viability of a site.

That can include the absence of a faith sponsor or community support, neighborhood support, et cetera.

There are two villages currently that are in an extended permit and will be coming to the end of those permits in March of 2020. One is a site at North Lake, that's 19 units.

This village, unfortunately, is underperforming and expensive due to the size of the site.

I say size, it's 19 units, but we have the same level of service offered at that site that we would to a site that's much longer.

So when we say that it's expensive, it's expensive when we look at the cost per unit of that program because of the rich services that are provided and the small size of the current capacity at that site.

Jason, excuse me, Council Member Sawant has a question.

It's fine if you finish them now.

Okay, go ahead, please.

They are currently on a performance improvement plan due to the underperformance.

And monitoring has determined that they are out of compliance with some aspects of their service plan.

As of the end of the month, end of September, none of the required actions to return to compliance have been completed.

And so we are working closely with that program to determine its future viability.

The budget amount here, the $1.2 million, as a one-time budget hold in case we need to close down or re-site the North Lake site.

And, you know, as we've talked about many times, ramping down any of these villages or opening a new village or extending capacity at a village or an enhanced shelter.

is pricey and can take some period of time.

I also wanted to highlight Georgetown.

That's 45 units.

This village is coming to the end of the third year at this site.

HSD is working with the community to determine the level of support to bring this to a fourth year.

At this time, there's no viable faith sponsor for this site.

And we've been engaged with the community and discussed with the community the option of ramping down services at that site, again, in March of 2020. So if a decision is made to close a village, there will be a ramp-down process, including one-on-one on-site case management, all aimed at getting individuals into housing or relocating them to another village.

This ramp-down period or these ramp-down activities can take up to six months.

The proposed budget accounts for ramp-down and closing costs, and it also includes exploring the option to replace capacity with either another village or a brick-and-mortar enhanced shelter.

Thank you for that information.

I would actually, though, appreciate if your staff engaged with my office in a much more detailed level on this, because I'm not sure that some of what you're saying is accurate.

I mean, Georgetown, I mean, it has run out of its permit, I'm not sure what other problem there is other than the fact that our land use code needs to be updated in order to allow the siting of tiny house villages.

And as you yourself said, re-siting is expensive and it's sort of, in a way, it's a waste of money.

If there's a way of keeping the tiny house village in place, then it actually allows us to instead use those resources that we would have used for reciting to actually provide services in the case management.

So I had some points to add, but just very quickly, can you clarify this 1.262 million is just to recite Georgetown or what else is it reciting?

No, so I mentioned two sites.

Sorry, Northlake and Georgetown.

Really, there is no service issue there.

It is a permitting issue.

Georgetown.

At Georgetown, that is correct.

I'm glad that you clarified that.

I mean, one thing is I would really appreciate the Human Services Department and the Mayor's Office engaging with the legislation that I've introduced to expand land use, code so that we can site tiny house villages in many locations throughout the city so that, one, that we can expand them.

And as you say, you do want to expand capacity.

I'm happy to hear that.

And secondly, if we can avoid the cost of reciting.

And I think that if we can get this legislation passed, we wouldn't need to recite Georgetown.

I'm not 100% positive, but that's my suspicion.

Also appreciate you clarifying that that's the only thing, the permit expiry is the only issue.

Just also wanted to share, I'm sure some of you might remember at our select committee where we had Lehigh and others presenting here, we heard that there was The community advisory committee of the Georgetown tiny house village was reporting that they did a poll of their house neighbors and over 70% of the house neighbors said they wanted the tiny house village to remain there.

So there's really no other issue other than permitting as far as I understand.

And so I really feel like rather than waste resources residing, we have to make a huge effort to see if we can get this legislation passed and have the tiny house villages that are existing right now renew their permits and then remain on site.

I'm not sure about North Lake.

I would really appreciate your staff engaging with my staff.

because you say that they're underperforming and they're expensive given cost per unit, but relative to what?

I mean, tiny house villages as a whole, as a model, including as Dusty clarified, you know, case management being one of the crucial components, but also having private, you know, place of abode where you can lock your door and be secure, having plum toilets and all of that.

short of actually having dollars, which we will need progressive revenues for permanent housing or permanent supportive housing, we have not really seen a better model and this is what we wanted to get towards.

So I think we have to make a huge effort to resolve whatever issues there might be.

And I know that there are issues that you have had, you meaning the department has had with Nicholsville, but I don't think that's a it's a superficial reason.

I mean if compared to everything else that we have at our disposal, if tiny house villages as a whole are performing far far better in terms of giving dignity and humanity and also giving also transitions to permanent housing, then I think it's incumbent on us to see what we can do to keep the North Lake tiny house village and not reject it as an underperforming.

I'm not sure what you mean by underperforming compared to what That would be good to clarify.

And I would also invite the mayor's office to, as I said, engage with the legislation that I've put forward and join us at the public hearing that we are required to do by law because it's a land use code change that will be on the evening of October 17th.

Thank you.

Great.

Council Member Herbold.

Just to clarify, when I say, when I talk expense, it's when compared to other villages.

So it's the cost per service unit when compared to other villages.

So I'm not comparing the expense of North Lake to someone moving into a home or to congregate shelter or anything else.

I'm really talking about the expense of North Lake specifically when compared to other villages.

I assumed you meant that, but what I was saying is that even though you mean that, still we have to compare it to everything else that we have in front of us.

Understood.

Just wanted to clarify.

Yeah, thank you.

Great.

Council Member Herbold?

tiny house villages that you're identifying as only having permitting issues.

I don't really understand the permitting issues.

SMC 2342056 is the law that the council passed that authorizes transitional encampment interim use for a year with an additional year extension.

But the executive has repeatedly used a different authority than the authority granted under this law under the temporary use permit process to extend encampment locations beyond those two years and there are several including Camp Second Chance in my district that has the temporary use permit permitting process has been used because the two years as allowed under the Council's legislation has expired.

So in an instance where there's no other concern other than we're bumping up against the two years, I don't understand why that's a problem given the ability to use the temporary use permit process to continue extensions.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

I wish my colleagues, Director, Nathan, why am I forgetting Nathan's name?

Torkelson, thank you, was here to get into the, technical details related to permitting.

You're absolutely right.

We have used temporary use permits to expand or extend the length of time that a village can stay at a location.

We've done that several times in relation to Georgetown.

And we are really coming to the end of the number of times we can continue to use these temporary use permits on that site.

So what I'm trying to flag for council here is that we've begun an engagement process with the Georgetown community.

I personally have been to the last two months meetings with the Georgetown community to hear from them exactly how they want to address this.

We have options such as a faith partner could come forward and host or support the program on its current site.

There also is, as we've held budget for, the option to move it to another location, potentially another location in Georgetown.

As Councilmember Sawant has noted, there is community-wide support for that program in Georgetown.

We hear that at each of the meetings.

But there is also community concern about the public health impacts of leaving the village in one place for a long period of time.

We're engaged with the community.

We want to hear from them.

We want to work together with them to figure out what the right solution is for that program.

I know Council Member Sawant has another point, but I just want to again extend my thanks to all of you for working on these villages.

This was something I think we first started looking at about seven years ago, and I sort of, I don't want to jokingly say because it's so darn serious, but I had almost no support on the council at this time, seven years ago, for tiny home villages.

And to see that expand and also to see the community embrace it.

And I'd like to, as an example, focus on one that's just at the base of Magnolia Bridge.

And it was half the size that it could be because of a lawsuit that was filed, but I believe that's over so we can expand it, but I was at a little event, oh, I think it was about 10 days ago, and I'm so impressed with both how the people who are living in the village are responding, but also the community around them saying, we want them to stay because they've got a place to be and they are secure.

And I just acknowledge the fact that many people who are struggling with their circumstance find that being able to come into one of these tiny homes, Nobody thinks it's like the end-all, but it's so much better than being alone, not having a place to lock your belongings, not having a place to be with your partner.

So as hard as it is and as expensive as it may be, it strikes me as being one of our better options.

So I want to just say that I support Council Member Zawant in her efforts to expand the number of villages we can have and do what we need to do to extend the permitting time.

Please, go ahead.

I really appreciate that, Chair Baxhaw, and I appreciate that you were advocating for that seven years ago.

And as you correctly mentioned, it is not only about belongings, but it's also about being able to stay with your partners.

And in fact, just yesterday I was visiting the True Hope Dining House Village at the New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, and they were talking about how their families with children living in sort of in a cluster of tiny homes.

And yes, it's not the be all end all, it's not an alternative, it's not a substitute for permanent housing, but it is something that is working as a best possible solution on the road to permanent housing.

Mr. Johnson, on your point, I really appreciate you talking about how it would be good to have a faith community.

urge you to have a conversation with Reverend Angela Ying at the Bethany United Church of Christ.

Actually, she was at this site visit that we did yesterday, and in fact, her sermon this past Sunday to our congregation was about how they can take responsibility for the Georgetown Tiny House Village, and my office is happy to connect you with them.

and join that conversation.

So I think that that is not a barrier either.

I think that the congregation is welcoming them with open arms.

I haven't heard what you, before what you mentioned that there are concerns about siting the tiny house village at the same site over years.

I really haven't heard that at all.

So if you have any sort of documentation to show that that is the concern, then it would be very useful because we want to address any such concern.

But honestly, what I have heard is only a welcoming gesture from the community, the vast majority of the community.

It's just incredible how much support there is, as Council Member Baksha was saying.

And then the last thing I want to clarify is the draft legislation that we have in front of us not only allows a land use code flexibility to site tiny house villages throughout the city, but it also eases the permitting process, meaning tiny house villages do have to reapply every year, but it's not restricted to just two years.

So I think that I really feel that it's just a waste of resources to talk about reciting when there are other avenues we can do this by passing this legislation and also working with the faith communities that are welcoming the tiny house villages.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please continue.

Yeah, I want to just highlight two things if I can.

One, just an acknowledgement that the permitting language or the ordinance language was written at a time when this truly was a pilot.

We were undergoing for the first time the allowance of tent encampments, not wooden structures, but tents on public property and the use of public funds to pay for very limited basic services like hygiene.

And so now we are in an environment where the villages are supported, supporting people who are living in wooden structures.

It is an enhanced 24-7 model where we have case management and a wide variety of other surfaces available in those spaces.

So I think it is, I agree it is due for an update because the model looks very different than when we originally put pen to paper on the village ordinance.

The second thing I just want to highlight is that, you know, it is the department, specifically my role as a public steward to really understand what kind of impact all of the investments that we're making.

are having for the individuals that are using those services.

And the villages are really looking very similar to enhanced shelter and their ability to exit people from those villages into permanent housing.

We're seeing that Georgetown, I believe they're looking at about a 37, 38% exit rate to permanent housing.

But at Northlake, that exit rate is just 11%.

So when I talk about underperforming, when I talk about performance, we really are looking very closely at programs ability to move people out of their experience of homelessness and into permanent housing.

And it's something we'll continue to look very closely at.

Great.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Oh, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

I do need to respond to the last point about how we're holding these contractors accountable, whether or not they're in tiny homes or whether or not they're operating enhanced shelters.

When we are measuring people and their organizations based on whether or not they're getting people into affordable housing, permanent housing, and we have not built the housing that we need, it is a very unjust system.

And I will leave it to our council colleagues who represent District 5 in the North End, for example, but when we don't have enough housing that allows for people to stay in their community by their job, by their support network, and we are then closing down a site, because only 11% of those folks are getting into affordable housing that we have not built.

It is on us to build that housing.

It is on us to invest in 0 to 30% of the area median income homes so that people actually have a place to exit to.

So I understand that we need to look at the metrics.

I've been long advocating for a dashboard so we can have month-over-month data to look at not just whether or not people are exiting the shelters or tiny homes, but whether or not they've been able to stay with a case manager, stay on their medication, have their kiddos been able to stay in school.

These are the things that actual providers tell us are more important.

then exits into housing when we haven't built the housing.

So I will step off my soapbox for that for a moment because I think it will come up again when we talk about housing.

But my question was to your first point, and I appreciated your comment that the ordinance is overdue for edits given its original construct when the tiny house villages were not would structures or pallet structures, they were tense.

As we look at the ordinance right now, can you please remind me, in addition to having to apply every two years for an extension of the permit, is there something in statute right now that says there is a hard end date for sites to no longer have tiny house villages or encampments on those sites?

Is there something in statute that says after X amount of years, you can no longer use this site?

There is, so there is sighting language inside the ordinance that we can review.

I think it is, you know, there's language about not just the time at a location needing to stop, but even, and again, this is sort of the best thinking at the time by public health, there's language in there about not reusing the site for a period of time.

So there is specific site use language in the ordinance.

And I think specifically it's, you can renew the permit only once.

So the maximum that it can be at that site is two years.

And as you were currently saying, at that time, I mean, the intention was always to move to something like the tiny house village.

It just wasn't clear what it would look like.

idea at that time was there were more public health concerns when it was a tent encampment, but now it's not at all like that.

And there are many, and just also to clarify, if there are people who are listening out there who wonder if This is some sort of, in terms of land use, is there conflict between tiny house villages, siting tiny house villages and using that site for permanent housing?

First of all, as you were saying, Council Member Busqueda, the biggest obstacle to permanent housing is the revenues.

We don't have that.

So we cannot deny homeless neighbors their tiny house villages in the absence of that.

But furthermore, there are sites that actually are not, that would be far more expensive if we, instead of using it as a tiny house village, we used it as a site for permanent housing.

And a concrete example is the True Hope village on 18th and Yesler where they, the The land use requirements for actually digging a foundation, if you wanted to build a multi-family unit, multi-housing unit there, building there, are far bigger and much more expensive than just siting wooden structures on the surface.

And so that's an example, I'm sure, of a number of sites where that is probably the best use you can have.

The Lehigh personnel who are running that village informed us that at this moment, given the cost structure, this is the densest use of that site, you know, having it be a site for tiny house villages.

Can I ask one question?

We've got over a million dollars here for residing, and we've all heard a conversation up here.

But let's just say each one of the units cost $5,000, and I think it's been less, and I've seen more.

But if we had 50 units, 50 new units at the $5,000 a piece.

I mean, quick math gives me $250,000, right, that we would be looking at.

Does it make sense to be spending a million dollars to move them as contrasted to just creating new ones?

I don't, I'm a little bit at a loss at where we get 1.2 million for this.

And I'm sure you guys have great answers, but it's not abundantly clear.

The unit cost is quite a bit higher when you talk about the one-time setup that's required.

The most expensive is getting it all like electricity to the site and all of those costs, those one-time setup costs.

The reason that it's not proposed in the manner that you described is that we don't have ongoing services costs attached to available to be able to support an additional 50, for example.

Okay.

Because those would be, those service costs would be something like $22,000 a unit per year.

ongoing.

I think it's important to clarify though that this 1.2 million budget is not just reciting.

This would be if we recite that's included in that but it's also would be this is also the services and operating for whatever it is that we replace that capacity with.

What's that?

This is not to me.

No, sorry, just to clarify.

The services are, the existing service dollars are budgeted at Northlake and at Georgetown.

And if those were to move or be resited, those service dollars would travel with that.

So they're attached.

So this is just the one-time capital needed to move or resite.

Okay.

Can I just put one clarification?

Thank you for pursuing that Council Member Berkshaw.

Just first of all, I think the bottom line is, as you were saying, it's not clear to us at all that reciting is a good use of resources.

But furthermore, I think especially as far as the North Lake is concerned, just leaving the tiny house village intact would just require the land use code change and the permitting process, which the new legislation will do if passed.

And the second question is about resources.

But I really don't see why we should not allow the tiny house villages to remain there, even if there isn't a budget for services.

Because ultimately, people do need shelter somewhere when they're homeless.

And yes, we want to have services attached.

And as far as possible, we want to expand the money in the budget this year to have resources for those services.

But I don't think that we should just even be in the business of needing to recite, because it's just that I don't see the justification.

Even if there weren't money for services at a given location, why would you recite that tiny house village when those structures have been built and people are living there?

Because if you dismantle that and you don't have money for the services, then they're going to have to live somewhere.

Yeah, I'll admit, you know, as the director of the Human Services Department, you'll never hear me not advocate for services.

This is a population that has high needs and we will do everything we can always to ensure that people are on our path to housing.

And those services are critically important.

Please don't misinterpret my question.

This is not a question of who wants services or not.

We are all advocating for services.

My question is why would you make this about services?

First of all, can we just like agree that we If we have tiny house villages already, why would you spend on residing it?

Because those resources can then be used for services, precisely to your point, right?

So it's not clear.

Anyway, I won't pursue this anymore.

Yeah, I'm probably not understanding your question correctly.

I think you are understanding, it's just I'm not sure why you want to recite.

I don't think, I'm not clear on your question either, Council Member Sawant.

If it might be helpful, these are one-time resources that were available as a result of the Mercer properties that were for the homeless, the $5 million that was for homelessness, so it's a one-time pot of money.

Julie, I think the question up here is, is it the most efficacious way to spend that money?

Certainly, certainly.

And I was just trying to say that services is obviously an ongoing cost.

And so that was something that we have to weigh in a resource-constrained environment.

Services are an ongoing cost, and they are a worthy use of resources.

The question is, why that goes alongside reciting?

The ordinance requires that.

But that's what I'm saying.

We can update the ordinance and we have a draft ordinance in place.

So I, it's like it seems to me you're going around in circles.

If the existing ordinance has limitations and that's the only reason you're talking about reciting, then why not pass an updated ordinance and eliminate the need for reciting?

Yeah, let's have that conversation.

I'm operating, I'm administering a program under current ordinance, under current law.

I understand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do actually have a follow up.

Okay, Council Member Herbold.

All right, now that we've got some agreement there that we should take a look at the requirements associated with the length of encampment stay under the council's ordinance that we passed several years ago.

This brings up another issue that I think we could probably use some budget analysis around, which is the number of encampments.

There's also a limit in that ordinance of the number of encampments that the city will permit under that ordinance.

There is a proposal to increase the number of encampments.

I'm wondering whether or not your office, together with the budget office, could do an analysis of the cost to the city of doing that scale of expansion and maybe some other options somewhere between where we're at now and what is proposed, which I think is 40. maybe provide us some scaled costs for different options other than 40?

Is that a yes?

It looks like they're willing.

Sorry, yeah, we can do that.

Yeah, we'll get back.

And in addition to the cost piece, I think another component of capacity is just, are there other locations throughout the city that are likely candidates for hosting?

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Let's keep moving.

All right, thank you.

So earlier this year, the navigation team expanded by adding two additional field coordinators.

These positions were funding using available underspend for other positions inside of the Human Services Department.

The field coordinators allow the navigation team to work at an increased capacity.

The budget request is to continue funding for the field coordinator positions on an ongoing basis.

And you'll see that total is $326,461.

Two system navigators to increase connections to services and housing were also added from existing HSD budget.

This increased expansion has resulted in more contacts with people living unsheltered.

Data January through June shows that there have been a total of 3,083 engagements.

This is representing between 15 and 1,600 unique individuals.

These have been 480 total referrals to shelter.

Broken down, that's 98 to basic shelter, 351 to enhanced shelter, and 31 to tiny home villages.

Council Member Mosqueda.

So let's start with this question.

Referrals to shelter.

How do we know those individuals actually got into shelter?

Yeah, so operationally the referral is made and there is, you know, sometimes to the extent we can, there is a direct connection made for the individual to the shelter.

As you know, especially with a large number of enhanced shelters, shelters are open 24-7, so it's no longer that we're just sending someone to queue up to a line later in the night.

make those connections directly with the shelter programs.

I want to give props to both the outreach teams connected to the navigation center and the members of the navigation team that they hold a number of relationships with providers throughout the city and so when they make those those referrals they have real-time information that those shelter spaces are available for the individual.

We are also, last year, added some data capacity, and so we're also able to track whether or not the individual actually arrived at that shelter and stayed the night.

And so we look at data just to see sort of the next two days.

Did that referral to shelter actually result in an individual staying overnight at that shelter?

We can look at that over a two-day period, over a two-week period.

So our data capacity to be able to look at that information and make sure that the referrals are working is greatly increased over where it used to be.

That's great.

On the 1,583 unique individuals that were served in quarter one and quarter two, just for example, in 2019, where is that data?

How many of those individuals got into shelter?

How many of those were in hand shelter?

How many folks were there after two weeks?

Yeah, I can get that data to you.

I don't have it in front of me today.

Is it?

Oh, no.

I think this is something that Councilmember Mugeta has been advocating for, is that somewhere on a good solid website that we can see that information and not have to have you keep answering our questions one by one.

And I don't know if you have that, the dashboard, or I know All Home has one.

But I think there's been continual sort of confusion about where is this.

The work is getting done, but we have to keep asking the questions.

Chair?

Yeah.

I want to hear his answer.

OK.

And then I thought he said.

Yeah, so we are continuing to work to make sure that you and the general public have the data that you're requesting.

We are providing you with a number of reports where we deliver data sets your way, but we're also trying to be more user-friendly in the way that data is conveyed to the general public.

And so we have, are partnering with the mayor's office to, and have launched the beginnings of a dashboard that really does look at these engagements.

But I think there is continued work to get more detailed about what kind of information exists on that dashboard.

Good, thank you.

Did you want to follow up?

Yes, I do.

I'm surprised to hear you say that you have that data because the reports I've been receiving from the navigation team, those reports have been saying that you can only report on referrals.

You cannot report on whether or not folks accepted those referrals.

In response to Council Member Mosqueda's question that you would provide that information, I'm very, very confused because I've been told over and over again that that information is not, it is not possible to give us that information because we don't track what happens to an individual after they have received a referral from a navigation team from an outdoor encampment.

Yeah, so I'm happy to stay engaged and provide the information that we have.

As I mentioned, we do have new data capacity available.

This is, you know, our ability to sort of dive into HMIS and be able to track individuals that were originally contacted by the outreach team and NAV team and then match that to the individual who arrived or stayed the night at shelter is now something we can look at.

I'm also very impressed with the work that Allie Franklin has been doing and thank you and others for partnering with 211 for the crisis connections now.

And also I know that we put money into the budget and in IT for the response to LEAD so that we're able to follow up with that because I know that we're all interested in the outcomes with LEAD.

Can you tell me, how are these interrelating?

So, if Allie Franklin's doing something, if our low acuity has some additional data that's going to be connected, and now you're telling us that there's additional information for you, love to know how that's working together.

And maybe that's part of what the regional authority is going to do, but it's helpful to understand.

It'll definitely help.

It still takes a lot of manual effort to sort of crosswalk these different data sets.

But what we have now is, I believe, a really strong homeless management information system that gives us the kind of information that we want.

Quoting Anna Leiva, who has been working in this community from D.C.

and works with communities all over the country, she believes that we have data quality unlike many other communities.

our size or larger.

And so we're pleased to be able to, at this point, I know it feels like it's taken years, it has, to get to a point where we have the kind of data that is available to us in more real time.

And so I would just say that, you know, the county is really to thank for some of the data crosswalking that they've done.

I think the ultimate goal is to have data, whether it's from our health systems, from the homeless management system, all sort of, you know, in one database or warehouse where we can get rich sets of data pulled from.

But right now, I have good confidence in the data quality that comes out of HMIS, and we're beginning to use it in a real-time programmatic way.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And just to underscore Council Member Herbold's surprise at the answer to the question, I too was not aware that you could pull the data on how many individuals followed through on that referral and actually got into shelter.

So looking forward to seeing that and appreciate that you're also tracking not just two days after, but really two weeks after, were they still there.

I think that's a better indication of whether or not someone felt safe and secure, and hopefully they're in an enhanced shelter location.

But that two-week marker is going to be really important.

So thank you for highlighting that, Council Member Herbold.

The response to the chair's question just a second ago really underscores my overall point.

If we are more effective at looking at data collectively with King County, If we know that as we're merging with King County for the homeless services to be more efficient and holistic in our delivery of emergency services, why do we continue to pull $8.4 million of our city funds in this budget that would not otherwise be going to the regional governance group.

I guess I have a question that's twofold.

One is, if we were to assume that of the $8.4 million that currently is allocated as a collective, as you mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, that goes to the navigation team across programs, if we were to assume that that amount doesn't include the $2.35 million at SPD, which I assume would stay in Seattle, then we're actually looking at $6 million, roughly, that we would potentially be able to free up to ensure better coordination of services, to do things like you just said, to capture data, to track metrics, to do enhanced outreach, and maybe enhanced is the wrong word because we've been throwing that around a lot lately.

to do more coordinated outreach with the community who is at risk of homelessness and who is currently experiencing homelessness.

With $6 million added to the regional governance effort, I think that could potentially improve our services for reaching homeless folks.

Are you saying that the money is not currently being transferred over in this year's budget and won't be transferred over in 2021 as well when the regional governance group is up and running?

that we are still projected to keep that $6 million here at the city and continue operating the navigation team as it currently looks on these slides?

That is correct.

That's the current proposal.

Okay, Madam Chair, I will just flag for us, if it's not abundantly clear, that I do think that there is an interest in recognizing that we are moving in the direction of creating more efficient services, emergency services, for those who are homeless and folks who are not just chronically homeless, but if we potentially could reach them soon and get them into housing, we could prevent them from being in that chronically homeless population.

I am on board with creating this regional governance effort.

Again, it's narrow in its scope, looking at emergency services.

And even with that narrow scope, I think there's a lot of efficiencies to be gained.

But I don't, I continue to have questions about why we would hold back six of that 8.4 million, taking out the police department.

If the police department money was to stay here, there's other things that we could do with that fund.

But if six million of those dollars are still going into homelessness response systems, where we're making this pledge out the other side of our mouth that we're going to be more efficient with serving folks, with a regional approach, I do think that there is some cost efficiencies to be gleaned by looking at those $6 million and coupling them with the really holistic services that we're hoping to deploy through the regional governance effort.

So I want to make sure that folks know that that distinction is there.

I heard what you said earlier about 2021 being where we'll really see some of these operations go into fruition.

So that's why I was asking the question, Are we holding this back with the anticipation that in 2021 these dollars will ultimately go over?

The answer that I heard was no.

Our current assumption in this budget that's been submitted is we would keep these services going.

So my interest would be in identifying how those $6 million could be coupled with more efficient services, more holistic services, and more upstream services through a regional effort with King County.

And I know that central staff has taken notes on that.

That would be something that I would like to identify an issue ID.

Thank you very much for bringing that up and I'm sure we'll have more conversations.

All right, so the final item from my slides is an acknowledgment about something that was brought up at the very beginning.

This is a proposed startup cost for the King County Regional Homeless Authority of $2 million.

These are startup costs that you'll see were added to HSD's administrative budget.

This will help to pay for year one staffing that is needed to start hiring an executive director and an executive team, as well as some other key positions at the regional authority.

It also acknowledges that there are some operational needs that will be required in order to stand up this new organization.

So these are items like an executive director search, some tech systems like budget, financial management, HR and payroll, basic office equipment, moving costs, community engagement and legal support.

So these are, this is an acknowledgment that in order to stand up the regional authority and especially to be able to do it on a truncated timeline in one year in 2020, We need some startup costs in order to do that.

And my understanding on that is King County is offering office space as part of their contribution just right down the street.

And again, we have obviously been doing outreach with our Sound Cities organization to invite them into this process as well.

And I'm hoping that over this next year, we can find and identify more spaces, more contributions from them.

Maybe it's not dollars, but it could be land.

It could be that kind of assistance.

So thank you for that.

And I know my colleagues who are remaining on this council are going to be very interested in the progress.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay, that is the end of that particular slide.

If I don't see any questions, we'll go on to maintaining safe and healthy communities.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And at this point, I would like to invite our colleagues from public utilities, parks, and finance and administrative services to join us as we now pivot to conversations about RV remediation, trash removal, and sharps.

Great.

And thank you to the panel that was here before.

I know this isn't something that's of great interest to all of us.

Thank you, Jason.

And welcome to the table.

And for Jesus and Doug and whoever else is joining us now, if we can continue with introductions.

Why don't we start with you, Jesus?

Good morning, Jesus Aguirre, Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Thank you.

Good morning, Patrice Beauregard, Seattle Public Utilities.

Doug Carey, excuse me, Doug Carey, Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

And Brian Goodnight with Council Central staff.

Excellent.

All right.

So who's kicking this one off?

Okay, good morning.

My name is Idriss Bauregardigan, Seattle Public Utilities.

And to address community concerns associated with public health and safety, the City of Seattle, by way of SPU, initiated the following programs, Encampment Trash, SHARPS program and the litter abatement program, and we're currently operating the RV remediation pilot.

One thing I'll do is I'll go through each of these, as you can see on the slide.

It's difficult for me because I don't have a slide.

Yeah, please.

Would it be helpful for you just to move over in that other chair?

Do you want to trade places?

No, this is good.

I got the slides right here.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, as we go through it, you can stop me after we talk about each program if you have questions.

The Encampment Trash Purple Bag Program.

Just before you dive into this, you're going to break your neck trying to look at all of this.

I think that you may be more comfortable over there.

Excellent.

Well done.

Encampment Trash.

Right.

Encampment Trash.

Encampment Trash.

Just to back up a second, the program's overarching mission is to provide public safety and cleanliness of streets, sidewalks, and improve encampment conditions.

These are achieved by community engagement, collaboration with other departments, partnering with nonprofits, and the use of data to make decisions.

So we want to talk about the Encampment Trash, which we also call the Purple Bag Program.

So in addition to sanctioned encampments, there are numerous unsanctioned encampments throughout the city.

Led by SPU, the city initiated the encampment trash pilot to provide proactive and preventative weekly and on-call garbage services near selected unsanctioned encampments.

The goal of the program was to test service options and the effectiveness for garbage collection at these encampments.

Objectives included improved encampment conditions, reduced community trash, and recommendations for ongoing trash response at selected unsanctioned encampments.

Can I ask you a quick question about that purple bag program?

Thank you for doing it.

We know that it's made a real good, it was a better response than having nothing, right?

So a few weeks ago, working with SDOT, that a number of us were doing a public activation study and actually being down on the street looking at how many people are coming and going, what activities they're involved in.

And I had one woman who was sitting at the Prefontaine Fountain come up to me and she said, how come we don't have garbage cans down here?

And I think I reached out, got a fast response from SPU, thank you.

And her point was, if we had garbage cans, we'd use them.

And that was sort of a, I thought, a very insightful response.

And I thought garbage cans were going to go in down there.

Can you just talk a little bit about your decisions about when actual garbage cans that are being removed and cleaned regularly, as contrasted to just using the purple bag program?

Well, early on in the when it was a pilot, we explored some options with the garbage can model at encampments.

And what we discovered is that the garbage cans were rarely being used or they were being used by others than those living in the encampments.

So based on flexibility and the ability for us to quickly change where we deliver the program at, we best found the model would be the encampment purple bag trash pilot.

And coupled with that, We know that HSD, we partner with HSD where they provide primary cleanup in response to the encampments.

And we provide the proactive and preventative garbage removal.

What we had did was expand our options with service providers to go in and work directly with those living in encampments.

So we partner with the Hepatitis Education Program.

which they educate the encampment persons of where to place the trash, what belongings to place in the purple bag, and the frequency of when the trash will be collected.

This gives us the nimbleness to be able to adjust quickly and adapt to the changing environments.

In relation to your question about the Prefontaine, we've worked with parks.

That particular one is in parks, and I think parks would be able to weigh in more on that situation there.

Hey, Seuss, do you want to answer it now?

I'll have to get back to you.

I don't know the specifics around why we wouldn't place them there.

I think that the one response I had heard was, well, when the garbage cans were there, they got kicked into Third Avenue, and that was causing trouble for the buses.

It was interesting.

The woman who had asked me about the garbage cans first place said, well, why don't you just chain them down?

I thought, well, let's look into it.

So thank you.

In relation to that, we as SPU do operate the litter and recycling cans throughout the city, and we have experienced high incidences of destruction, burnt garbage cans, burnt litter cans, even the instances where the chained down cans were cut and stolen.

So there is some lawlessness that are associated with cans in particular areas.

Thank you.

Yeah, Council Member Mosqueda.

Jason, were you reaching for your microphone too?

Or just, okay.

Please, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

You said something that I think is really important to clarify for the public and for the media.

I think we get reports and numerous emails about people concerned about individuals who are living outside not having access to garbage cans to adequately dispose of I think that's an important thing to note if you also look at some of the reports that have come out recently People putting their televisions on the side of the street people putting their couches their refrigerators their washing machines These are items that folks who are living unsheltered outside don't usually have and so when we have a concern about the amount of garbage refuse that's outside we have to remember this is a citywide problem and many folks who are housed are are contributing to this problem, and it's especially problematic if you're trying to put in garbage receptacles for individuals who are living unsheltered, and those who are housed are using them, resulting in those garbage receptacles being taken away.

I wanted to underscore that point that you made, because I think it helps to clarify this is a citywide problem.

This is not being generated only by those who are living unsheltered.

I think it's important for us to think about that when it comes to the costs associated.

These are costs that are being imposed on the city by individuals who are also housed.

So thank you for clarifying that in case there was any confusion out there about where some of these items are coming from.

Okay, please continue.

Yeah, along them lines, it's important to note that the partnership that we do have with the Hepatitis Education Project, it creates a model of compassion.

So they actually go into the encampments that are identified.

We typically identify eight to 10 encampments that we service per month.

I think this year alone, we've serviced 28. What they do is they build relationships with those living in the encampments.

Not only do they distribute the purple bags and educate them about the benefits of living healthy and taking their garbage and placing it 20 feet away from the encampment, but they also pass out needle kits and teach them how to use Narcon in case they have overdoses and just some of the other best practices surrounding the area.

So they've been a huge asset to us doing this work in the encampments.

Thank you.

Chair?

Yes.

I just I want to thank Seattle Public Utilities for taking leadership on developing this program.

I think it's been incredibly successful.

I think we have lessons to learn from where we've started, where we are now, and I appreciate their continuing commitment to using that information and sort of organically evolving the program as the needs evolve or as our understanding of the needs evolve and as we develop relationships with new partners who can help us bring this program to scale.

I also want to make note that This program is being replicated in other cities, I think notably Austin, is that correct?

That's correct.

And again, I'm interested both in finding out what we can learn about what's going on here, but also if we can loop back around with Austin to see if there are some best practices that they've identified from piloting their program as well.

But I do think just driving around and from the visible encampments that I see, there is a, I think, a marked improvement in the at least visual assessment of cleanliness in a lot of the camps in the city.

So thank you.

Okay, next.

I'm taking over from Council Member Bagashev for a moment.

You may proceed.

All right, thank you.

All right, next up we have the RV remediation and that one's currently still a pilot.

In May of 2018 the city initiated along with SPA the RV remediation pilot to remove problematic RVs and associated vehicles from the city right away and allow for safe cleanup.

The strategy included enforcing the 72-hour parking rule and determine the best way to curb associated risks posed by RVs with the goal of identifying and remediating high-priority sites.

These objectives included improved public health and safety of streets and sidewalks, reduced community debris, and recommendations for ongoing debris response for RV hot spots.

Implementation of these efforts is led by Seattle Public Utilities and performed by an interdepartmental team composed of Seattle Police Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle Department of Transportation, and Seattle Finance and Administrative Services.

The IDT team developed a series of protocols to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each participating city department and guide how field staff from each should engage, provide notice, remove RVs and vehicles that have been identified in priority areas.

This includes a strict site rank and criteria to identify seven monthly priorities.

RV locations defined as having five or more RVs and vehicles with the highest health and safety risk.

This year we've learned and we partnered both with the system navigators, which have been proven to be extremely helpful.

During the 72-hour notice, we meet them out at the locations.

They work directly with those.

that are living in RVs and provide services, whether it's getting additional housing and all the other services that they do provide.

We also partnered with SPU Spill Response, which meets us on sites and identifies any public health and safety risk with Human waste are being disposed of in drains, catch basins, and actual spills.

And we also partner with FVS's animal response.

And it's surprising how much they come out and provide all type of services for persons that own animals in the RVs.

Well, I want to take a moment to say just how amazing all the groups that come together and leverage the resources and their ability to work effectively and efficiently doing this work.

I encourage you if you ever had the opportunity to come out and just see how coordinated the efforts are and just how the parking enforcement and CPT and police have such a great respect and trust built with a lot of those living in the RVs that oftentimes 70 to 80% of the RVs are in compliance before a clean even happens.

So I want to say thank you to their efforts and all the other departments that show up and do such a great job day in and day out here.

Thanks for highlighting that, and it's great to hear that the kind of collaboration is working in a lot of cases, and I think part of it is a setting of norms and expectations and everyone being on the same page about what needs to happen.

Not everywhere, obviously, but that's helpful.

The data you show here in the slide, are these all related to conditions where the RV was required to move or is there work going on where RVs can stay where they are but you still essentially just come out and pick up trash and do other things like that?

These right here that you're looking at are part of the RV remediation program, the pilot actually.

There is instances where SPD parking enforcement still has to enforce their 72-hour code and parking enforcement rule, pardon me.

And when the RV does move, they'll call us in just to collect it, but that's outside of the boundaries of this pilot.

So this, sorry, so this is not that, but so some of these are places where folks are in RVs and they're staying there, but we're just going through and doing kind of the sanitation work?

Not here.

There has been instances where we still clean up around RVs that aren't in violation of the 72 hour enforcement rule.

So one thing that we heard this week after we had in my committee last week identified some of the more egregious cases and when landlords were taking advantage of the people that were inside the RVs.

I had read an article that said, oh, the city's just giving up on RVs.

And looking at what you've articulated here, it seems that we're making some progress, not as much, obviously, as everybody would like.

But I just wanted to highlight that what you have here, 98 cleanups in 15 different neighborhoods.

And when you say 2,102 RVs left voluntarily, do we know where they went?

Are we, again, finding ourselves in a system where we're just chasing people around from one neighborhood to the next?

We're currently trying to find a better method to track that, but we're currently not tracking where they go after they leave the site that was remediated.

So I'm not sure that this is a question that you can answer, but I know we've been talking again for years about having RV safe lots where it's more than just a few.

And we've pointed to Kitsap County had an example.

I know Eugene, Oregon did.

And again, in the Bay Area, finding places where RVs can park and stay and be safe and rather than, again, just chasing them around from one location to another.

Is this something, Tess, that you can address?

Only if I'm on, there you go.

Yes, actually Dusty alluded to the fact that we are quite fortunate to be part of a HUD TA program and in particular that that program or the TA assistance is really looking at folks who are living in vehicles.

In particular, we've asked them to help us identify any best practices of how to work with folks that are living in RVs and any best practices that they can identify or even emerging practices around safe lots for RVs.

I think we've talked about this previously.

Folks who are living in RVs are It's just a different population from folks who are sleeping in their cars.

Quite frankly, the vast majority of folks who are living in RVs don't understand themselves as being homeless.

And that's the normal services that we would offer to folks, particularly who are living in their cars, in terms of the kinds of services and supports.

to get them into housing.

Usually folks in RVs don't avail themselves of those kinds of services.

And so we know that we need different approaches.

We need a different plan.

And really what we're hoping is that the work that we're going to do with HUD through their TA will help us identify that.

Frankly, in the independent research that we all have done, that I know that HSD has done, that I have also done in my prior incarnations, there's just not a lot of evidence out there of success.

And yet, this is a growing problem across the country, and so we are not alone in wanting to identify ways that we can better serve this highly vulnerable population.

Thank you for that, and I know every time that you all have been up here, we've asked the same question, you know, about RVs, and we do recognize just what you said, Tess, is that people who have an RV, that's a pretty good asset.

It's an asset where they can have their partners, their pets, their possessions, and lock the door, and then they are required to move.

So, to the extent we can continue to look at I don't want to use a KOA-style campground as an example, but something where people can actually get the pump-out services, have restrooms available to them, the fresh water that they need.

It may be a much cheaper and a better outcome for individuals if they're not driving around in circles and if they've got a place to be where they can just get stabilized.

So anyway, I know that I'm beating a horse, but go ahead, please, continue.

Yeah, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

Just before we move off the RV box here, of the individuals who voluntarily left their RVs, I think we said the folks who Yeah, the 2,102 vehicles that voluntarily left.

Can you remind us what happens to those vehicles?

I had heard we were putting them to auction and there was some concern that we were somehow feeding this predatory lending model of RVs or predatory renting.

I think two different categories.

They drive away.

They're voluntary leaving, meaning before the day of the claim, they voluntary operate their vehicle and move to another location.

Let's say there's a derelict RV and the city calls a towing company, which I want to thank Councilmember Herbold.

We just got some good news back about.

the type of contractors that we're working with to ensure that they're not engaging in bad behavior when they are contracting with our city.

That's a separate topic.

But if somebody has left their RV and we're not able to return it to someone, what happens to that RV?

Are we auctioning those off somehow still?

Just so I hear your question correctly, we have a person left their RV and abandoned their RV at the location during the day of the clean.

Are we auctioning them off?

Is that the question?

Typically, we'll just go through our protocol.

The RV will get towed.

And then at that juncture, it's at the tow yard.

And then the tow yard has particular steps and procedures.

And I think FAS will be better equipped to speak to that.

Councilmember was yes, I have a few questions.

Thank you My understanding because we've had a couple of these incidents happen, but the city doesn't pay when they are abandoned on private property

Right on private property, we just provide the remediation in our public right of ways.

Right, because we've had abandoned vehicles that I have physically had to go out there at QFC at Northgate and other places and deal with the managers on private property because it's hazardous and it costs over $2,000 for the person on the private property to have it removed.

And that's been a big issue for us.

So people are purposely parking on private property knowing that just leaving it.

And we're stuck with working with the manager of the store or the premises to get it removed.

And the public doesn't understand that it's not the city's responsibility to tow that off of private property with the costs.

I'm hoping we can come back to that and find out how we can do that.

Yeah, that's important that we explore some options to see how we can help resolve that issue since they are victims.

And let me just follow up quickly.

And these are real quick.

So in the category of litter abatement, you talk about since its inception.

So all of this has been since 2017, July 2017, all the programs through SPU.

With the exception of the RV remediation pilot, the SHARPS program was launched in 2016. Okay.

My second question is when you have in the same category of litter abatement, since inception, SPU has expanded the implementation from 2 to 13 communities.

Can you provide me with a list of those communities?

I sure can.

That would be wonderful.

And I'm going to speak on the litter abatement pilot after we talk about the SHARPS.

When we talk about the tons collected from best practices and operating under the umbrella of a pilot, we started to understand the importance of doing data collection.

So the 2017 is just when we started collecting the data.

And this is more, and again, thank you for your patience.

When I'm looking at the encampment trash, and you call it Obviously trash collected 948,000 pounds of trash.

And then you go down to the RV box and you talk about 645,000 pounds of garbage.

And then you go down to the litter abatement, and it's 1.15 million pounds of litter.

I know that some of it makes sense, like with the encampment trash, I can see where you're saying it's collected, it's trash, you've moved it.

But are all of these added together?

These are independent.

The encampment trash and the RV remediation, them are numbers from this year alone, 2019. So we track them separately for each program.

And then the other my last question is in the first box when you have encampment trash your first bullet point says addresses Addresses increased trash in the Seattle right-of-way resulting in I'm guessing that's unsanctioned Encampments, correct, correct And then in your last box under litter abatement you have the same sentence except you have the qualifier at the end of that are disproportionately affected by the presence of UHE's, unsanctioned homeless encampments.

Who is determining who is disproportionately affected?

Is that just the people that complain the loudest?

Is it just the people that don't want to have to look at?

I mean, I don't know what that means.

Thank you.

Good question.

Thank you.

So following an analysis, we'll just jump right into the litter abatement program.

There's a bunch of questions with that.

Following the analysis of community feedback and our solid waste service data, what that means is where we're seeing complaints in communities and where we're actually collecting a lot of illegal dumping.

So oftentimes, not every community is reporting the illegal dumping in their area, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

For instance, one of the litter abatement, which we would refer to now as a community litter abatement program, because we identify communities that historically been underserved.

So for instance, South Park's been receiving this service since we've launched the program.

The international district is another area.

We have Othello area, the south end.

So oftentimes we use the equity lens when we're identifying these areas.

So that's how we determined where the areas are.

Based on the determination of utilizing the data, we would then go into the communities and speak with community groups.

We hosted community meetings.

We said, hey, we know that you're experienced in this illegal dump and litter here.

These are the face blocks based on our analytics that we're going to be proactive and provide route cleaning weekly.

Does this work with you as a community and those that reside with the non-profits and other agencies?

They say, oh yeah, that works, or actually we're seeing a lot more trash on this other street here.

So we would then rearrange and adapt the route based on the feedback that we do get from the community.

I just have a quick follow-up Madam Chair and I'm glad Jesus is sitting with us and I I think we see this in other districts but I can mainly speak to my district having Thornton Creek and North Fork and a South Fork that are salmon bearing streams and we have a homeless encampments, but we are facing public health issues with human feces in the streams.

So I can understand why people want the street cleaned or if it's complaint-based, but when we have people living on the creek and we're looking at public health, we now have a recent HIV outbreak, and that's another issue with Board of Health, but do you see, how do you prioritize that?

Because there's a difference between a street that has garbage that needs to be picked up, I get that, in your categories, but I think there's also the broader public health issue when you have a stream that goes to the environment, public health, and all those other issues.

Is that part of how you go through your checklist or your hierarchy list of how to get out there instead of just being complaint-based?

This is the program's not just complaint based it's we again We utilize the data that we receive and we also work with communities that historically we've been collecting as the city Large amounts of discarded debris trash this program in particular focuses on community cleanup in the right-of-way but your question again is um something that Jesus may be able to weigh in on where we do see issues around human waste and camping around creeks, especially Thornton Creek.

We've also heard several community complaints about that.

Great.

Anything else?

Okay, please continue.

All right, so we'll go into the clean city disposal costs.

Again, based on the note of $211,000 is a portion of what we initially request, and that's based on the number of complaints that we see through our general illegal dumping.

Earlier mentioned, there's a huge amount that happens in the city, around the city, with persons discarding couches, televisions, trash in our public right-of-ways.

Year over year, we're seeing probably 30% increased complaints.

Last year, we had 21,000 illegal dumping complaints.

This year, we're looking at 30,000 illegal dumping complaints.

So the $211,000 is just a portion of that.

And that's based on the remediation pilot for disposal costs, meaning that we're going to double the amount of locations that we plan on servicing with the RV remediation program.

And that would give us the opportunity to expand the services.

Currently, based on the ranking criteria, In public health and safety, we see a lot of the services are in dense areas around Georgetown, Soto, and that's based on the ranking criteria.

Oftentimes, there are areas that fall right below the top seven sites, and we normally see that them do happen in other parts of the area, of the city.

So expanding the services will give us the opportunity to expand services, in particular, north of the Ship Canal.

Thank you.

Yeah, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Before we move on, I wanna just highlight that in your annual report, you made several, SPU made several recommendations specifically for the unsanctioned homeless encampment, garbage pickup pilot, the purple bag program, as well as the RV remediation program.

As it relates to the purple bag pilot, one recommendation is to expand garbage collection to service three new unsanctioned homeless encampments in, wait for it, Council Member Juarez, North Seattle.

Three new locations in North Seattle.

So that was a recommendation of SPU.

I don't know if this budget reflects that, but we'll certainly be looking to see if it does.

Also, there's a recommendation to expand existing consultant contracts with nonprofit outreach providers.

We've begun some of those conversations and appreciate your partnership in doing that.

And as it relates to the servicing on-call sites, you currently service 8 to 10 on-call sites at any given time.

The recommendation is to expand to 12 to 15 sites at any given time.

Again, don't know if this budget reflects your WISE recommendations, but I hope it does.

And then for the remediation pilot, there are several recommendations.

One, to update data tracking and monitor on SharePoint, which I think we touched upon, integrating long-range planning capacity into RV remediation protocols, including pressure washing and cleanup activities.

Is that something that we're doing now?

We're currently not doing that, but it's something that we are in discussions with to see the feasibility of keeping that clean, safe environment and making it a lot more inviting for those who have to live and work around the areas after remediation takes place.

And then there's a recommendation that the RV remediation pilot currently relies on the availability of CPT officers and parking enforcement officers.

As the program continues to grow, staff recommend building a dedicated team of one to two police officers and one to two parking enforcement staff to ensure consistent contact with RV occupants and consistent enforcement of RV remediation protocols across all precincts.

Doing so would improve the coordination and scheduling of cleans as well as allow the team to increase the number of sites addressed per month.

So I really appreciate you highlighting these areas for improvement and I look forward to working with the department using the budget process and moving them forward.

Yeah, the SPD portion is extremely valuable as we alluded to earlier.

The trust building and them knowing how RV residents are operating and have a history with them makes it really easy for us to go in and work with them and get in the area clean and remediated.

So having them dedicated will give us the ability to expand the number that we currently operate from seven to hopefully 14 to 16 per month.

And thank you, Council Member Herbold, you just spoke to the next slide, so.

No, no follow up.

How did I speak to the next slide?

So some of these things are included, but not all of them.

Yeah, some of them are included, but not all of them.

Based on the priorities that we needed to focus on, we made the decision to move forward with the recommendations that we put in this year's budget.

Thank you for that.

I think there's more on the next slide.

But I want to acknowledge the fact that SPU really has stepped up on this.

And I think Ken Snipes before you was a great communicator with us about what the plans were.

So really, thanks to SPU.

Thank you.

So Seattle Parks and Recreation actually supports the citywide homelessness response in several ways.

I think the bulk of our work is as part of the navigation team in supporting the cleanup efforts.

So the mayor's 2020 endorsed budget includes $1.3 million to support that.

A million of that comes from the SDOT commercial parking tax fund, and then $300,000 is from general fund.

And in support of some of the programs that Idris talked about, the mayor's proposed 2020 budgeting includes $100,000 incremental increase to support those cleans.

The bulk of our work, as I said, is part of the navigation team is a 12-member clean team that does an average of 18 cleans per month on both Seattle Parks and Recreation property as well as non-Seattle Parks and Recreation property on the rights of way for SDOT as well as some WSDOT sites.

And then we also support approximately six days per month the city's RV remediation program.

So the $100,000 that's proposed as an increase for the 2020 budget is to add an additional two days of support to the RV remediation program that you just talked about.

And then another way that we support this is our baseline budget already includes about $110,000 to support free shower services at four community centers.

I'm sorry, what support?

free shower services at the four community centers that we've talked about.

Can I just ask you a question about that, Jesus?

I think we've had three community centers that are open.

I think they're places that have swimming pools and the showers are available.

When you were here earlier last week, I think we asked you, is it possible to open more?

Yeah.

And you were going to look into it and?

Yes, and we're working and actually in response to a council question to look at that and also, for example, the auditor's report suggested additional six sites.

So we're looking at that to see if it's feasible at those particular sites and of course looking at the cost associated with that.

What would make those sites less feasible than the ones that we have already chosen?

I think it depends on many things.

So, for example, the layout of the building.

Some of those buildings and some of the facilities in the auditor's report just have a facility that wouldn't really accommodate it in a way that would allow us to monitor it.

Other issues such as what are sort of the programmatic implications?

So obviously we're trying to keep these community centers open or these pools open for our regular programs.

And so is there a way to facilitate the provision of the shower services without unduly impacting some of the other services?

So things like that and obviously the cost and the staffing associated.

Do we know how many people are using them?

We know how many people are using the four sites that are currently open.

And we can certainly send you that data and we've seen that the use is pretty much stabilized as compared to last year.

There are a couple of sites that have had an increase.

I think Miller has had a significant increase as compared to 2018. But we have that data and we can share that with you.

I think it's important for us to look at that because I'm going to say four or five years ago we were investing a lot of money into our urban rest stops both in downtown and in Ballard.

And I think that's needed.

But I'd like to know could it be either expanded or extended or money reduced to a nonprofit of the city that the facilities are already available and open up whether that's just I'd like to see how many people are using them what the individual expected costs are.

Yeah.

Good.

Thank you.

Question?

Council Member Herbold.

Yeah, I just want to thank the Parks Department for their work with the City Auditor in establishing a standard of care in the parks facilities that do provide hygiene services.

And also want to thank you for your work in also developing the staffing model for the hygiene facility in the Ballard Commons Park.

I think some of the lessons that we're learning there will be able to apply to other locations.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other questions on this slide?

Okay.

I think we'll move on.

So the next two slides show FAS's funding request in the 2020 proposed budget.

This slide shows the effect primarily of expanding the remediation program beginning in 2020, expanding the number of sites that will be reviewed on a monthly basis from 7 to 14. The next slide, we won't move to that yet, but it will show the resources that are needed in the 2020 budget to maintain the level of disposals anticipated in 2019. So it's continue current coverage.

The mayor's proposed 2020 budget has about $800,000 in total for FAS to dispose RVs.

that are determined to pose public safety and health hazards.

This $20,000 budget increase would allow FAS to safely dispose up to 96 additional RVs in 2020, resulting primarily from the proposed expansion, but also continuing the disposal of RVs that meet disposal criteria that are brought in through Seattle Police Department authorized tows.

The RV remediation team will evaluate and identify the seven sites, the additional seven sites, based on several factors, such as the number of RVs in a location and the presence of rodents and hazardous waste.

If there are any questions on that, we can move to the next slide.

Okay.

I see no questions.

So, this slide.

shows the increase that's needed in the 2020 budget just to maintain current coverage.

The increases are caused by charges from the vendor, which our contracting tow company believes that the subcontractor that we're using is really the only firm that can meet the state's environmental restrictions.

So we have a very small market to choose from.

So the charges have been increasing since we started using them as our service provider.

In addition to that, there has been a notably larger size of RVs, which cost more because we pay by the pound in their disposal.

And in addition, there are more costly cleanups due to the hazardous wastes that are left with the abandoned vehicles.

The disposal effort is projected to nearly double in 2019 over 2018, so that this year we're anticipating 280 RVs to be disposed of.

And that's due largely to the heightened attention given to the public health hazards, as well as the ability of SPD officers to determine in the field for the need to remove these vehicles.

As you'll see from the numbers at the top, we do, however, expect the number of disposals in the baseline efforts to come down slightly in 2020 from the levels that we're projecting by year end in 2019.

What's the basis for that, Doug?

I'm sorry?

What's the basis for that?

You said you anticipate that there will be fewer.

Why is that?

Well, we think that the number that have been brought in and disposed of during the time that we've been running the operation will have an effect in reducing the number that need to be disposed of in the future.

It's just a projection, but that's what our estimates are.

OK.

So you don't anticipate more coming in than we are removing?

That's, well, I will say if you look at the two slides in tandem, the total increase will, there will be an increase totally.

I'm just, the point of this slide is to say if we were to maintain the same coverage, we would have fewer vehicles to dispose of.

But because we're expanding the number of sites in the previous slide, the actual number will increase from 280 to a projection of 354. But that's both the baseline plus the expanded coverage.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Is that the end of your slide?

That's the end of the slide.

OK, any other questions?

All right, well, it looks like we've come to the end of the slides for this morning.

Thank you all for being here.

It's been, I know, almost a three hour effort for you.

Thank you for the clarification, for your willingness to take our questions.

And this ends our morning.

We'll be in recess unless I hear any concerns from my colleagues.

And we'll pick it up again at 2 o'clock.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

you