Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Session II 10/27/22

Councilmember Strouse.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you so much for joining us here again at the Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee meeting.

This is a continuation of our October 27th 2022 Select Budget Committee meeting.

The time is two p.m.

and the committee will reconvene back from recess.

We are now in order.

Council Member Strauss.

You know, Madam Clerk, I apologize.

I did say 2.02 p.m.

in my in my recess announcement.

So for the viewing public, we're going to go into recess for two more minutes, and we're going to let folks come back into the committee meeting.

Recording stopped.

Thank you.

I'm going to call the roll.

I'm going to try to rein in on our amendment comments as much as possible.

With that, Madam Clerk, do you mind going ahead and calling the roll for the good of the order?

the record as well.

Okay just to orient us as we

We have heard from the prime sponsor who oriented us to the importance of the amendment from her purview, as well as the analysis from central staff.

So we're now at the discussion and debate portion.

I would like to make sure that Councilmember Lewis is recognized first, and then we'll have Councilmember Juarez and Nelson in the queue.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead.

I'm going to turn it over to councilmember Herbold.

Great, and I'm gonna reiterate my notes and I know Council Member Herbold offline sent some information as well, and I'll let her fill the group in on that.

So thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I wanted to know what the budget history was since LEED's inception, beginning what year and amount to date, and then of course, if LEED should operate at scale by 2023, what amount was that at scale?

Shall I shall I start please go ahead and just want to make sure you know your video is not on in case you wanted it.

Uh, I, I, I would like it on.

I am having an issue that I hope will be resolved promptly.

Um, this is an Gorman council central staff, um, uh, coming to you without video temporarily.

Hey, maybe that'll work.

Hey, thank you.

I.

T. Um, so, uh, with with respect to, uh, at scale, uh, the, the intent of resolution 31916, um, I'd like to read section 2 of that resolution and it states the city intends that the lead program operate at scale by 2023. with scale understood to mean that the program will have appropriate funding to accept all priority qualifying arrest and social contact referrals citywide pursuant to the operational protocol currently approved by the lead policy coordinating group.

So scale is not a number scale is is qualitative.

The program is operating at scale when everybody who was referred to the program can be supported by the program.

But if I may, I'd also like to read section 3 of that ordinance excuse me of that resolution and section 3 states the city intends that lead be supported through a secure mix of public funding sources.

including city funding and some combination of county, state, federal, and Medicaid funding.

So while I do have information to share about the history of city funding of the program, I don't have the same information showing the funding that the PDA has received over the years from those sources.

I will try to get it because I think that it's important to understanding the full funding picture for that program.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you and and reason why I ask is I don't want to get into the merits, and I certainly don't think any everyone here believes that we're going to arrest ourselves out of arrest folks out of this problem.

And I don't want to go into the success or not success today of lead.

I'm, I like what you said and I am trying to.

put into the four corners of any document what has been the budget history so I can see from what I remember when we first, well before me actually, when we start funding LEED and how much it's grown.

And if I remember correctly, there are a few times where we doubled their budget.

So I'm just, and again, that's not to be negative.

I just want to see what the history is.

So when we get to something that is more subjective, and as you were stating, what is appropriate funding?

Because if I were to use that resolution for the 60 other budget amendments or budget asks, that number could be anything.

And so I'm trying to nail down some parameters for me so I can come to some decision about whether or not I can support this.

So thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I just want to although the resolution does not name what at scale is, because it's a it's a it's about a recognition that scale may change, but that our commitment is to is to work towards fully funding leads so that it can accept all eligible referrals.

Currently, they They're not able to grow the number of people that they're serving because they have to turn away people who are otherwise eligible for their services.

I do want to point, as you mentioned, Madam President, I did send you some materials on the break, and those materials do have a number associated with an estimate from 2021 of what scale is.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Is there any additional comments from central staff on that?

Um, sure, I would, uh, I, I, I reviewed the.

The, the report that council member shared with council president Juarez over the lunch break, it was prepared by my former central staff colleague, Jeff Sims in September of 2021, and it cites a figure of almost 2600 referrals in 2022 in terms of operation at scale.

And just as a point of comparison, the current LEED contract with HSD is based on an assumption of 742 program participants.

So it would be, according to LEED's estimate, as of sometime in 2021, a very significant increase to be operating at scale.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify, the proposal, although I am speaking to the commitment to try and fund LEAD at scale, the proposal does not do so.

What the proposal is intended to do is to bring it to our intended 2022 baseline funding.

Because there was a reduction in the mayor's proposed budget that was unintentional.

Thank you.

Okay, Council Member Nelson is next up in the queue.

Thank you very much.

So just to contextualize my question, apparently there are 748 active clients in LEAD.

There's a discrepancy between that and what central staff was told in a recent conversation, which was 569. Only 28 of those people are of the active clients, regardless what number you're going with, are connected to mental health programs, and 31 are connected to substance use disorder programs.

And I think that there was, maybe it was the presentation or the document that you just cited from 2021, but there was a previous presentation to council that seemed to indicate that only 120 people have exited the program since its inception.

I find that hard to believe.

But anyway, so the city of Seattle is funding 48 FGEs for LEED and let's see, almost 20 for COLEED.

And that's a lot of people.

It's more than OED.

And so I guess what I'm getting at is what What are we going to get with this additional 7.8?

How is that a portion between LEED and CoLEED?

Because the latter has sort of a is is constrained what they can do in that program by by the housing that can that is available.

And we're going to be funding a new tiny home village as well.

So how how is that apportioned and Just a nod to Council Member Lewis's comments before about accountability, because I do, because I'm new here, I would like to know more about what are the outcomes that we are asking for with the LEAD program?

I know that 85% occupancy is the intended outcome for CoLEAD.

And I guess a better way of thinking about that, I don't know, When we're talking about sort of, as Council President Orr has said, every year there seems to be an increase.

I'd like to know what the fixed costs are to run the program.

So to what expense, to what extent do its expenses increase with each new client?

And is that amount different for lead and co-lead?

Thanks.

So I will, I will try to, I will try to answer all of the questions that you asked.

If I miss one, please, please jump in.

First of all, it's my understanding that COLEAD can currently support up to 72 clients.

I will confirm that.

The funding increase that is proposed with this council budget action would support both both LEAD and CoLEAD at its current necessary funding levels, and it would provide an increase to grow LEAD participation to that scale level that we keep talking about, which may be as high as 2,600 people, and it may be even higher.

In terms of a function for understanding the costs of the CoLEAD and the LEAD programs, I don't have a very good sense of that.

I think that central staff would be interested in developing one if it's possible to do that.

And we'd be happy to work on that over the next couple months, possibly in partnership with our colleagues in HSD and CBO.

Okay, I'm seeing nods.

Council Member Nelson, anything else?

Nope.

Okay, thanks.

All right, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

This discussion is just reminding me of that perhaps going forward, maybe for next budget season, we could come up with a standard checklist that central staff uses to collect due diligence for capital projects.

We often are asking at the last minute for the sources and uses of funds so we can just see how everything relates together, how much we're contributing, how much others are contributing.

the reason for cost increases.

And then for these operating programs, a standard due diligence checklist, such as their last couple of years of operating statements, their proposed budget going forward.

if it's a nonprofit, they're typically providing an audit.

So just having these basic due diligence, which central staff might already have, but it would just be helpful to get a standard list.

That way, people in the community expect that this is a standard list that we would ask for, be a short list.

a basic one, much less than what any sort of lender would ask.

We would be just getting this stuff as a matter of course would be very helpful.

That's a project for the future, but it's just reminding me, as we ask these questions, it's helpful to have this basic due diligence in hand.

Thanks, Councilmember.

I'm wondering if Allie or Esther, if you have any thoughts about those macro comments.

I'll also note You know, the frustration that I think we're all experiencing of having to do this budget deliberations within an eight week period when other branches get multiple months.

I was just talking to Kansas City and they start their budget process now and go through the end of the year on legislative related items and then use January, February, March to get into the budget.

So maybe on our list of things to do to expand out the number of months by charter that we have to review the budget given our responsibilities as the legislative branch.

Anne, I see your hand up and Allie, I see you off mute as well.

Yeah, if I might take that question first, Anne, and then if you want to jump in, I think in terms of the general I would love to have the time and ability to scrutinize, first of all, the mayor's proposed budget with that due diligence, as well as all of your individual asks.

I think, frankly, that it would be difficult for some of the organizations that we're asking.

So I look forward to having conversations with you, Council Member Peterson, because I think there is something there that we could look into, but I do think that it would have to be balanced with what is achievable in this eight week period.

And I think it should first start with a requirement that all of the mayor's proposed spending is also, you all are provided that same information to scrutinize the mayor's proposed budget, as well as your individual action.

So anyways, I'm happy to work with you during the year, because I would love a standardized checklist to support some of this, but we do our best to get as much information as we can to as best as we can verify the proposed investments.

And anything else.

Oh, nothing, nothing to add to that conversation.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't eliding the council president's interest in, you know, the history of city funding for the Public Defenders Association.

I do, I do have that information.

It's just what I what I pulled together over lunch with a big and much appreciated assist from colleagues at the city budget office.

I would like to compile this, vet it internally and send it to council members tomorrow.

But one thing that I want to share is that it becomes difficult starting in 2020 to talk about lead program costs, because it was during that year that the Public Defender's Association launched CoLEAD.

And CoLEAD was launched in response to a critical need that was identified during the pandemic.

There was not time to sit around and say, okay, here's how many people are going to serve.

Here's what it's going to cost.

And CoLEAD has just kind of been catching up as a program over the last couple of years.

So what I have is funding to the PDA and since 2020 it is funding for both lead and Co lead.

If that makes any sense.

And as I said before, we are currently working with CBO and HSD to tease apart the two programs and develop a common understanding of what the budget need is.

So in 2020, The PDA received 6.1M from the city that year.

Council added 3.5M to 2.6M in the proposed budget.

In 2021, the PDA received $9.2 million and that includes an increment of $3 million from Council that was added in June of that year.

In 2022, the total budget for the PDA was $3.9 million for a total of $10.4 million.

Although as the CBA describes, there is now an understanding that that funding was not sufficient for program needs.

The proposed budget in 2023 includes 13.9 million, and if this CBA is accepted, the total will be 21.7 million.

So this is an increase of 6.1 million to as much as 21.7 million from 20 to 2023. And I have past years too, they're a little less interesting.

All right, so yes, please do send that around.

And Council Member Herbold, I'm gonna go to you for the last comment on this so we can keep going.

Thank you so much.

And just broadly, I mentioned earlier the number of jurisdictions worldwide that use LEED.

But I wanna just make sure that people understand that not only is this a model that has been replicated in jurisdictions all over the world, 80 different communities all over the world, but that it is evidence-based and Washington State has based its entire statewide diversion program, $45 million on LEAD.

lead reports outcomes every single month.

And it is the only diversion program that exists that police have access to.

And that's a really important component of this particular diversion model.

And again, outcomes are reported monthly and the numbers are well established.

So I'm happy to try to facilitate sharing that information with with council members.

But just wanted to

I appreciate you councilmember for bringing this forward.

The $7.8 million Delta is really important for us to close.

I understand as you noted that it was an oversight.

Maybe perhaps misunderstanding that's now been corrected for.

So appreciate you working with the city budget's office, the mayor's office and lead to help identify a pathway to make sure that these critical services continue to receive funding because it's the people who benefit from those services.

All right, we're very close.

And then we're gonna have to walk on amendments.

So let's go on to number 39.

HSD 39A1 is also sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and co-sponsored by Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Lewis.

This council budget action would provide $600,000 in general funds in 2023 to HSD to expand the scope of a current gun violence prevention program and impose a proviso requiring the funds to be spent only for that purpose.

HSD currently provides funding, which is made ongoing in the 2023-2024 proposed budget to support the Regional Peacekeepers Collective of King County.

That organization has developed a gun violence prevention program that includes a wide range of services, including incident response, hospital-based response, and follow-up care for victims of gun violence, and intensive engagement and wraparound services to victims of gun violence and their families.

The regional peacekeepers current program is targeted to young black or African American men and boys.

16 to 24 is the age range that they work with.

This CBA would provide funding for the regional peacekeepers to develop a new program that incorporates the same elements of response, care, engagement and follow up, but it's targeted to men age 25 to 40.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold.

Thanks so much.

Appreciate the description from Ann Gorman and the sponsorship of Council Members Morales and Lewis.

As we are all too well aware, gun violence is a public health crisis.

I appreciate the efforts of Mayor Harrell, Interim Police Chief Diaz, both speaking to this, acting in this area, as well as the leadership of King County Executive Constantine and pulling together a regional gun violence prevention advisory group.

We're going to be having a symposium on Friday, next Friday, to talk more about the county investments.

But we are a contributor to those county investments.

As I mentioned earlier, when the county is providing a service that the city wants to buy into rather than reinventing it, At the city, we buy into those services.

And in this case, the city has invested in $2 million of funds in the 2022 budget for support of the regional peacekeepers initiative.

In July, my public safety and human services committee hosted two separate committee briefings on their approach there being public health, their approach to community safety and specifically focused on reducing gun violence with an intervention prevention and restoration program.

Again, this is the approach that Seattle is invested in and contributes $2 million of funds.

The focus of the existing program has been on young people between the ages of 16 and 24. At one of the two committee briefings, the Harborview Hospital-linked Violence Prevention Program and the Community Partnership, I'm sorry, Community Passageways, presented data showing much higher incidences of gun violence in the 25 to 40 age group than in those under 24. So anecdotally, folks who do work on the ground in this area, including our police chief, are seeing reductions in gun violence for the folks committing gun violence under 24, but they're seeing a drastic increase in the 25 to 40. The way this program works is it's wraparound services for victims and their family members based on The knowledge that we have that hurt people hurt people who are victims of gun violence are more likely and their family are more likely to be perpetrators of gun violence in the future.

And so these wraparound services are really critical to reducing the likelihood of that of that occurring.

The hope is that this additional funding would extend the ability of the city to work with our partners at King County Public Health, as well as the providers like the Regional Peacekeepers Collective to expand the program to serve this older cohort with the understanding that the mix of wraparound services, the staffing, of to make sure you have a peer model, that the mix of those services and the staffing for an older cohort is going to need some adjustment from the existing model, but the existing model works, and we really need to show some urgency for adjusting it so it can work for this older cohort.

I called for us to begin doing that work in July with any 2022 underspend.

As the bureaucracy often is, it's slow moving, but I really am hoping that we can We can get this up and running as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional comments on this?

Council Member Nelson?

So it's my, oops, sorry, camera on.

It's my understanding that in 2021 to 2022, the base budget or our base support is $17,289,000.

Is that, That's correct.

And then this year in the mayor's budget, there is I'm sorry, I can read this better, but.

Has there been a I'd like to know more about currently have a million dollar investment, OK, in the regional peacekeepers initiative, it has that those funds have gone over to King County and King County has contracted them.

So the baseline funding is two million.

Okay.

I will have to read this more closely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional comments on this?

Okay, Council Member.

Council Member Herbold, I'm going to add my name as a co sponsor on this one as well.

Let's move on.

Oh, and did you have something else?

I did not I did not have something else, but Councilmember Nelson if you'd like some more information about this program or or its historical funding, please feel free to follow up with me.

Yeah, I, there might be a con.

There's another funding call.

There's another program called this Seattle Community Safety Initiative.

that there's another tranche of funding for, and that might be what you're thinking of.

No, I know that one.

Thanks.

I may have misspoken, and you're so kind to not correct or clarify.

When I said the baseline funding, I was referring to the 2022 funding.

I believe this proposed budget has 1.5 million.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, then that clarifies because the 2021 funding was $17,289,000.

Okay, well, we can talk about a contract.

Do you have anything else to clarify on this?

I am not familiar with that $17 million figure.

I will work with Council Member Nelson offline to resolve her question.

Thank you.

All right, I think we are good to move on.

Moving on to HSD40A1, which is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss and co-sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Lewis.

This council budget action would provide $101,000 general fund in 2023 and $124,000 general fund in 2024 ongoing to preserve the current size of the Crisis Response Team, or CRT.

That size is five members.

In this morning session, we discussed the role of the mobile crisis team as a contracted crisis response service provider to the city and the is a subunit of the mobile crisis team and its members deploy alongside officers who are responding to calls that involve a behavioral health concern.

This is so they can provide a therapeutic response or one that comes from a case management perspective, rather than just law enforcement.

Contract funding for all other mobile crisis team members was increased earlier this year by DESC when King County increased wage rates for crisis responders.

The city did not increase its wage rates at the same time as the county did, but because CRT members perform essentially the same work as other mobile crisis team members, DESC and the CRT union bargained wage parity.

This led to a funding gap for DESC that will be $101,000 general fund in 2023. And this council budget action would fill that gap so that the CRT can continue as a five-person team rather than reducing to four.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

And just in the interest of time, I will be brief and to say the Regional Peacekeepers Collective, I am a huge supporter of.

I've seen their work firsthand.

If I wasn't limited to one additional co-sponsor per day, I would have co-sponsored that one too.

So here we go with the crisis response team.

This amendment is in conjunction with my earlier behavioral health mobile crisis response CBA to fund the full continuum of behavioral health and mobile crisis and intervention services.

Currently, as Anne mentioned, the crisis response team's five designated mental health providers work alongside specially trained SPD units deploying co-responder model to provide a holistic approach to law enforcement encounters with individuals experiencing behavioral health issues.

The services the crisis response team provides require the same certifications and credentials and impose the same risks as the mobile height crisis and behavioral health response teams.

Yet, as Anne mentioned, there is a funding discrepancy.

This budget amendment would increase the crisis response team's positions funding to provide wage parity across the team of crisis responders and avoid staffing being paid vastly different amounts, which could result in staffing loss from these teams.

This amendment does not expand the crisis response team.

It does ensure that the team is not reduced.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, Council Member, I am not seeing any.

Thanks for your brief comments.

I'm also like, how can I get some of that sunshine over here in West Seattle?

Come on now.

We'll send it from Ballard, although there's a forward thing for my video.

I'll tell you.

I was looking out the window like, where is it?

All right, thank you so much.

Council Member Nelson, apologies.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, just to correct myself, what I am reading says not to exceed $17 million.

So clearly we're not.

On the previous one.

OK.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Great.

More clarification coming on that.

OK, let's go on to the last one in our roll up.

Do I have that right?

Yeah.

number, yeah, 300. Hello, Karina.

Good afternoon, council members.

Karina Bull with Council Central Staff.

The next council budget action is HSD 300 A1.

It is sponsored by Council Member Herbold and co-sponsored by Council Members Morales and Mosqueda.

This statement of legislative intent would request that the Human Services Department provide a report on contracting with human services providers.

As previously discussed this morning, Council passed legislation in 2019 requiring HSD to provide annual inflationary adjustments for contracts with human services providers and submit a report to Council by March 31st of this year, evaluating this requirement and providing recommendations for any changes.

In consideration of the trouble facing HSD in completing this report and the proposed changes to the required inflationary adjustments in the mayor's proposed budget, this statement of legislative intent would provide HSD with more time to submit the report and request additional information, including a demonstrated assessment of the findings from the University of Washington's comparable worth wage analysis of human services work funded by HSD, and the Washington State Department of Commerce's Wage Study of Permanent Supportive Housing Providers.

In developing the report, HSD should coordinate with the Office of Housing to include consideration of permanent supportive housing providers and conduct stakeholder engagement with human services providers, advocates, and government agencies, such as King County and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

HSD should Submit the report to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee by June 20th of 2023. And with that, I hand it over to the primary sponsor, Council Member Holt.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

Not a lot to add here with a nod to Council Member Nelson referencing the report required under 1258.65 earlier in the Budget Committee meeting this morning.

This report was due earlier this year, and as noted earlier, because of HSD's workload, they did not do the report.

I would have said that a report like this might be a a good indicator of what to expect in a future year's budget as it relates to compliance with 1258-65.

So I'm eager to extend the reporting date to June 20th, 2023. So we will have a good indication of what HSD and the executive are thinking about the future year's contract changes to comply with the ordinance.

So I'm excited to move this forward and there might be some changes in a subsequent round to some of the language because we are continuing discussions with the stakeholders that we've been working with.

But I think first and foremost, reiterating the requirements of Council Member Mosqueda's ordinance 1258.65, as well as layering on the reporting requirements on the two other bodies of work that are that are pending one coming from HSD.

the city's funded wage equity analysis and the other coming from the State Department of Commerce on their permanent supportive housing wage study.

So all be very, very useful information for us to have in June prior to getting a 2023 proposed budget adjustment.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

And Councilmember, I don't see any hands.

So I'm just going to jump in.

I want to Thank you for working with our office to include a specific reference to the permanent support of housing workforce wages and calling for coordination with the Office of Housing.

As we've talked about before, our county and state partners and our provider partners continue to try to collectively identify additional funding sources and strategies and help plan together to address these wages.

And I think that This is a really critical piece that we want to continue to emphasize every chance we get, as we invest in more permanent supportive housing to get folks into those housing and keep them house, we have to invest in the providers that help provide that stability and given the wage disparities we've already talked about today.

we've got to figure out strategies to look at all available funding.

Inflation not keeping pace with the cost of their wages for cost of living in this region.

We've got to figure out strategies to look at all available funding.

So thanks so much for the work you've done and also to D.

E. S. C. And that's the I.

U.

11 99 for their partnership and continuing to raise this at every level as we seek to find additional support.

I said I'd be All right, we have two walk-on amendments, if I understand correctly.

And I'm looking at Allie.

Okay, great, two walk-ons.

And we're gonna, we are gonna get through the last two departments after that, folks.

So let's keep going ahead.

Go ahead.

I see Amy on the line here.

Amy, do you, nope.

Okay, who's walking us to our next walk-on amendment?

Madam Chair, this is Karina Ball.

I can describe this walk-on amendment.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

This walk-on amendment is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

It would add 3.5 million general funds ongoing to Human Services Department to make abortions free in Seattle.

This would happen through a contract with King County Public Health, and the funds would cover the administrative and direct costs providing free abortions in Seattle for local residents and also for people coming to Seattle for care from other jurisdictions, including those coming from states that have restricted or banned abortion.

And with that, I will turn it over to the sponsor.

Thank you.

Please go ahead Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier in the budget committee meeting today.

This amendment would fund making abortion free in Seattle, free for people living in Seattle, and as Karina mentioned, free for people coming to Seattle to seek sanctuary from states that have criminalized reproductive health care.

To be clear, all health care should be free for everyone.

We need a single payer universal healthcare system so workers are not gouged by the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries and worried about high bills if they go to the doctor with all the damage that the for-profit healthcare system does to the health and family finances of regular working people.

Making abortion publicly funded in Seattle would be one small part of that.

It will also send a clear message at a time when the right wing is criminalizing abortion in states around the country after the Dodge ruling, which was the single most severe attack on abortion rights in the last 50 years.

If Seattle were to stand up to the attacks of the right wing and make abortion free, it would undoubtedly send a clear message around the country.

It would be a powerful addition to the sanctuary city legislation that was put forward by my office and was unanimously voted on this past summer, which is perhaps the most crucial type of legislation to be passed at a local level since the Dobbs ruling.

That legislation made Seattle the first sanctuary city in the country for people, both patients and providers, fleeing persecution if their home state has laws against abortion.

That legislation inspired similar legislation being won by socialists in the city of Chicago, on the Chicago City Council, and also in Dane County, Wisconsin, which is significant because Wisconsin is a trigger ban state.

Because abortion is relatively inexpensive compared to many other healthcare procedures, it can be fully funded publicly for a relatively modest cost.

The city and county currently provide some funds for abortion access.

And earlier this morning, I co-sponsored an amendment to increase that funding, but none of those programs are universal single payer free for all systems.

like this budget amendment would create.

For abortion that is, it's only for abortion access.

Obviously we need the larger single payer system for all healthcare needs.

The city council central staff have estimated that it would only cost $3.5 million to establish this program.

I really appreciate the work of Amy Gore and Karina Bull researching and making that estimate.

Of course, Any time a new program is being established, the new initial costs are only an estimate.

And in this case, it's no different.

But it really is the question, not of something unique in this case.

Any time a new program is being started, there will be that learning curve.

So that's not the question.

The question is, do council members support this politically, having this kind of pre-abortion access for everyone or not?

That's the question.

And also, we also know that the costs are going to be far from prohibitive.

If the council supports the budget amendment, it will require a new program to be established and administered.

And so, as I said, it will have whatever issues that it will need to deal with for new programs, but that's true for any program.

As I said, it's a question of whether this is a priority.

And if it is, then it can be done just like when the city made COVID testing free for everyone at the beginning of 2020. I also share that over 6000. Working people in our city have signed petitions in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members on are there any additional comments or questions?

Okay I'm not

This one is me, this Amy Gore from Council Central staff.

The next Council budget action is HSD Walk-On 2. The prime sponsor is Council Member Sawant, and this action would add $6 million in general fund in 2023 to HSD for tiny home villages, for three new tiny home villages.

And that funding would include $2.4 million in one-time funds for startup costs, and 3.6 million in ongoing funds for operations of these villages.

With that, I will turn it over to the Council Member.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

As Amy said, this budget amendment would add funding for an additional three tiny house villages to be established in Seattle.

This is different from the tiny house village amendment discussed earlier today, which restores funding to the existing tiny house villages.

This amendment would be an expansion to create three additional villages to create many more tiny houses so that homeless community members currently living under bridges and parks and at the side of roads have somewhere to go.

Establishing a new tiny house village costs on average $800,000 in one-time costs.

and operating and providing services at a tiny house village costs on average $1.2 million per year.

So this amendment funds establishing and operating three new villages in 2023 and then continuing the operating costs for those three villages in 2024. Lehigh have reported that they have the capacity and locations to create at least three additional villages in 2023 if there were funding.

We have heard in the public hearing testimony from tiny house village resident after tiny house village resident about the powerful impact those villages have had on their lives.

And this is not the first time the council has heard this.

For years, the testimony from tiny house village residents has been completely unlike any other homeless service funded by the city.

And when so many people come to the city council year after year and have the courage to tell deeply personal stories of homelessness, council members should take it extremely seriously.

But ultimately, it's not even just about that testimony.

It's about the material facts of how much homelessness is raging in our city and how urgent, obviously affordable housing is the is the primary funding that we need.

And we need to increase the Amazon tax in order to make sure that we are doing as much as possible on that front.

But in an immediate sense, tiny house villages, tiny houses have a unique, played a unique role in offering shelter, community and humanity and dignity to our homeless community members.

That is why my office proposed the first city funding for tiny house villages during the city's budget through the people's budget campaign many years ago.

This is why we have proposed adding new tiny house villages during the budget to the people's budget campaign every year.

This is why we sponsored and passed the zoning legislation permitting tiny house villages.

And this is why I hope council members will support this budget amendment to create new villages this year.

Thank you, council member.

I'm not seeing any additional hands at this point.

I'm not seeing any, okay.

Thank you very much.

That does wrap, I believe our summary of the HSD related items at this point, Madam Clerk, let's move on to item number three.

Item three, Seattle Department of Transportation for briefing and discussion.

Wonderful.

Here we go.

Department of Transportation, a number of amendments in this category as well.

So folks, we have all of these plus SPD to get through today.

Let's Let's start off and I do hope that folks can stay at least till five and that there might be some flexibility, but let's get you out of here as close to on time as possible.

Please go ahead, Calvin.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council Members, Calvin Chow with Council Central staff.

Item S.1A.1 is offered by Council Member Lewis with support from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Nelson.

This item would proviso $500,000 in the budget from the Seattle Transit Measure and hold those funds solely for support of a waterfront shuttle.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Please go ahead.

Thank you so much for queuing that up, Calvin.

I'll be brief on this.

For the last couple of years, King County has appropriated half a million dollars to support the shuttle service for the Seattle waterfront.

I do think it's an important investment for the vitality of the waterfront and to decrease the reliance of onsite parking near the Seattle waterfront to have an opportunity for people to access it via shuttle.

from parts of the city that are better served by transit or areas that have existing parking, not necessitating the construction or availability of new parking in the proximity of the waterfront.

And given the advanced hour and that we're just getting to Estad, I'll leave it at that for now, but I'm happy to take questions offline on this and would say that funding from the city is necessary to unlock the King County money for this purpose.

Thank you.

I see a hand.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I will be brief and I think it may have just the technical term for this shuttle is the free waterfront shuttle.

And I think that the name says it all.

It connects the convention center, Westlake and tourists down to the waterfront that is a bit of a transit desert.

And for anyone that wants to ride, it is a free shuttle that goes to the waterfront.

I think the name says it all, free waterfront shuttle.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Council Members, let's move on to the next item.

Sorry, S.2A1 is offered by Council Member Strauss and with sponsorship from Council Member Lewis and Council Member Nelson.

It would add $500,000 one time to support work on the Ballard Ave streetscape improvements.

Excellent.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

The work on Ballard Avenue to use it as a pilot for citywide policymaking is going very well.

We've used it as a pilot because it is not a through street, and it is in a commercial district.

We have some additional work to do before it's finalized, and that is improving the interim conditions.

And if you haven't been out yet to see the interim changes that we've made, they're really great.

So there's another round of improvements.

We need to add some lighting that is appropriate for the street.

And then most importantly, meet the historic district guidelines, because this isn't a historic district.

So funding for this next round includes improvements for the interim designs, as well as making sure that the pergolas are meeting historic design standards.

And we're excited to have this rollout citywide as a policy.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I'm not seeing any hands at this point.

All right, number three, please go.

S.3A1 is offered by Council Member Strauss, in support by Council Member Peterson, Council Member Lewis.

It would add $300,000 to SDOT for pedestrian safety improvements in the Brewery District of Ballard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

I keep wondering if the Brewery District is like an official thing or if it's just like a colloquial thing.

You know, it's a little bit of both.

Yeah.

And this, this work right here, while it's transportation related rather than economic development related is helping to formalize this space.

What we have is an industrial area that has a lot of increased use folks.

So there's, and we're also rolling in our Leary triangle work.

into the brewery district at large.

So there are three corridors that we want to make improvements to.

That is 14th Avenue between Market Street and the Ship Canal.

9th Avenue between Market Street and connecting to the Leary Triangle, and then 53rd Street, which connects.

There's a signalized crossing for pedestrians only at 15th Avenue Northwest, connecting that through Gilman Park over to 6th Avenue, which we are hoping to have a greenway.

So this connects the Brewery District to Ballard.

It connects it to Fremont as well.

If you've been out on 14th Avenue, you have probably seen collisions because there's a lot of work that we need to do to meet our Vision Zero goals, to reduce collisions between cars, to reduce collisions between people, bikes, and all forms of transportation.

I'll just put this one as the icing on the cake.

there's still train tracks in the middle of the road that aren't used anymore.

And so this modest request of 300,000 is just gonna get this work started and we're gonna focus on safety improvements first to make it a safer and more vibrant area of our city.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I am not seeing any questions on this one.

I think we can go ahead and move on.

The next item, I think, is offered by, excuse me, S.5A1 is offered by Council Member Strauss with support from Council Member Morales and Council Member Peterson.

And it would add $250,000 in 2023 and in 2024 to plant trees in the right of way.

Please go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I guess it was last week, just last week's wildfire smoke teaches us anything.

It's that climate change is an existential crisis that needs immediate all hands on deck action, including increasing our urban canopy, tree canopy.

Yet preliminary results are showing that the canopy cover has declined.

This amendment will plant and establish about 350 new climate change resilient trees in the right of way in environmental equity priority communities and other areas with low tree canopy cover in Seattle.

This will help us move towards achieving the goal of a 30% urban forest canopy.

It's not complicated.

Let's plant some trees along the street.

And why this is so important is because on our streets and sidewalks is an incredible amount of concrete, which increases the heat.

And if we're not able to steward our public rights of way with tree canopy, we're missing out.

I know that we had retreed Ballard in the 90s.

It was very effective.

If folks see pictures of old Ballard, there wasn't a tree in sight.

It's this type of work that gets our streets canopy lined, and that's why I'm putting forward this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to be added to this item.

I would just indicate as a broader theme that there is a significant amount of money available in the Inflation Reduction Act that can match city additions to trees.

And so I do just want to make another comment.

that with this ad, as well as ads in parks and some of our other line items, that we really work with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to match these investments and seek some of that federal support for a very aggressive strategy around planting more trees in our public spaces and our public right-of-ways.

So I would like to be added to this and hope that this investment can unlock more money in attracting federal support towards this goal.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis has added his name as a co-sponsor to this amendment.

Any additional comments?

All right, let's keep going.

Hello, Greg Doss.

Hi, Madam Chair and Council.

Greg Doss, Central Staff, here to present the next one to you, which is a long one.

This item S.020A1 would reduce proposed funding and FTE for the city's parking enforcement unit by 20 million GF in 2023 ongoing and 123 FTE and SPD and add 20 million general fund in 2023 and 123 FTE and SDOT to eliminate the proposed transfer of the city's parking enforcement unit and it would impose a statement of legislative intent.

That was a short summary for a long one.

Thank you, Greg.

Anything else to add?

Yes.

In addition to the transactions, you, Madam Chair, have included a statement of legislative intent and a menu of potential actions that I would like to go through at your direction.

And I would ask Patty to flip down to that slide text if it's there.

Thank you.

Yes, Greg, please go ahead.

And then I'll do some summary comments after you provide the full presentation.

I think he's probably flipping to it.

Well, he's getting there.

I'm just going to go ahead and search.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Sorry about that, Patty.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, Patty.

I apologize.

So I'm going to go ahead and start describing it.

The statement of legislative intent would request that an interdepartmental team be formed to determine which existing or new city department would provide an optimal permanent home for the city's parking enforcement unit.

That IDT would produce a report by May 31st.

They would recommend a department that aligned with the city's codified policy goals and in ordinance 126233 and also in council budget action SPD 500B002, which would expand the role of PEOs and provide that they would have a greater role in civilian provided safety services.

The PEO would ask the IDT to look at a number of unique needs of the PEOs and supervisors, some of which might include operational infrastructure necessary to house 123 FTEs, adequate office space and fleet facilities, collaborative working relationship between department managers, PEOs, the Parking Enforcement Officer Guild, and PROTEC 17 supervisors.

access to employee wellbeing and development programs and programs that offer wellness resources and opportunities for professional growth.

The report would also potentially recommend the addition of new resources, a reorganization of existing city department staff or space, acquisition of new facilities or any other change that may be necessary for the identified department to be fully equipped to support the parking enforcement unit and reach the goals of the SLI.

The IDT would include the chair of the council's Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

It would include the council's budget chair, council central staff, labor representatives from the Parking Enforcement Officers Guild, PROTEC 17, labor relations staff, the senior deputy mayor and her executive branch appointees.

And again, it would be due on May 31st.

And so that's my summary of the SLI.

Madam Chair, if you want to speak to that and then I can go into the table next.

You know, Greg, I think I'll go.

I'll make comments after you provide some additional remarks on the table because I think it rounds out the proposal here.

Okay, happy to do that.

So, when When I started, Cal and I started to put together this table of costs for transferring the PEO unit or for retaining the PEO unit, sorry, in SDOT, it was originally envisioned as a menu of potential costs, something that would be a la carte that the council would pick from.

And as we have done more research into this transfer, I think what we have learned, what staff is learning is that these are Um, not discretionary.

And so what I, what I would start at a, at a super high level before I get into the table is to say that, um, to retain, um, SDOT or to retain the PEOs in SDOT would require the funding of SDOT overhead.

And, um, also the funding of, uh, overhead on special events over time that's currently not funded.

And if you were to do that for the entire unit, you would be looking at, the council would be looking at adding 8.3 million general fund for the labor costs associated with PEOs.

That's the overhead component that would need to be added to SDOT.

And then also another 3.1 million for the overhead component for overtime.

And so that would be a total of about 11.4 million.

And that would be sort of the full meal deal for funding all of the PEOs and the special events work that they would need to do and the overtime that SDOT would, or the overhead that SDOT would need to go ahead and fund its indirect costs.

So that's the big number.

What you're seeing in front of you here is some smaller numbers.

First being, Patty, if you would go up one, $77,000 would provide for new uniforms.

And that would include a cap, shirt, pants, belt, buckle, really everything except the jacket itself.

And here's an example of a patch that a committee that PEOs and SDOT put together to look at new uniforms came up with.

A second line on this table would show for $407,000, they could reinstate Sunday enforcement.

That is something that they have not been able to fund due to a lack of overtime funding.

And so that would provide for enforcement at parks, weekend markets, bike place market, and major construction sites.

And then the last two items.

If the council chose not to fund the whole package that I mentioned, the $8.3 million of overhead costs for the PEO unit and the $3.1 million of costs for special events, if they chose not to fund those things, then what it would mean is that SDOT would have to hold vacancies for their PEO unit.

they would have to hold about 45 vacancies out of 105 PEOs and 12 supervisors in order to meet their overhead costs.

What you have here on these two rows are sort of a bare bones approach.

If the council were to provide 4.7 million in a general fund, it would allow SDOT to staff up to 90 PEOs and 10 supervisors And then it would allow for 3.1 million of the overhead.

So it's a smaller approach, but keeps the PEOs at SDOT and pays for the overhead costs that SDOT would need to continue to function and not hold any further vacancies.

So that's a lot.

I'll stop and ask if there are questions.

And I know Council Chair Buscata, you wanted to speak to all this information.

Okay, thank you so much, Greg.

Thanks for walking through that.

And Greg, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful approach with this.

Thanks, Calvin, as well for the input that you've had.

I wanted to start by reminding folks that this is the last of my omnibus amendments.

And we have three that we are bringing forward for the purposes of daylighting and discussion today.

The revenue realignment was the first one.

The second one was the Unified Care Team discussion that we had about solutions beyond removals.

And here today, we have a suggestion for your consideration.

Obviously, this is still a work in progress.

I want to state that this is really an effort to try to outline some various strategies, a multi-layered approach.

that our office has been considering and an opportunity to daylight some of those discussions that we've had.

At the beginning of this, I want to note that through conversations that I've had with members from the parking enforcement officers and the parking enforcement officer supervisors, it is very clear that there are some significant and serious concerns within the existing structure at SDOT that should be taken care of immediately.

In addition to this amendment, as you heard from Greg, in addition to the strategies that I'm outlining for suggested interdepartmental task force to look at a permanent home, wherever that may be for the parking enforcement officers unit, I am also suggesting that this council could propose immediate solutions to help support some of the administrative issues that have been brought to our attention that need immediate action.

Many of these parking enforcement officers have stated that they have not had a day off in three weeks because of the understaffing that they currently have.

Some of the supervisors have noted that they've been asked to work out of class and management roles that don't fit their skills and the reason that they're currently within SDOT.

We've heard from folks that they don't have the support that they need for even the paper to write the tickets on, let alone the envelopes to stick them in.

We need to help make sure that these workers who are doing the best they can for the city who are showing up day in and day out, often weeks on end without a day off, have the support they need.

That is our responsibility as a city, as a whole, between the legislative and the executive branch, to ensure that there's the resources to support these workers, and to make sure that if there's immediate action that does not require legislation, that we're jointly working on that.

And that's why in addition to the strategy that I'm outlining for 2023, I'm also suggesting some immediate investment opportunities in the budget to help ensure that these workers are treated with respect and dignity, but also that we don't quickly act to move folks when we know that the mayor has said himself in the outline of the speech that the parking enforcement officer moved to Seattle Police Department may not be their permanent home.

I am suggesting that instead of moving them at this moment, we have a thoughtful, intentional conversation with the executive, legislative branch, with the department, with the workers themselves, and outline the series of things that they need in order to be successful in any department that they go to.

And then once we have looked at the list of things that are needed, then we do an assessment collectively to identify which department they may be best suited for.

We had a lot of conversations over the last few years about the Community Safety and Communications Center, Community Safety and Communications Center Department initially, the CSCC.

It was argued from the previous mayor and administration at SDOT that the Department of Transportation was more appropriate.

There's now this ongoing conversation about a potential fourth public safety department.

Let's have an intentional conversation about where folks should move before move takes place and recognize that some of these issues that folks are facing the various serious and important issues that are standing in the way of people being able to do their jobs are addressed.

in every aspect that we can in this budget, but not quickly move folks to a different department that they might end up moving within the next 12 to 24 months.

I really appreciate, colleagues, that there's joint interest in making sure that the parking enforcement officers have the support they need to do their work, and I hope through this amendment that folks see that my intention is to make sure that we are intentional take the temperature down, depoliticize the discussion about where they should go, and really just concentrate on what the workers themselves need structurally versus assuming that it can be within one department or another here.

That's why I'm suggesting that they would stay at SDOT for the course of this analysis.

We've bumped up the time to report back to the council in May so that the council could receive recommendations prior to the supplemental budget.

If the desire out of the interdepartmental task force here is to move the parking enforcement officer unit, including officers and supervisors, we would then have the information prior to our supplemental budget discussions.

That would allow for us to put into place any sort of structural changes needed, as outlined in Greg's memo here, to answer all of these questions and have the resources needed to ensure a successful transition.

It would also allow for us to then build a 2024 budget and out years with a permanent home for these individuals.

I really hope that folks get the chance to sit with this.

Obviously, there's not a vote today and there's no proxy votes that we're having, but I wanted to daylight this as part of a strategy that we could have with the departments, with labor representatives, with the mayor's office and with us to ensure that there is a permanent home that aligns with the mission and vision in the ordinance that we passed last year.

that we have a parking enforcement division that can really help serve the public because that is what they say they want to do and are doing the best they can under the current circumstances, but also make sure that we have a strategy and a pathway towards a permanent home before any move happens.

And Patty, you're welcome to keep that slide, that one pager up because I think it's a helpful summary and I'm sure we're gonna have more questions on it.

And I might ask you to scroll to one of those sections on the table quickly as well.

Just a few more things and I'll turn it back to Greg for additional context or clarification if needed.

In addition to the intentional conversation with the Interdepartmental Task Force, I want to make sure that I highlight some of the action items that is right there in that table on the screen.

The example here of a patch or a uniform change that could be made, this is something that the parking enforcement officers have wanted themselves.

In fact, they created a commission to design their own patches.

This is one example of a series of recommendations that they want to have to have unique patches so that their unit can be recognized.

This has not been deployed or funded yet, and I think that this is an important opportunity for us to invest in the work that the parking enforcement officers put into designing these patches, and so I'm suggesting in this budget that we move forward and include these patches and uniform changes in this year's budget.

Additionally, we've heard, as I noted, a high number of officers having to work overtime.

So as we strive to reach hiring goals as outlined in the proposal here, we want to support them with additional overtime to make sure that they're being compensated for this work.

I also think that there is an opportunity for us to intentionally work to make sure that between the labor representatives and the executive and the department that any of these immediate issues regarding where people are being asked to work and the type of work that they're doing that might not conform with the skills and of the parking enforcement officers or supervisors be immediately addressed so that workers really feel that they are being used in the skills and expertise that they have when they came over and voluntarily suggested to move from their place two years ago to make sure that they have all of the support that they need to address the concerns that we're hearing around structure within the department.

I know that some of this is outside of what the legislative branch can do.

So my hope here is that folks see some immediate action in terms of investments in the budget, a pathway towards possible movement in mid-year next year, recognizing that no one is committed to a specific department and that that really needs to come out of the IDT task force.

So open in terms of where they should go, but let's have an intentional conversation before moving folks.

I know that much of this work is yet to be fleshed out.

A lot of conversations still to be had with members of labor and the executive office as well.

This is my proposal that I am bringing forward in the spirit of transparency.

And again, I hope that it is showing good faith in trying to ensure that there is a long-term stable place for our much-valued parking enforcement officers and supervisors to have the support and structure they need.

And in the meantime, I'm suggesting that we provide some immediate I'm going to turn it over to councilmember Herbold.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple things that I should have said but didn't.

A couple on the table.

The add one FTE personnel spec to human resources dedicated to recruiting PEOs and the backgrounding services.

Those amounts The FT would be about 126,000 and the backgrounding services would be about 30,000 those would not be general fund amounts, those would be as internal costs overhead funded and it is the case that they would be.

potentially added by SDOT so that they could recruit up to the 90 PEOs and the 10 PEO supervisors that I have laid out here in sort of this, I'm calling it a bare bones.

The city does not have that many PEOs and PEOs right now.

So they would need to recruit up to that level to get to that point.

And the other thing I wanted to point out that I didn't point out in my opening comments is Thank you, Madam Chair, for pointing out that there is a non-labor component that would need to be addressed.

SDOT has talked with staff about that.

It could be as high as 2.5 million, and staff is researching to see how much of that funding would be needed in the short term while this IDT did its work.

Things for, or funding for things like impound costs, and vehicles for the supervisors.

We are looking at that to see how much would actually be needed next year as opposed to longer-term investments.

So that's still an ongoing push there.

And that's all I have.

Thanks so much, Brian.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thanks so much.

I appreciate you, Madam Chair, working on this issue.

part of the longer term conversation that you are identifying some immediate investments that can address some of the concerning issues that PEOs are managing right now at SDOT.

One of the issues that we had heard about, and I do see it's flagged as an issue for the IDT to grapple with, But it is the issue of the access to CJIS.

And I know that the chief had explained a number of months ago that they had developed a sort of a workaround to the lack of access to CJIS.

And that's that receiving a hot sheet And I'm wondering, Greg, did you find out anything more about whether or not that's working?

And if not, if there's something that can be done to make it work better?

I believe the lack of access to CJIS is part of SPEOG's ULP, unfair labor practice, and that it is an example of another thing that I would like to see if there is a way to identify in the very, very near term something to address that what is apparently hampering their ability to do their job, if there is a possibility for a workaround while we look at trying to get them access to CJIS, what can we do now to address that issue that I think is a real barrier for PEOs doing their job, as I have had it explained to me?

Well, I think that there needs to be a differentiation between the data that PEOs need to do their work and that data being vehicle information, disabled placard information, some of which may be attainable from the Department of Licensing and other data sources, and the criminal information that can only be obtained through CJIS, and that information It's my understanding that SPIOG has other reasons for wanting, and I think that it might be best, given the fact that there's an unfair labor practice on that, that we have that discussion offline.

Thank you, Greg.

There may be a need to have the conversation offline, but again, I want to restate my interest in seeing if we can work to try to resolve some of those issues because I think our ability to resolve some of those issues sooner rather than later, you know, rather than, you know, punting it to this IDT, if there's something that we can do now, I think it's going to make that conversation that is part of the IDT go much better.

Yeah, just really wanna, and I don't know if there have been any budget questions put in about just trying to parse out what information they have access to now versus what information they would have access to under CEGIS.

I think that would be a helpful budget question to put in if we haven't already.

Thanks.

Yes, Council Member, I have.

I'll look forward to talking with you about that.

Thank you.

And if there are immediate actions that are legislatively supported with funding, that would be definitely something I'd be interested in adding to this table of potential immediate investments as we seek to find that long-term home.

I appreciate you raising that, Councilmember.

And again, I think it was all a little bit of a surprise to most of us in the discussion last time to have it expressly said on the record that we did not get access to all of this information about the potential barriers when we were discussing this with the previous administration.

So I really appreciate, Greg, you digging in and digging fast on these issues.

And again, if there is the opportunity to add to this table to address any funding needs for any immediate action to increase availability.

to that data, then I'd be very interested in that.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Please go ahead, Greg.

I was just going to say, I just got a note from SDOT's budget director.

They are looking into those data issues.

And as I've mentioned, the information I got back from SPD is that there's a likely connection that can be made with DOL that can get back some of this data.

And so it's something that the city is working on now, is addressing some of these things.

The CEGIS piece is just one different component that we can talk about the ULP offline.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

So the mayor said that this wasn't necessarily a permanent location to move them back to SPD.

So I'm struggling to understand why we need an IDT, because it seems like there's room for conversation.

But this, our packet says we should consider the unique needs of PEOs and PEO supervisors.

And if we want to do that, shouldn't we should we listen to the workers?

There was a survey that says nearly 80% of parking enforcement officers want to return to SPD.

So I don't know how much stock we're putting in that, but we have some data there.

And the mayor's office has noted that this would, putting them back would give them access to SPDs, to the databases that we're just discussing.

So that solves that problem.

And, I'm wondering if, and also, I don't know how many unfair labor practices complaints there are, but I think the move itself was one of them.

So maybe just keeping them in an SPD could solve for part of that, but would the, would SPD's disciplinary system, OPA, provide access to all the information?

Would they still be, HAB-Masyn Moyer): i'm performing will okay still perform an oversight function of the parking enforcement officers if they're outside of the department that's one thing that you can follow up on with me.

HAB-Masyn Moyer): But I was looking at this, the the proposed menu of statements of legislative intent in in be says that they need adequate office space and fleet facilities and i'm thinking about parking lot.

So I don't know how many other places in the city have that, but the next page says the report may also recommend acquisition of new facilities.

And so that makes me a little nervous that we might have to buy a facility to locate those vehicles.

So I'm just kind of signaling some concern there.

And then I have a question about the overtime, the SDOT ad funding for overtime.

It says the Overtime Work Support Stadium and other special events.

We've had a conversation about that already being reimbursed by at least Climate Pledge Arena.

So is this a separate item or would that contract have to be renegotiated because the PEOs are no longer in SPD or SDOT?

Can you explain that?

Yeah, so in this particular case the 3.1 million is largely an amount that is necessary for SDOT's overhead on the overtime costs.

So it is not just the money that would be needed to pay the PEOs.

It is also the money that is needed, largely the money that is needed to cover SDOT's internal overhead allocations.

And would that not be needed if it were to go to CSCC, but it would be necessary if it went to, for example, parks, just for example, for another

It would not be needed if it goes to a general fund funded agency like the CSCC or to SPD.

I can't speak for parks.

I don't know their funding model well enough to be able to answer that question and whether or not they tack overhead onto their personnel costs.

OK, thanks.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, we'll continue to take into consideration some of the questions and comments that you brought up today as we think through this approach more and develop this a little bit more.

But I wanted to make sure to share it with you and thank you for this initial feedback.

Greg, thanks so much for walking us through that presentation.

Again, colleagues, thanks for your graciousness with considering the various omnibus approaches that I've outlined for some of the I think we are ready to move on to the next item.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Video here, sorry about that.

Thank you.

So, thank you, Calvin, for the description.

Thank you as well to our Transportation Chair, Council Member Peterson, as well as Council Member Nelson for co-chairing.

This item would provide funding to complete the Fauntleroy Boulevard project.

a bit of history on what happened to the funding.

This was the only project in the 2015 MOVE levy that was fully funded with levy dollars.

It was funded with $16 million in MOVE levy funding.

And that was because of the successful championing of this investment by former council member Rasmussen.

He played a significant role in bringing this forward for funding in the levy.

because of the strong community support.

And we've, we've heard people, we've heard people contact us over the last few weeks to say that part of the reason why they move, they voted for the 2015 move levy was because of the signs that said that the Font LeRoy project would be would be funded.

We heard from Don Brubuck of West Seattle Bike Connections yesterday, noting that transportation community and business groups worked to make the project responsive to both citywide transportation goals and long held community needs.

It improves mobility and safety for people walking, biking, riding buses, driving cars and trucks.

The levy funds were placed on hold in 2018 to avoid the duplication of activity with sound transit and a possible elevated line in that area.

Um, that the fact that we put those funds on hold in 2018 was not an indication that we did not want the project to move forward if there was no conflict with sound transit.

Unfortunately, those funds were have since been diverted.

And despite the fact that as noted in the narrative on this on transit has designed as a preferred alternative and option a tunnel option that eliminates con conflict with the project 100% design was completed in 2017 for the font Leroy Boulevard project and start.

has, when placing the project on hold, they were very, very clear with me and with the community that that did not mean that the project would lose funding.

So if it's not gonna be levy funding, we need to find some other dollars to fulfill that commitment.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member.

I am just leaning in, not seeing any additional comments on this one right now.

I think we're good to go ahead.

Thank you.

The next item is S.102A1, which is offered by Council Member Morales with support from Council Member Peterson and Council Member Lewis.

It would add 3.6 million of general funds to SDOT for home zone and Vision Zero implementation projects and add provisos reserving those funds for those projects.

The 3.6 million represents the remainder of the red light camera funding that generally goes to the general fund.

under SMC code, 20% of the red light camera revenues go to the safe schools and safe, excuse me, pedestrian and traffic improvement fund.

And this would represent the remaining 80% of camera resources.

Okay, thank you so much, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Calvin.

So as he said this CBA would bring money back to s dot.

That was diverted to the general fund in 2018. This would fund vision zeros pedestrian spot improvements traffic calming home zones, and would also harmonize with the 20% that the mayor has reserved for safe routes to school and 2023 and 24. And part of the reason we want to do that, I'm gonna share some figures that we heard this summer in the transportation committee.

So in 2018, 61% of people killed by people driving cars were walking, using a mobility device or biking.

71% were hit and killed in districts one, two and five.

63% were in districts two and five areas of the city with more parking spaces than sidewalks hundreds of miles more for car infrastructure than safe infrastructure for people who can't drive.

And in 2021 as i've said before 56% of all traffic fatalities occurred in the streets of South Seattle.

93% of people who were non-drivers killed by people driving lost their lives on multi-lane arterials.

In addition to that, just since Saturday, three people who were not driving were hit by people driving cars in South Seattle, including two people just this morning who were killed in Georgetown.

At least one of these was a hit and run.

So all of these are situations that could have been avoided if we were investing in safety infrastructure, if we were investing in sidewalks, hardened center lines, traffic circles, crosswalks, speed bumps, chicanes.

The fact that we haven't done this, that all those people died on streets designed by the city over the last five generations, That's a policy choice.

And we can make a different choice by investing in safe infrastructure.

By providing ongoing funding for home zones, we can move the program from its multi-year pilot status to a full-fledged program in the city.

This will bring more of the low cost, high reward traffic calming options to the city.

For the cost of one sidewalk block, we could fund five square blocks of home zones with this program.

And with the funding proposed, we could do that several times a year across the city in places that are lacking proper infrastructure.

The idea with this amendment is that we make decisions about where those five blocks a year would be funded based on the data of which areas need it the most.

So for now, that would be the first round of emphasis would be in district two in 2023 and 24. until the share of fatalities in the south end is on par with the rest of the city.

Following that, the idea would be that funds would be appropriated to the next area of greatest need.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks so much Council Member.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, I'm already on here as a sponsor.

But I do just want to indicate that it was a great pleasure to work with Councilmember Morales and for our offices to work together and coordinate on this really important budget action and I underscore the urgency and the necessity of moving forward with these critical investments to really emphasize the attainable progress if there's really dedicated focus and allocation of resource and follow through on this really essential infrastructure.

I rode a bike into work today.

There were several parts of my route that were unprotected and that exposed me to potential vulnerability.

And we really need to make sure, especially as we're getting, as we're being reminded of weather that tends to be wetter and darker in Seattle, roadways that are defined primarily for single vehicle traffic, pose a hazard to people using other modes that has to be and can be fixed.

So very proud to support this and looking forward to building on this progress and reaching Vision Zero.

Thank you.

And thanks for your co-sponsorship on that.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I too am interested and would like to add my name as a co-sponsor.

I do have a question about the current state of the requirement to dedicate automated camera enforcement revenue to infrastructure that makes the infrastructure that makes walking and biking more safe.

I remember there was over a period of time and effort to scale up that commitment.

I think it started out, it's 10%, we increased it to 20%.

People's acceptance of automated traffic enforcement increases exponentially when they see that the funds gathered through automated traffic enforcement are actually invested in this kind of infrastructure that benefits people who walk in areas that are less safe and bike in areas that are less safe.

So I'm just interested to know, is the proposed budget in compliance with the dedication requirement?

And would it be helpful for purposes of identifying a fund source for this to increase that percentage from 20% to some other number?

The proposed budget does comply with the current SMC code, which is 20% going to SDOT for these purposes, not for these purposes, but for the school safety purposes.

Certainly, you could consider changing that.

You have the authority to decide what that should be.

the proposed budget does assume that those resources are supporting the general fund in general, so it would have a balancing effect on the general fund.

Council Member, did you have a follow up on that Council Member Herbold?

You're on mute.

Sure.

I mean, I totally understand that if we earmark more of these camera enforcement dollars towards this infrastructure, that it will have an impact on other general fund supported functions of the city.

But to the extent that we want Vision Zero to be a sustainable program.

it might be worth looking for a more sustainable ongoing fund source that is more pegged to meet the need.

I did receive a line of questions from some constituents who are concerned about continued expansion of automated traffic enforcement And it just seems like, again, if we are going to continue to use this as a tool, and we are, I believe, and the state has given us authorization to expand automatic traffic enforcement beyond the block the box, the bus lanes, school zones, and red light cameras, they've given us the authority to expand also to areas that are designated as drag areas and areas that are on parkways.

I just think that it would be good to look at providing some assurances that the funds associated with this automated enforcement are funds that are directly being invested to a percentage larger than 20% in making these communities safer for walking and biking.

Calvin, I see you have your hand up.

Yeah, council members, I just wanted to follow up on that.

There is actually different state authority for the different kinds of cameras.

And so for school zone cameras, 100% of that has to go to support the school safety programs for the block the box.

And so the new authority, half of that has to go to support the state's accessibility fund.

And then half of it has to be used for accessibility funds for us.

So that's also transportation reserved The only state sources for the red light cameras, that's the only one that we have the ability to go into general government.

Very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

I'm not seeing any additional hands on this.

Anything else?

Okay.

So let's keep moving.

And then after this, I'll have an update on timing.

Okay.

The next item is S.103A1.

It is offered by Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales.

This item would deploy, would double the size of the school's own camera program over the next two years.

There are two elements to this, the S.

element, which would fund the program spending.

For that purposes, this CBA would add $1 million in 2024 As a placeholder, as we find out what that actual number will be as the implementation is developed.

And then to implement with the expectation that it will be a much larger number over time.

But then it adds money in 2023, 1 million and 1.7 million in 2024 to the police department to expand the camera programs to actually get the number of cameras out there.

to double that amount since they are the ones who actually contract with the third party vendor for getting the cameras operational and holding those operational costs.

Thank you.

We have Council Member Peterson.

Hello, Chair of Transportation.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Calvin.

Colleagues, this amendment would double the school's own speed enforcement camera program, which is consistent with Vision Zero goals to increase pedestrian safety for school children.

This is just one safety tool, but it is an effective safety tool for several reasons.

It protects vulnerable young people trying to walk safely to and from school, it removes the need for police response in the field, and it ultimately generates net revenues.

which would be added to more Vision Zero programs.

So this plan is to invest the $1 million in 2023 to begin the additional installations and invest more in 2024 to complete the doubling.

The budget action would enable the installation and operation of 35 additional cameras benefiting at least 18 additional school zones across Seattle.

Historically, these speed cameras can raise an average of 300,000 each in gross revenue.

which greatly exceeds the cost to install each camera.

Colleagues, there are approximately 103 physical locations for Seattle Public Schools, which means that currently 80% of the schools do not benefit from school zone speed enforcement camera protections.

This amendment is an efficient way to keep school children safe, and as we expect future budget gaps, it can raise additional revenue that we can reinvest in school safety traffic improvements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to this item.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Lewis adding his name as a sponsor to 103. I just want to make sure for the record Councilmember Herbold had asked to be added to 102 previously and I don't think I reiterated that as I usually do.

It's just for the purposes of the clerks if we could get Councilmember Herbold added to S.102 and then Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Lewis adding to 103. Councilmember Herbold?

Thank you.

I just want to flag a few questions that I'm hoping we can work on answering as this proposal moves forward.

I want to make sure that the percentage of cameras that are placed in communities of color are, there's an analysis, I should say, of where cameras are placed.

so that we make sure that we have an equitable balance across the city.

I know a lot of what drives that is actual traffic data about collisions and speeding, but I would really appreciate having an analysis of where cameras are located currently.

And then there's also been a request that We determine whether or not there's a way for the initial violations for cameras to be a warning instead of a ticket.

Apparently there's a data point that 95% of Seattle residents don't receive a second ticket at specific camera locations.

after receiving the first, so their behavior is changed at that particular location.

So I believe that we should look to see whether or not it's possible to change people's behavior with a warning.

And then just flagging whether or not there is ability for Seattle Municipal Court to do mitigation of these tickets.

just like they do with other tickets as well.

Thanks.

How did you have any thoughts about that?

Any, any indication of that there's currently a warning policy or reduce fine for the first violation?

I think I'll have to do a little more research into how the court engages in these issues and get back to you.

I think there may be ways to direct more of how the deployment of this program goes forward.

Any deployment of cameras would generally be timed to the opening of the new school year.

So there would be some time to, the departments would need some time to already develop their program anyway.

I think that would be helpful.

Just to get a little bit more information.

I had similarly had questions about from, you know, equity lens perspective.

They are relatively high.

We also want people to slow down and not injure any kiddos or that we deter, you know, fast drivers in that area.

But I think it's high for a reason, right?

Because there's lives at stake.

And so I like the idea of looking into the equity information a little bit more, but applying these across the city in an equitable way as well to bring in more revenue and slow people down across our neighbors, neighborhoods.

Calvin, you had something you were add?

Yeah, I just wanted to highlight that really the point of all these programs is for them to put themselves out of business.

You know, the goal is to get people to stop behaving poorly in these areas so that we don't have to deploy the cameras.

I just want to highlight that.

Yeah, and if there's equitable placement, obviously more just from a racial justice perspective in terms of less likelihood for bias for individuals pulling people over, but they need to be placed across our city and not just in certain neighborhoods.

Council Member Herbold, did you have a follow up to that?

No?

Okay, well, left over hand.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, please.

Excellent.

Well, I'm going to show all of our interest in this and add my name as a co-sponsor too.

Look forward to getting the answers to those questions, Cal, to round out this discussion.

Anything else, Council Member Peterson?

No, thank you, Chair.

Okay, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Nelson adding her name as a co-sponsor, Council Member Lewis adding her name, and Council Member Mosqueda as well.

Okay, we're moving on.

Okay, so here's my announcement.

We have 15 more amendments.

We have an hour and 10 minutes, so about four minutes, three to four minutes, an amendment.

I'm gonna start keeping a little timer on my end to try to keep us moving, but there still should be plenty of time for discussion and questions as well.

All right, Cal.

The next item is S.104A1 from Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Lewis.

It would add $9.7 million ongoing to S.

for bridge maintenance programs.

Yeah, let's go.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, the purpose of this amendment is to keep Seattle safe and connected by ensuring we are funding the bare minimum of the auditor's recommendation for annual maintenance of our multimodal bridges.

As we know from that disturbing bridge audit we obtained in 2020, our city auditor recommends investing a range of $34 million to $102 million annually for maintenance of Seattle's aging bridges.

Therefore, this amendment proposes $9.7 million to lift our investments up to that minimum amount of $34 million.

In the wake of the hard lessons learned from the two and a half year closure of the West Seattle Bridge, the disturbing revelations of the bridge audit, the periodic malfunctioning of other multimodal bridges, and SDOT's decision to decline the 100 million in bond funding that we had authorized in 2021, it's disappointing that bridges were not better funded in the proposed budget.

So it's up to us to do better.

And this amendment can accomplish what's expected from residents, businesses, and workers to keep Seattle's aging bridges open and safe to keep our communities connected and our economy moving.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Oh, is that a leftover hand?

Okay.

Leftover hand.

No problem.

Council Member Peterson, thank you for your constant focus on these issues.

I'm not seeing any additional people signed up for comments.

We can move on.

Next item is SDOT 105A1 also from Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Sawant and Council Member Juarez.

This item would add $3.6 million to SDOT to fund all 17 of the neighborhood large projects under consideration with the Move Seattle Oversight Committee currently.

Please go ahead Council Member Peterson.

Thank you chairman skater colleagues.

As you know, the neighborhood street fund enables communities to propose pedestrian and bike safety projects that are then implemented by our Seattle Department of Transportation.

The Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee has only enough funding to build approximately nine of the 17 qualified projects put forward recently by communities throughout Seattle.

The list is provided on page two of the amendment.

Several of these projects enable children to get to school safely.

There are also sidewalk improvements, new crosswalks, new pedestrian signals.

So while the total cost of all projects is about $7.6 million, There's only 4 million available from the move Seattle levy.

That's why we have this amendment to invest an additional 3.6 to complete all of these important community driven projects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you customer Peterson.

I believe Council President may have something on this yes please go ahead.

I will be brief, because that's what we're supposed to do.

I have, I just want to say this.

First of all, thank you, Councilor Peterson.

We've been working on trying to get these projects funded for safe streets, the neighborhood, and more importantly, we have had Northgate Elementary, Hazel Wolf, Jane Adams, Nathan Hale at Ingraham High School have all been part of the 17 project, none of them being funded.

Again, our priority has always been around community centers, light rails, bus stations, schools, facilities where our elders live.

And so I wanna thank Councilor Peterson for again, picking up the, what's the word?

I can't think of it.

I'm getting tired, you know, whatever.

Thank you because I'm tired of talking about this.

This has been going on for so long.

So thank you.

Thumbs up at that one.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any additional comments?

Wonderful.

Oh, thank you.

Let's go ahead and move on then.

Next item is SDOT 106A1 also from Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Lewis.

It would add a new CIP project in SDOT for the Northeast 45th Street Bridge I-5 Crossing Improvement Project and add 1.5 million for that project.

Wonderful, thank you so much.

Let's go to Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chairman Mosqueda.

Colleagues, this Northeast 45th Street I-5 overpass pedestrian safety project is an overdue Vision Zero project that, if implemented, can improve safety of both pedestrians and cyclists.

The 45th Street I-5 overpass is a treacherous segment with narrow sidewalks, very low barriers to the I-5 lanes below.

The plan is to install safety fencing on all four edges that's decorative, illuminated, improved safety for both pedestrians and cyclists who frequently use those sidewalks.

These improvements were promised as part of the 2015 move Seattle levy but not completed.

The council had the foresight to fund the design work as part of the 2022 budget.

Thank you very much for doing that.

with wash.ns.

on this in terms of design and costing out what could be done.

So today's budget amendment would finally implement it.

Colleagues, this is a first last mile connection to the new light rail station.

It connects an urban center to an urban village.

It's supported by pedestrian and bike advocates.

I encourage your support to get it done.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you chair Thank you Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward this project is outside of district six and is the last or first mile connection to district six residents to the light rail since we don't have light rail on the west side of Seattle, and it'll take a long time to get it.

This station serves as the closest station to many district six residents.

And as you'll hear later, I received many Vision Zero requests.

This has been one that I've received many times over.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson, for bringing this forward.

Let's get her done.

Thank you so much.

Any additional comments?

Seeing none, let's keep moving on.

Good afternoon.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

And with Council Central staff, I'll cover the next agenda item, which is S.107A1, sponsored by Council Member Lewis, along with co-sponsors, Council Member Strauss and Council Member Morales.

I would like to point out that there's a misprint on the amendment she published to the agenda.

So it's listing Council Member Peterson as the co-sponsor instead of Council Member Strauss, and we will correct that for future discussions.

Okay, thank you.

So this council budget action would add $2.5 million of transportation fund to SDOT to complete the Thomas Street redesigned CIP project.

This project was indefinitely paused in the 2023-2024 proposed budget and SDOT estimates a $2.5 million funding gap to complete the project as originally envisioned.

Thank you so much.

Let's turn it over to Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So here we are again to talk about the Thomas Street project.

I think my office has supported reinserting Thomas Street as a project every year that I've served on the council.

And I do want to thank Council Member Strauss, not just for his co-sponsorship of this item, but for his work in the office of Council Member Bagshaw and my predecessor, Council Member Bagshaw, for her work Prior to my my service and really bringing this project together and getting it in the budget in the first place.

You know, a big coalition has come together in the last few days, and colleagues should have received a letter signed by Seattle Center Foundation, Parks Foundation, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, Climate Pledge Arena, among other signatories, and I won't go through the whole list.

And I appreciate the urbanist distributing a signatory of the letter and also distributing some kind words on this project.

over the last couple of days and writing about it.

This project is really essential to stitch together the South Lake Union neighborhood with a multimodal street that allows connection to the increasingly activated Seattle Center Campus and Climate Pledge Arena.

A significant number of the people attending programs at the new Climate Pledge are accessing the Seattle Center Campus.

via Thomas Street, and that is only expected to expand and grow.

We have a unique opportunity for placemaking and to really have a centerpiece of the South Lake Union neighborhood be a place that emphasizes different modes of travel, a space that can be programmed for community festivals, a place that seeds, you know, a space previously reserved only for single occupancy vehicles to spaces that can be reclaimed by the community.

This is a really important investment and I really appreciate the community that's come together and reached out to the council to support this and look forward to continuing to discuss this over the course of the budget and do hope to see it included in the ultimate final package that we put together as a council.

Thank you so much.

Any additional comments?

Seeing none, let's keep moving.

Chair Mosqueda, if I might before we, before Eden describes S.108, I wanted to acknowledge that there was a staff error on this amendment and we put it together not accurately reflecting the sponsor's intent due to a miscommunication.

And so for discussion today, we have revised the title and summary only to describe the ad.

The offsetting reduction that was described in the amendment wasn't the sponsor's intent.

wanted to acknowledge that there was an error in the amendment sheet.

We'll update it later and this is more accurately reflecting Council Member Morales' intent and I will turn it over to Edwin to describe the ad.

Thank you Deputy Director Ali.

So the next agenda item is S.108A1.

It's sponsored by Council Member Morales with Council Members Strauss and Lewis as co-sponsors.

This Council budget action would add $300,000 of transportation funding to SDOT's Bike Master Plan, protected bike lanes, specifically for the replacement of plastic bollards with concrete barriers on currently protected bike lanes in Council District 2. And this Council budget action also imposes a proviso on the total cost estimates for this project, which is $1.3 million.

Let's go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Thank you, Edwin.

And thank you, Director Panucci.

So as Edwin just said, this CBA would proviso the $1.3 million at SDOT.

It would allow us to upgrade the 4.6 miles of buffered bike lanes that we have in South Seattle.

from the paint and plastic post to concrete barriers, known colloquially as Toronto barriers.

I spoke in the last CBA about why this is so important.

We have over half of traffic fatalities in South Seattle.

These, what we have right now are these paint buffers and plastic posts as bike lanes.

This is the highest standard of infrastructure that we have in South Seattle.

These don't actually offer any protection, as anybody who's seen them driven over these plastic bollards knows.

In fact, this design standard is what's really been used as temporary lanes in Cities across the globe, they were used for temporary bike lanes during COVID.

All these cities, Mexico, New York, Paris, Montreal, are all replacing that temporary infrastructure with permanent, safe, concrete protection.

We do have that kind of protection bike lane in Seattle, in places like Green Lake, and the U district and uptown.

So this amendment would offer the same protection to folks in the south end, which is especially important as critical safety projects for the south end, keep getting delayed by a stock.

witnessed the recent announcement to again delay construction of the bike path in Beacon Hill in favor of a third study of that project.

So we distributed a memo last night.

Colleagues saw the kinds of upgrades that we're talking about that can increase safety for non-drivers.

It's been documented by the National Association of City Traffic Officials.

And would make a positive climate impact as Portland State University noted in their study showing that on average 60% of drivers would switch out of at least some car trips for biking, if they had safe infrastructure available to them.

So this is not just good for road maintenance and for overall road budgets, knowing that bikes cause less damage on roads than cars.

It also helps reduce our CO2 emissions.

It decreases the likelihood of dangerous vehicle collisions.

It increases overall community health.

And importantly, it gives the one in three non-drivers in our community a safe place to move around the city.

And that is what I have.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Did you say that half of all of the deaths related to pedestrian and bike accidents are in the South End, in D2?

In 2021, 56% were in the South End.

Wow.

Okay.

Thank you for lifting that up.

Cal, anything else on that statistic or anything else on the amendment?

Nothing to add.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

Let's keep moving.

Good afternoon.

This is Eric McConaghy on the Council of Central Staff.

This next item is SDOT 301A1.

It's a statement of legislative intent.

It would request that SDOT provide recommendations to improve coordination on constituent issue reporting and response.

The primary sponsor for this slide is Council Member Strauss.

And the additional sponsors are the Council President Juarez and Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Eric.

I meet with District 6 residents every week as part of office hours and hold regular town hall events.

like I did last week.

Many people during office hours and these events come up to me with Vision Zero requests from crosswalks to sidewalks, to stop signs, to traffic circles.

I can tell you, 2nd and Bowdoin, 3rd Avenue at 76, 73rd, 72nd, 43rd.

These are just the ones that are off the top of my head.

8th and Market, I mean, 58th at 32nd, at 20th, At 15th, I mean, almost every time I host office hours, there's somebody with a Vision Zero request.

And so I would like formal, formal direction from the department on how to relay these requests in a way that addresses these concerns.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member.

Any additional comments?

Okay, thank you.

Let's keep going.

Council members, Cato Freeman, Council Central staff.

The next budget action is S.302A1.

This requests a report from SDOT on the estimated cost of manufacturing and selling historic street name signs.

The work would be done in coordination with the city archivist.

Both entities would identify the historic street names for those Seattle neighborhoods that were once separately incorporated municipalities like Old Ballard, Georgetown, and Leschi.

and estimate the cost of providing brown and green street signs such as one might see in the International District for those formerly incorporated areas.

A report would be to the Transportation Seattle Utilities, Seattle Public Utilities Committee by mid-summer.

Sponsored by Council Member Strauss and co-sponsored by Council Member Morales and Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I mean, Ballard was the second largest city in King County and seventh largest city in Washington State until 1907 when that dead horse showed up in our reservoir.

We had our own street names.

I'm currently at my district office next to the Ballard Library at the Customer Service Center.

Right now, the street sign says 56th and 22nd Avenue Northwest.

Before 1907, this was State Street and 3rd Avenue.

Other jurisdictions within our city that were annexed in 1907 were Bryant, Leschi, West Seattle, and Georgetown.

And so this request is, I know we've got online maps, we've got historical maps about Ballard, I don't necessarily know for these other former cities.

And I think it would be interesting to know how much would it cost to replace these street signs that identify what the former streets were right now we've got tiles on some corners in Ballard of what the former street names were, but it's not consistent through all streets and so.

So as I'm not just representing Ballard in my district, I did make the request for other cities that were annexed.

We'd love to know what the figure is, because if it's a reasonable amount of money, I think it would be a great way to add vibrancy to our city's history.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you so much.

Any additional comments on that?

Thank you for sharing that history.

All right, let's keep going.

Item S.303A1 is offered by Council Member Lewis with support from Council Member Morales and Council Member Peterson.

It is a statement of legislative intent requesting a report from SDOT on parking rate policy.

There are two questions to be addressed.

One is specifically the standards and performance goals that the city has in code and to sort of review those and make any recommendations to make changes to those policies, which have been largely unchanged since 2010. And then the second element would be to look at the state authorizing legislation and to see if there are any potential policy updates that that the city could pursue in Olympia.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair, one of the things that I looked at over the course of this budget cycle was the potential of pursuing a revenue source that the city of Portland uses where there is a small surcharge on parking that I believe they call a climate fee.

to capture the impact of driving and parking on global climate and use that money for alternative investments in transportation.

Investments of that sort may be preempted by overly restrictive state language on how we can essentially charge for parking and how that money can be distributed.

So this is an opportunity to queue up a policy discussion that looks at what is purely within our power to regulate on-street parking and where we could get some more flexibility from the state to diversify that tool of essentially leasing our public right-of-way space for people to temporarily store their private vehicles and reinvest that money into some of the transportation priorities we've been talking about for most of the afternoon that are desperately under-resourced and need more support.

So that is, what we're trying to do here and I'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any additional hands council member.

Thank you for the example from Portland.

Let's keep going.

The next item is S.502B1.

This item would make amendments to some proposed budget legislation related to Seattle Transit measures spending categories.

The proposed budget has a proposal to increase the annual spending limit for transit capital from 3 million to 6 million.

This proposed budget action here would increase that by a further 3.5 million and make a change within the budget to divert an additional 3.5 million from Seattle Transit Measure funding to transit capital projects.

It's offered by Councilmember Peterson with support from Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Nelson.

Thanks.

Councilmember Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, thanks to a new state law, Seattle residents 18 and under are eligible for free youth passes or for youth fares when riding transit including buses, which means our Seattle transit measure also known as STP D, no longer needs to provide approximately 3.5 million annually.

Due to the increased needs for transit related capital improvements a lot of what's been discussed today.

This budget action would allow us to use at least temporarily that annual savings to fund the numerous transit related capital projects we are eager to fund.

This additional flexibility would be just an up to amount, but at least we will have the authority in hand.

As we know, transit-related capital projects improve safety as well as reliability and speed for public mass transit, particularly for buses.

This in turn makes the operation of the buses more efficient and can attract more transit riders.

In the face of budget gaps this year and next, this will provide important flexibility for our increased capital needs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Additional comments on this one?

I just had a quick question on this, Council Member Peterson, and of course, central staff, if you want to answer as well.

Do we have projects identified for the funds that are proposed to be transferred to the Transportation Improvement SIP through the CBA?

No.

And that is so that you can work out with your balancing package.

This is basically a source of funds that you could use for the balancing package.

Thank you.

Calvin?

So I do have some better detail into what's behind the proposed spending in the executive's budget that I'll be happy to share with you as you're considering putting together your budget package.

OK.

That sounds good.

But thank you.

Thanks for identifying resources.

Anything else?

Let's keep going.

Next item is S.504A.

This item passes new legislation to impose a micromobility company tax of 0.25, well, 25 cents per ride within the city of Seattle.

It would also add 540,000 to FAS to make the necessary systems improvements to begin collecting the tax.

This is offered by Council Member Lewis with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So this is another transportation proposal that comes from Portland, Oregon.

When they adopted their micromobility policies in 2018, one of the policies they attached was a 25 cent per use tax on folks who are using the micromobility platforms to create a dedicated fund for the expansion, maintenance, and protection of bike infrastructure.

The proposal as indicated, I don't know if Calvin indicated what the projection would raise, but estimated to be about $716,000 per year based on the most recent estimates.

I think that we can all fully expect that that number is only going to grow as these micro mobility platforms become more popular and more widespread in the city of Seattle.

There was a good sightline piece for council members who are interested discussing the merits of this approach from July 11, 2018 by Michael Anderson.

I'm indicating that the investment creating a dedicated and fully on source for this kind of infrastructure could create an organic relationship between the viability of these modes of transit and their safety and how probably they're adopted.

I I don't know if it's included in the language of the amendment here on terms of the average cost, and Calvin can maybe correct me, but I think the average trip for one of these scooter rides right now runs about $6 in the aggregate cost.

So this would essentially add 25 cents to that.

My personal line bike trip to work today, I think ran $9.25.

So it would be $9.50 under this policy.

So with that, I will turn it back over to the chair, but I do think it's important as we look at how we're funding some of these transportation priorities to look at some of the activity that's happening in the city and ways we can broaden our base to contribute to funding a lot of this necessary infrastructure in an ongoing, sustained way.

And I think this proposal goes towards that.

councilmember lewis.

Thank you so much.

I just wanted to add that councilmember lewis' proposed legislation does specify the specific uses of the tax proceeds to do the administrative costs as well as the programs he has described and that it would include a, it would forego the tax for rides that are

Just a quick question for the sponsor.

Have you already done sort of a stakeholder assessment on what some of the mobility advocates who really want to promote this type of alternative to a car, if they have any feedback for us yet?

I've consulted with like Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and some of the other organizations we've been doing stakeholdering on, on Thomas Street, for example, but haven't really received a firm response.

But, you know, happy to continue having these discussions as we put a budget together.

Because obviously, we do simultaneously have a very long list of demands.

for increasing infrastructure that this tax aims to develop and reconciling those things.

I mean, I would personally rather have this funding source and have some more of those projects over time, but it's a trade-off that we can discuss as we reconcile our programmatic ambitions with our revenue.

And just one more quick question for Calvin before I turn it over to the other hand, is there any additional data from other cities on a similar, does that what you mentioned that do we have that data on similarly situated cities that have increased the amount and whether or not that affects ridership.

I don't have anything that one of the difficulties with trying to project micromobility is we really only have the reporting that's been done recently.

We've seen a lot of fluctuation in the use.

And definitely, the pandemic has changed how the companies have deployed.

So we do get some information from SDOT about what those deployments look like, which include what the average cost looks like.

But it's a little bit removed.

It's not a direct response to us.

It's not the most complete data.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, I see a few hands.

Just before I go to Council Member Sawant, Council Member Lewis, did you have a response to that?

Yeah, I would just indicate, I mean, if you go to LIME's website, for example, it indicates that there's been 2 million individual trips in the city of Portland since 2018. I don't know how outdated that is, but I mean, these micro mobility platforms are still very viable platforms in the city of Portland for whatever that is worth and assessing whether it's had an impact.

The other thing I would indicate is that, you know, A lot of these platforms have equity or other kinds of programs that people can enter into.

And the way that this legislation is written, it envisions exempting those trips.

So there is a way to build equity into the pricing, into a tax like this by essentially excluding the trips that are taken by people who have accounts.

who have been accepted into subsidized or equity programs by the platform.

So there is a way to build equity into the tax, which is an important thing to point out.

Okay, thanks.

Council Member Sawant.

I do not support this budget amendment creating this new tax.

The proposed tax has a similar structure to a sales tax in that it is a tax on each transaction.

The customer pays like sales taxes, because it is a tax on each transaction.

It is virtually inevitable that the companies will pass this tax directly onto working people.

Sales taxes are notoriously regressive with poor and working class people paying a much higher percentage of their income on the taxes than the wealthy.

And I believe this will be the same.

I mean, I don't see how it's different.

In some cases, I have supported even regressive taxes if they fund essential services.

So each time I have made a point to say that elected officials need to bring progressive revenues because in our city and in our state, we badly need taxes on the rich, not on working and poor people.

However, in this case, the central staff analysis says that it will be raised $716,000 per year.

for the first year would be $540,000.

So in the first year, 75% of the revenue from the tax would be used to administer its own collection.

Hopefully that would be a better margin in the future years.

However, on balance, this is an incredibly weak and regressive way to raise tax revenue.

It is striking, though not surprising, that Democrats on the council are just not willing to, they just don't have the political will or the courage to bring forward something like developer impact fees.

It is also striking that this regressive tax, raising very little money, has required three council sponsors and co-sponsors, but not one other council member has been willing so far to co-sponsor the budget amendment to increase the big business tax rate of the Amazon tax, which is a very progressive tax.

It's not a deeply regressive tax like the sales tax, and sales taxes are as bad as they come in terms of regressive taxes.

But increases in the Amazon tax can also raise sufficient funds to reverse all the austerity in the mayor's proposed budget.

This contrast shows where the Democratic Party elected officials really stand and how much political power big business has in city hall to avoid paying even their beginning of their fair share of taxes.

All right, we're gonna move on.

Are there any additional comments on this one?

Okay.

Thanks so much.

Let's keep going.

All right.

Good afternoon, Lishwitson Council Central staff.

S.505-181 is the last transportation action in front of you today.

It's sponsored by Council Member Peterson with Council Member Straus and Lewis.

This council budget action would adopt legislation to increase the vehicle license fee by $10 from $40 to $50 per vehicle.

$50 is the maximum amount the city may charge in vehicle license fees under state law.

And the end of this year is the first time the city acting as the Seattle Transportation Benefit District is authorized to impose a $50 fee

Thank you.

I'm going to turn back.

Oh, so sorry.

We're not done.

There's a lot more to this.

Sorry.

A lot more.

We're here for it.

In 2023, the increased fee is estimated to bring in $2 million for transportation purposes.

And in 2024 and ongoing, it's estimated to raise $4 million a year.

The proposed action would allocate $1.5 million of 2023 funds to pedestrian improvements on the Northeast 45th Street I-5 overpass, this council budget action doesn't allocate those funds to a CIP project.

That will need to be done to allow the improvements to be built, which shouldn't be much trouble.

You saw earlier this afternoon, S.106A1, which creates that CIP project.

The remainder of the funding in 2023, approximately $460,000 would be allocated to bridge maintenance projects.

Starting in 2024, the funds would be split intimately between bridge maintenance and pedestrian safety.

and the council budget action includes provisos ensuring that the funds that are allocated in 2023 are used for their intended purpose.

All right, thank you, Lish.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and a nod to my brave co-sponsors, Councilor Strauss and Lewis.

Colleagues, as we confront tough decisions in the coming weeks due to budget constraints, wanted to offer up an additional source of revenue for transportation safety projects.

This amendment proposes to increase the vehicle license fee by $10, which would raise an additional $4 million per year.

Because it starts in the middle of the year, it would raise just $2 million in 2023. And what I wanted to do with that $2 million is have it go to some projects that we talked about earlier.

I know we're not really identifying sources of funds for a lot of these projects that we're putting forward, but I wanted to do that with a couple of these.

So in 2023, $1.5 million would go to that 45th Street project.

So therefore, it could be fully funded.

the remaining portion for bridge maintenance, but then going forward is when it would really open up.

So you've got $2 million a year for Vision Zero safety projects and $2 million a year for multimodal bridge maintenance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council members, are there any questions on this one?

I see a few hands, but I can't tell if Council Member Lewis's hand is an old one.

Old hand.

Old hand.

Okay, Council Member Sawant, you are up.

Just like in the previous agenda item, I do not support this proposal to increase regressive taxes that disproportionately impact poor and working class people.

The vehicle license fee, also known as CARTAF, is one of the most regressive taxes in Washington State.

In fact, Working class people are so outraged by it that the right wing has been able to demagogically use that outrage and repeated attempts to defund transportation at the state level.

It's just stunning.

This keeps coming back from the Democrats and I absolutely oppose it.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask central staff the current breakdown for the VLF spend plan?

Is that too broad of a question?

Should I follow up with you?

Yeah, we can get you that information.

It is spread across various CIP projects.

Excellent, thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

This may be in a time-limited program, but wasn't there a VLF rebate program for income-eligible people?

I see Cal's hand, please go ahead, Cal.

So it's a little bit complicated because under the Transportation Benefit Authority, we have historically used VLF for the previous transit measure, and that measure included a rebate program for VLF.

There is not currently one for the standard VLF fee, if you will.

Thank you.

Any additional comments, Council Member Wilma?

No.

OK.

All right, great.

Well, I look forward to getting additional information from central staff, and I know that that will be shared with the floor.

And I appreciate as well any efforts right now to look at revenue.

Really appreciate the collective thinking across the council on different strategies there.

So thank you for bringing those forward.

Let's go ahead.

I think there was one walk on here.

All right, should we get Greg Doss back for this one?

Is that what's happening?

No, you're getting in here for the next one, okay.

Calvin, thanks for rounding us out on this one.

S.walkon1 is offered by Council Member Strauss.

It is related actually to the 2022 budget.

It would redirect 100,000 of REIT funds from parks to S.

for water service on the Leary Triangle.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

The future work of this will be wrapped up into that brewery district request that I had a couple minutes ago.

We started with the Leary Triangle It's a corner it's a triangular piece of s dot property that looks like a park.

It has been rehabilitated this year, the water meter has been reinstated there was a strong desire to have a dog park there and then, once we get that work done we're going to look at closing ninth avenue.

between Leary Way and 47th, I believe it is.

And so as we were doing this work, the Parks Department was not the right department.

We thought we were going to start rolling with the dog park straight out the gate last year.

That work is slowed down.

We're gonna get to it shortly.

I've heard positive remarks from the parks department about the dog park.

All of that said, SDOT's done the work.

We're hoping to be able to transfer this money over to SDOT so they can finish the work and then we can address the dog park as soon as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Comments, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you.

If we're taking co-sponsors for this, I'd be happy to co-sponsor it.

Oh, thanks.

Sounds like that is welcomed.

Council Member Peterson, Council Member Peterson, co-sponsoring walk-on one SDOT from Council Member Strauss.

All right, I'm not seeing anything else on the SDOT agenda, so let's thank our team from Central Staff for all of the work on that last item, and we're gonna get done on time today.

We have, I believe, two amendments that have been filed, and I think a walk-on for this section.

So we're gonna make it.

Welcome back, Greg Doss.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Happy to close this out today and end all your trouble.

I'm going to start out today with SPD-301A1, and this is a slide that would request that SPD report on police staffing, overtime finances, and performance metrics.

This slide is a continuation of a slide that the council has had over the last few years.

It is brought to you by Council Member Herbold and co-sponsored by Council Member Lewis and Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thanks.

Not much to add.

Again, this continues the council's oversight of the police department budget.

This information is very useful for committee briefings and is often found on the agenda of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

The requested reports are by February 24th for end of year data and April 24th and July 24th quarterly reports in 2023. Um, what's new here is, um, a request for an update on something called the work schedule and timekeeping project.

Um, this is, um, a project that SPD has been working on, I think since like 2016, um, to, uh, comply with the overtime and off duty work management recommendations, uh, made.

In the city of Seattle, 2016 police department overtime controls audit.

Um, and I'm just, uh, feeling with those.

There are many, um, many recommendations of the city auditor, um, from, from 2016 that are identified as in progress and SPD has identified the work schedule and timekeeping project as the thing that will help them, uh, come to, uh, to fully, uh, address the audit findings.

Um, and so just wanting to make sure that we get on track or get back on track with that work with these reports.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any additional comments on this?

I don't see any.

We're going to keep plugging away and getting that info, huh?

Let's go to the next one.

All right, so SPD 302 A1 is a request that SPD report on stage two of the risk management demand project.

This is brought to you by again by Councilmember Herbold and co-sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Peterson.

This slide would request that the Seattle Police Department provide a report on stage two of the RMD project, which would provide a briefing on the call classifier technology.

This is a real time call triaging solution that would allow for a classification of the severity of risk of any given call based on the historical data of the emergency calls associated outcomes.

And it would then tie in with the RMD classifications that you heard in the September 27, 2022 committee meeting, and it would build on itself using machine learning to recommend the type of appropriate non-sworn response or a co-response.

This particular slide would request that the department report back on whether it is planning to request external experts and or the public would review its call classifications that were presented to the committee on September 27th as determined either by the R&D analysis algorithm or by staff when they overrode the algorithm.

And then also to go over the project in general, the go live date, the milestones that would be necessary to reach to put this into place at the CSCC.

And then also once it starts gathering data on call outcomes, how that's affecting the deployment of alternative response.

And then finally, how that would affect our ability to predict staffing for deployment of alternative response.

The first report I will point out is due on January 31st, and that is just to keep a tight timeline going with the RMD reporting process.

This was one that has been going on for a while, and the last report was August.

So this is just following up on the last one to make sure that the council stays informed of progress on a regular basis.

And that's all I had to brief.

Thank you so much.

I'm not seeing any, any, oh, I'm sorry.

I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Herbold, please, first.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

I don't have too much to add.

This follows up on last year's statement of legislative intent, following up after the Nick Jr. report on 911 call analysis.

That report only analyzed how 911 calls were originally reported and what the call types were, not the call types, how they were originally identified.

But the RMD report is the next iteration of that call analysis.

includes how the 911 calls resolved.

As I mentioned earlier today, I think the headline really here is that there's a lot of alignment between the RMD report that looks both at how calls are classified at the beginning and the end, as well alignment between that report and the earlier Nick Jr. report that only looked at how calls were originally classified.

So 24% of calls are identified as Tier 4 calls.

That's 87 different call types.

And Tier 3 calls are about 49 different call types.

And that's another almost 14% of responses.

So the police department themselves are saying that among these call types, up to, let's see here, nearly 38% might be able to be diverted.

So again, I think the headline here with the RMD analysis thus far is that it actually supports much of what we heard from Nick Jr.

One of the things I wanna lift up is that the tier three Um, calls in the earlier analysis, um, acknowledges that there, um, what, what they're calling is a tiered response model.

Um, the, the tier three calls, um, even though we might be talking about a co response, um, SPD is acknowledging, and I quote, um, that the response ecosystem, police and fire would be aware that an alternate response was in progress and may stage nearby able to rapidly intervene.

but would not be in attendance.

So I know a lot of folks are concerned that the work that we're doing around developing a co-response still would result in police officers being deployed with the co-responder, and that is not necessarily the direction that we're moving in.

just want to kind of give that as context for why I am actually very optimistic about this work moving forward.

It is the comprehensive look at 911 calls that is distinct from the pilot that we're moving forward on in a more near-term fashion.

But this comprehensive look at all 911 calls will eventually result in deployment to more alternatives.

So I'm excited about doing this work and appreciate that central staff worked on identifying these items for the slide directly with SPD, both on the timeline and on the items to report out on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Are there any additional comments on that?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I think we have one walk-on.

That is correct.

The last one that you will hear today the is SPD walk on one, and it is brought to you by Councilmember so want.

This would reduce proposed funding for the gunshot detection system by one million GF 2023 ongoing.

And this would remove $1 million, reduce $1 million from the mayor's proposed budget that would be used for the gunshot detection system for community outreach planning and development of a surveillance impact report.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

As Greg said, this budget amendment would cut from the SPD budget, the $1 million that the mayor has proposed to be used to buy the ShotSpotter company's product.

Overall, the funding of repressive policing that primarily targets poor people and communities of color continues to be an ineffective way

that it's equality, not the scale of policing that has the real statistical impact on safety and crime.

In this case, this amendment would simply cut the funding for Shotspotter because it is such an egregious misuse of money.

Because Shotspotter, according to many peer-reviewed scientific studies, is essentially snake oil.

Peer-reviewed studies have found that Shotspotter does not reduce violent crime or even have a significant impact on arrest outcomes after the fact.

And I'll mention a couple of the journals that have studies on this, but even before that, there's a report from the study of Chicago Office of Inspector General, where we see that after a review of the CPD and Office of Emergency Management Communications data related to shot spotter alerts, the Chicago OIG found that shot spotter rarely leads CPD officers to evidence of a gun crime or to the recovery of a firearm.

The OIG report also identified evidence that shot potter altered police behavior, changing the way officers perceive and interact with individuals present in areas where shot potter alerts are frequent.

And as I said, peer-reviewed journals like the Journal of Experimental Criminology and the Journal of Urban Health have studies that have examined, for example, the Journal of Urban Health has a study that has examined 68 large metropolitan counties and found that shot potter does not have Last but not least, MacArthur Justice Center also did a study in which they found that shots fired creates thousands of dead-end police deployments, but find no evidence of actual gunfire.

And the research from this justice center, which is located at the Northwestern University School of Law, shows how 89% of shots fired on deployments in Chicago turned up no gun-related crime In reality, Shots Fodder is merely, this is me speaking, Shots Fodder is merely a corporation who will profit off the suffering of communities burdened by gun violence, which need real solutions, but this is not going to provide any meaningful service.

And the Shots Fodder Corporation's business model sells their product to cities by donating to the election campaigns of elected officials.

And so I believe this $1 million should go towards a long list of essential human services that have been unfunded or underfunded and will remain underfunded after this budget passes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Council member.

I know you're having audio technical issues today.

We could hear you.

It just sounded a little bit like you were talking into a tin, but I think we all got it.

And a lot of that was a reiteration of some of the comments and the sources and the reports that we talked about the first time that we heard the presentation from the departments as well.

So thanks for lifting up that data.

Similarly, I had planned on addressing this in the chair's balancing package.

given that we don't usually put forward amendments on each of the specific line item cuts, that's why it wasn't put forward by my office.

But since it's out here, I'm going to add my name as a co-sponsor to this as well.

And is there any additional comments on this?

C, I said C.

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

As somebody who in consultation with you, Madam Chair, had offered to put forward a CBA but declined based on I would like to put my name on it.

Okay, thanks so much for bringing this forward and look forward to building on this and other items that we may want to reprioritize within the budget.

Greg, thanks for being our last but not least presenter, and we know that there's much, much more to come.

Um, I wanted to give folks a sense of what to expect as well in the upcoming week and I maybe I'll ask Ali as well to chime in on this.

Since we have 10 minutes left I won't be trying to use all of it but just want to use this as a quick second for our PSA.

Of course, you'll receive our weekly memo on Monday that outlines what to expect in the upcoming week.

You have the central staff meetings, I think, led by Patty and others on central staff that we highly encourage everybody to attend on Mondays and then again on Thursdays to get the latest updates on what to expect in the following week.

So that will all be coming.

But I wanted to specifically call out for you all that there will be This is a forecast council that is projected on Seattle city TV, Seattle channel.

the information that we will all be receiving in real time, both through the legislative and executive branch.

We've set up this process so that everybody receives the information at the same time.

Again, noon on November 2nd.

All indications from the national news to the local news make us all very nervous about this upcoming forecast.

And I think we've spent the last three days talking about ads to a budget.

We are going to probably be in the position of having to make we're going to have to do is square that with the revenue forecast that's coming in on November 2nd.

In addition to that, throughout next week, I know that myself and council central staff, our team will be working to dive into the present, excuse me, the amendments as presented today, get additional information.

And we will be looking to have conversations with you all.

So thank you for being available to central staff as we work to refine some of the possible amendments that you've suggested.

And we are going to do our best to try to make a number of these priorities fit in with the existing revenue and possible new revenue that some of you have suggested.

Thank you to the central staff for the tremendous amount of work that they've done around the clock as usual in our budget season.

So I see Director Handy and Deputy Director Panucci online, and I'll hand it over to you to share any additional updates about what to expect in the upcoming week.

Chairman, I'm happy to outline the week a little bit, but if you want to jump in, defer to you.

You go ahead.

I'm just here to help field anything else.

Great, thank you.

So I don't have a lot to add to what Chair Mosqueda just described.

We will be quickly pivoting to work on creating an initial balance package.

I won't couple you with all the details that goes into that work, but we'll just encourage you all to start revisiting some of the issue ID memos and the attachments and the general fund balancing analysis.

As Chair Mosqueda said, this is going to be a challenging year And as you look at your priorities alongside what is in the mayor's proposed budget, it is likely that you will be having to look for areas you're willing to cut to add some items.

So I'll just encourage you all to revisit some of that work.

And we look forward to working with the chair and with all of you to get some of these key priorities into the final adopted budget.

Thank you, Director Handy.

Yeah, and I'll just add that you know, for our conversation with the public, that balancing package comes out on Monday, November 7th, and we central staff will be in committee briefing on that package, followed by a public hearing on Tuesday, November 8th.

So we will all be back at you with you in a week.

Any questions on process?

Okay.

Central staff, IT, our clerks, security, everybody who is both on the floor or virtually helping to manage these meetings, Seattle Channel, our staff and our offices, thank you all for your thoughtful approach to pulling this all together.

Now we have the wishlists and it's time to see what we can make happen with the news that we receive next week as well.

With that, have a great weekend.

I know I'll be seeing central staff this weekend and you all have a great rest of your evenings.

We got out on time.

I just want to, again, emphasize five minutes before five.

I was so worried we were gonna go over.

Have a wonderful evening.

This meeting is adjourned.

Have a wonderful evening.

Not a meeting.

Thank you.