SPEAKER_07

Good morning.

The Select Budget Committee will come to order.

It is 9.31 a.m.

October 18th, 2024. I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_05

Councilmember Wu.

Present.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

SPEAKER_03

Here.

SPEAKER_05

Councilmember Moore.

Present.

Councilmember Morales.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Saka.

SPEAKER_07

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Six present.

Thank you.

And Council Member Rivera did let us know that she's running a few minutes late and all are excused until they arrive.

With that, colleagues, this does bring up our third day in a row of...

budget committee during the central staff presentation section.

Just for reference, this same procedure will happen when we're doing amendments.

This is the same amount of time that will be on the dais, and so when we do amendments to the chair's package, first we'll have an overview, then we'll vote on amendments that pretty much everyone agrees on, amendments that might not have total agreement, and then amendments that are in contradiction to each other.

So those are the three sets.

But where we are sitting today as far as timeline goes, that'll be the third day.

We're on the third day of central staff presentations.

I just wanted to make that note so that folks know how to spend their energy as we're getting into those long days at the end of the budget session.

Today we, just as an overview, next week we're gonna come back on Monday to receive central staff analysis on the Seattle Police Department's budget, Care Department's budget, Seattle Fire Department's budget, and the City Attorney's budget.

Councilmember Morales and Hollingsworth are also present.

On Tuesday, we will again have the joint select meeting of the Forecast Council and then the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Colleagues, today we are having the review of the participatory budgeting, the Human Services Department, Unified Care Team, and Office of Economic Development.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We're gonna now move into the first items on our business.

Clerk, will you please read the first item into the record?

SPEAKER_06

Agenda item one, participatory budgeting for briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Today we have Tommaso Johnson from Central Staff and Director Ben Noble.

We'll have Director Eder back with us on Monday.

Gentlemen, I'll turn it over to you and I see you're already at the table.

SPEAKER_04

Yes, good morning, Chair, members of the committee.

Tommaso Johnson, Council Central staff, here to talk about participatory budgeting implementation legislation.

By way of brief background, this legislation was transmitted by the mayor in August, I believe, and so part of the reason we're here today talking about this is because it concerns the allocation of funding, though it is a standalone bill outside of the budget process due to both the appropriation nature of the legislation and the timing of the transmittal.

It was not heard prior to budget, so this presentation and the issue paper that you have in your possession is in some sense in lieu of a normal central staff memo if this would have gone through the traditional process for legislation.

SPEAKER_15

I feel like we're not sharing this.

Give me one moment.

My bad.

SPEAKER_04

So as background, the 2021 adopted budget included roughly $28.3 million for participatory budgeting.

The goals of this participatory budgeting project were twofold.

One, to directly invest in black, indigenous, and people of color communities consistent with applicable law.

And two, to increase the ownership and participation of city residents in solutions to the city's pressing needs.

The Seattle Office for Civil Rights administered the PB process overall.

They entered into a $1 million contract with a a consultant, a national leader on these kinds of processes.

And then of that budget, 27.3 was held in reserves and financed general for the eventual implementation of participatory budgeting.

The contractor engaged in the participatory budgeting process in 2022 and 2023. Voting concluded and the results of that vote were published in late 2023. Following that, the Office for Civil Rights, the City Budget Office, and various city departments engaged in an interdepartmental team along with community participation to finalize those project proposals turned the project proposals that were voted on into proposals to be implemented by the city via this legislation.

SPEAKER_07

Tommaso, before we move on, this is a different presentation than all other presentations that we're receiving today.

Colleagues, when we get to November, I believe it's 21st, I don't have the calendar in front of me, when we will vote on the budget.

We're going to be voting on a couple different types of bills.

Some are actually budgeting bills to put the budget funds in certain BSLs for their use, and other bills will be to actually implement that funding to, as you mentioned, Sorry, I just missed the actual word here.

But this is an implementation bill as compared to a budgeting bill.

So the money has already been budgeted.

The money has already been put in the BSLs.

This is just the second step of implementing that funding.

Did I get that correct, Tommaso?

SPEAKER_04

The only thing that that I would add chair is, as you will remember, during the mid year supplemental earlier this year, these funds were included to carry forward in order for them to be spent, expended in allocated to the departments and expended beginning in 2024.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

I'm going to add on that this is helpful.

So last year, these funds were continued to be maintained in the budget.

Because we had not implemented the funding, we had to carry it forward in the supplemental.

Did I get that part correct?

Correct.

Yes.

Fantastic.

With that, any questions on that section, just because that is a different set of presentations than we typically have during central staff?

I see Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Chair.

So yeah, I'm a little confused about that because I have I had conversations with members of the community who are not happy with how the money is being distributed amongst the various, the way it's being set up, and feel that the money should be going more directly to BIPOC communities.

And so it's been a request, I think, to members of the council to reallocate the participatory budgeting money.

And so I'm wanting to know procedurally is that even a possibility to be done or where are we at?

SPEAKER_07

Yeah, if we could hold that question to the end just to get through what has been done and then if we want to make changes to that, we can come back and look at that.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, it's just you were raising the question about this is a done deal and I'm just trying to get clarification on that.

SPEAKER_07

Fair.

I was talking more of just the bureaucracy steps that we have to take.

I don't want to say bureaucratic steps, but just of continuing moving the money forward in our budgets.

We'll come back to that.

SPEAKER_04

Yes, I'm happy to address that procedural options at the end.

Fantastic.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Moving back to you, Tommaso.

SPEAKER_04

Ah, thank you.

So as I mentioned previously, this funding for implementation of participatory budgeting was included in the carry forward that was approved earlier this summer.

The effect of the legislation would be to appropriate a total of 27.3 roughly, exactly 27.25.

in one-time funds to various city departments.

Those departments are the Care Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Department of Neighborhoods, Office of Planning and Community Development, and the Human Services Department.

This slide contains an overview of the six projects to be administered by five departments.

The only thing that I would note here is that various projects include different durations.

So as I talk about the projects, I'm not going to continue to say one time over and over and over again, but these are one-time funds, but as you can see, The scope of the projects, the duration of the projects vary.

And most of them are more than one-year projects.

Though it is a one-time allocation of funds, the projects are set to last for multiple years in most cases.

And the various projects include a mix of operating and capital expenditures.

SPEAKER_07

Tommaso, I know I'm going out of order as per typical.

Apologies, colleagues.

But I want to center in on this.

These different lines, there are different years associated with each project.

We have one-time funds.

Are these time-limited projects?

And when you're going through, I guess the questions that I'm looking to have answered is, are they time-limited projects to these seven years, or five years, or completely ongoing?

Do these one-time funds cover all of those years?

Or...

Are we going to have to come back each year?

So just as we're going through the conversation, that would be helpful information.

SPEAKER_04

Yes.

Yes.

I'm happy to talk about that in a little bit more detail where it's appropriate project by project.

But to answer your question, broadly speaking, the the funds that are in this legislation to be appropriated are intended to cover the full duration of the project, whether that be regardless of the length.

And the only thing I would say there that's POTENTIALLY A CAVEAT IS THE CARE TEAM EXPANSION, BUT OF COURSE EXPANDING THE CARE TEAM BROADER, TO A BROADER SCOPE CITYWIDE, BROADER GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE IS INTENDED TO BE AN ONGOING PROJECT WITHOUT ANY FIXED END POINT AS FAR AS I KNOW.

THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING FUNDS IS INTENDED JUST TO SUPPORT THE 2025 EXPANSION AND THOSE FUNDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE MAYOR'S BUDGET.

And the department has identified that they will continue to budget in the out years to continue that indefinitely.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Council President?

This is a point following on your point about ongoing versus one time, etc.

Would you prefer that I just take that point up after the presentation?

SPEAKER_07

Let's let Tommaso get a little bit further through, because I think I noticed even in the last slide, I was asking questions that he was just about to get to.

So thank you, Tommaso.

SPEAKER_04

So the first project would be expansion of CARES crisis response program.

This is a $2 million expenditure over one year that would support the expansion of the CARE team to add 21 FTE, increase the geographic scope of this response.

This is something that you've heard described before in terms of the overall plan for this, and I'm sure you will continue to hear descriptions of.

As I said previously, this project is intended to be one year and ongoing costs beyond that year will be supported by general fund revenue in 2026. Oops, okay, bear with me here.

The next project is in Parks and Recreation to expand public restroom access.

This would be a project that would consist of the purchase of three movable bathroom and sink trailers.

It would include maintenance, permitting, and utility and other various costs associated with the acquisition and operation of these trailers.

The second component would be procurement process for a community organization to provide attendance and security for both the mobile trailers that will be purchased as well as two existing park bathrooms in Hing Hay Park and Cal Anderson Park.

This project would be $7.2 million over a five-year pilot implementation.

There's no additional funding sources that have been identified after the end of those five years beyond 2029. The intent is that the data and experience from the pilot will inform future potential grant partnerships or opportunities for funding if the decision is made to continue this beyond 2029. The next project has to do with urban farming and food equity, and this would be an allocation of funding to Department of Neighborhoods.

This would support five new community led agricultural sites, including assessing and citing farming projects on land already owned by the city would also include RFP request for A PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY ORGS TO LEASE AND STEWARD THOSE IDENTIFIED SITES.

ANOTHER COMPONENT WOULD BE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING FOR SMALL SCALE URBAN FOOD PRODUCERS.

THERE WOULD ALSO BE AN RFP THERE FOR THIS TA AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

AND THIRDLY, IT WOULD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE NEEDS AT EXISTING PPATCHES AROUND THE CITY.

providing direct funding for these sites with a focus on racial and social equity and the identification of those sites.

This would be a $7 million project over six years.

No additional funding sources have been identified beyond that timescale, but the department has identified a number of potential city, county, and federal grant programs to continue that if that is so desired.

I should also say this project, though the money is being appropriated to Dawn, the Office of Sustainability and Environment would be a project partner on the implementation.

The next project from the Office of Planning and Community Development would be a Native Youth Center, largely a capital project consisting of the creation of a community-owned and operated center for Native youth.

be an RFP opportunity to a qualifying org to plan, implement, and build a cultural and educational facility for Native youth in the Seattle area.

Additional staffing capacity would be added at OPCD to support the capital and real estate needs of the partner entity that's selected.

This would be $7.2 million for a project timeline of up to seven years, and there's some variability on the TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO COMPLETE THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE COMMUNITY PARTNER'S CAPABILITY.

AND IF THIS FUNDING IS INSUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, THE COMMUNITY PARTNER WOULD RAISE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

Finally, there are two projects that would be administered by the Human Services Department through a partnership with King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

The first would be enhanced homelessness navigation services, so that would consist of a RFP with community organizations to provide enhanced mobile housing and shelter navigation supports to persons experiencing homelessness with the goal to improve shelter-to-housing exit rates.

This would be $2 million over 2.5 years.

No additional funding has been identified, and the contracts will include a six-month ramp down.

HSD project is youth and young adult shelter capital improvements.

So an RFP would be conducted to award capital funds for repair and improvement of existing shelters serving youth and young adults.

This would be roughly $1.9 million over one year for one-time improvements.

Finally, as we were beginning to discuss earlier, the options for the council with this legislation are threefold, to pass the ordinance as it was transmitted, which would fund the projects that I just described.

Of course, as with any other piece of legislation, the council has the option to propose amendments and pass this as amended.

I will note because these projects have been developed over a lengthy period of time with involvement from various departments and community, it's not certain that if funding levels are reduced for specific projects that they would still be able to be implemented in the way that I've described or at all because the projects are based on the assumptions for specific funding that are in this legislation.

And finally, if the council does not pass this ordinance, then these funds would lapse at the end of the year back into the fund and essentially make that money $27.3 million available for other uses.

I will note, as I mentioned before, that with respect specifically to the care department proposal, the use of PB funds has been assumed in 2025. those two million dollars for within the mayor's budget and so if if council does not pass this ordinance and wishes to proceed with care department expansion in 2025 those monies would need to be identified from elsewhere in order to facilitate that That's it, I'm happy to answer any more questions.

I'm just gonna go back to the project overview slide.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, and this bill actually came to the budget committee.

We did make the decision not to bring it in September.

There were a couple other things going on in September, and we decided to save it for this budget process.

As chair of the committee overseeing this bill, I'm gonna just go through my couple questions with you here.

I'm gonna start on slide five, and then I know Council Member Moore is next in the queue.

actually on slide four we've already discussed care care is the one out wire here that is already assumed in some other budget priorities and has ongoing costs assumed moving on to slide five I want to confirm with you here that the ongoing costs should we just let me speak maybe in more plain language the idea here is to by some of these shower and bathroom trailers, much like SPU has when they deployed them in South Park during the flooding.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_04

I don't know about the shower capabilities.

I think they're intended to be primarily restrooms with sinks.

SPEAKER_07

Okay.

Probably very same model, restroom sinks on a trailer.

Is that essentially it?

SPEAKER_04

As far as I know, yes.

SPEAKER_07

And the issue here is that those trailers have storage capacity.

They don't have to be tied into the sewer system.

Is that correct?

You can get back to me on that.

Yes, I can get back to you on that.

You are hearing me drilling into portable restrooms because working for Council Member Bagshaw, we tried to get back restrooms all across the city.

This is something that I've dug into deeply and understand that the prohibiting costs and reasons are usually digging into the sewer system and getting potable water.

And so that's where I'm asking those questions if they are in fact movable so that we're not incurring those costs from King County.

or so that we basically pull it up to an RV pump station and pump it out or have one of the pump trucks come around.

SPEAKER_04

They are intended to be mobile.

I was going to say their mobility, I think we'll confirm, implies the exact model that you're describing.

SPEAKER_07

Fantastic, because the risk that I'm looking to avoid is every time we move them, we have to pay the county more money to tap into the sewer system.

The idea here is that we buy these sink trailers, these restroom trailers, the ongoing costs would be that maintenance and utility, and then it is the actual use of them that requires the attendance and security.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

If we were to purchase these trailers, use this money up until it's done, we could decide to store the trailers until they're needed again.

SPEAKER_04

That's my understanding, yes.

The trailer purchase element of this would be more akin to a permanent capital expenditure that would enable us to use those into the future, provided that there are maintenance and attendance if we choose to do that.

SPEAKER_07

And for instance, because I know that Seattle Public Utilities runs these shower and restroom trailers for emergency preparedness and then uses them for other purposes while they're not being used for emergencies, it could be foreseeable that at the conclusion of this budget line item, Seattle Public Utilities could buy these trailers from the Seattle Parks Department and continue deploying them in a similar fashion.

SPEAKER_15

I'm making up a lot of hypotheticals down a decade in the future, but...

To the extent that we buy them, they don't have to be a lost asset in the way that you described.

And also, I've been updated while we've been sitting here, so...

They are mobile.

They can, depending on the location, potentially tap into a sewer system just for sort of obvious convenience.

And the idea is not that they'd be sort of rapidly mobile.

That's like one of them might relocate per year.

So they would get set into...

relatively steady location, which again, if there was opportunity for a sewer tie-in, it would make sense in that context.

But I'm imagining a pipe rather, you know, or a hose, if you will, rather than digging up lots of concrete and the like for a permanent installation.

SPEAKER_07

That's very helpful.

So if we were to set up a tiny home village, for instance, that did not have access into a sewer line, we could use these to support that work.

Generally speaking.

SPEAKER_15

Also confirmed that the intent is to purchase the trailers.

SPEAKER_07

Copy.

Thank you.

Good copy on that.

If we could move on to slide six.

Something just caught my ear when you were giving your presentation, Tommaso, regarding using existing land that the city owns.

If we're going to use parkland, are we running into I-40 initiative 42?

CONSTRAINTS, COLLEAGUES, INITIATIVE 42 JUST AS GENERAL REMINDERS THAT WE CANNOT REMOVE PARKLAND WITHOUT REPLACING IT WITH THE SIMILAR TYPE AND LOCATION OF PARKLAND.

SO IF WE'RE PUTTING A P-PATCH IN A PARK, ARE WE RUNNING INTO ANY INITIATIVE 42 ISSUES HERE?

SPEAKER_04

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP IN THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE PROPOSAL.

I can't state that definitively, but my understanding is that the department has thought that through and is intending to leverage existing city assets, city property that wouldn't invoke those concerns, whether it be parks, land that is owned by the parks department, but not a park per se, or land that's owned by other city departments.

SPEAKER_07

Thanks.

We run into this more often than I think any of us realize.

I'll use Portal Park in District 7 as an example, which is not a park.

It is a hydro-seeded slope that WSDOT left us.

It is still fenced, and it is currently owned by FAS with City Light having a small portion.

that piece of property does not run into initiative 42. Let's say the fence was down and it looked nice like a park, but it was still owned by FAS.

We would not run into initiative 42 issues there.

However, if we transferred that park to the parks department, we would then run into initiative 42 issues.

SPEAKER_15

I don't know this for sure and we can confirm.

It could well be that a P patch is an appropriate park use.

I mean, in the same sense that you can have forested, you know.

SPEAKER_07

That is the question.

Yep, exactly.

SPEAKER_04

I should just also say that the intent of the project, to my understanding, is not to just RFP out to anyone who wants to put a park anywhere, but there will be resources devoted as well to appropriate siting.

There are resources to address, I believe, the concerns you're talking about in addition to other siting considerations.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Moving on to slide seven.

Just want to confirm that this is capital funding, it's one-time funding?

SPEAKER_04

Yes, in the sense that it's intended to support the siting and the purchase and the construction of a permanent facility.

There will also be part of the resources allocated to this project will consist of some additional staffing up at OPCD to ensure that the selected project partner has the expertise in the department that they need around capital and real estate acquisition issues.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

If I recall from the process, there was one organization most clearly identified.

This presentation shows an RFP.

Are we going to have multiple people applying for this?

Can you help me understand that disconnect from the process that I understand in the voting to what is being presented today?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

My understanding is that throughout the sort of development of this project proposal, they're There was discussed various contracting options, whether it be competitive procurement or sole source.

And the information that we have from OBCD is that it will be a competitive procurement.

I don't believe that that expresses any intent to differ from the original purpose of the project.

So I don't want to speak with clarity on why that shift was made.

My understanding is not that it was intended to differ from the initial focus of the project, but potentially for procurement compliance reasons.

SPEAKER_07

These questions are actually for the next slide, but I'm prepping with this because this is the one that I know more about.

So let me ask the question a different way.

It sounds like from what you've just shared that's talking about how to build the building, the question I'm more interested in, if you don't have the answer off the top of your head from OPCD, is if we have two organizations both requesting the funding, is that where we're going to run into an issue?

SPEAKER_04

I would defer to the department on this and we're happy to follow up and get more information.

My understanding is the intent is as it has been to award funding to one partner for one project.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

That's my understanding as well.

So we're going to move into the next slide where I'm going to ask the same set of questions of is there a specific proposal that was voted on during budgeting?

for these homeless services or through this are we talking about, can we do, is there a difference between doing tiny home villages or safe lots or do we need to do specifically outreach?

Can you help us understand what these contracts were intended, the outcomes these contracts were intended to produce rather than the process?

SPEAKER_04

Yes, my understanding is that these specific contracts projects were the ones that were identified through the PB voting process, intent to support housing needs and homeless services needs, both through the enhanced navigation function as well as the capital improvement for existing shelters.

SPEAKER_07

Let me dig into these individually then.

Sorry, I kind of gave you both questions all at the same time.

For the enhanced homelessness navigation services, that language is broad enough for me to think that it could be navigating homelessness by having a tiny home, or it could be the outreach team that is working with the individual to get them into the shelter.

Do we have a sense of what this is intended, or do we have discretion within there to make those choices?

SPEAKER_04

I don't think that the scope of this would encompass Tiny Home Village or other shelter construction.

It's really intended to be services delivery to help folks experiencing homelessness move through that process more smoothly.

Navigation is a term of art, I guess you could say, in the human services field.

that has to do with helping folks move through the system more efficiently, be able to avail themselves of the various services and resources that the city and county offer in that regard.

SPEAKER_07

From what that, in a few words, it sounds like that means outreach.

SPEAKER_04

Is that what you're saying?

Outreach, one-on-one relationships with folks.

So I would say it's maybe a little bit more in-depth and hands-on than outreach, but building and maintaining ongoing relationships with people experiencing homelessness to help them better move through that process to get the services and care that they need, that's available to them.

SPEAKER_07

We'll come back and dig in a little bit deeper here.

I'm seeing with this next one, youth and young adult emergency shelter capital, really focusing in here on the capital repair and improvement.

We're not building another building that we're then going to need to maintain and operate.

Correct.

We're fixing what is not working.

SPEAKER_04

Yes, improving the sort of the conditions and the infrastructure within existing shelters targeting youth and working for youth and young adults.

SPEAKER_07

Okay, thank you.

If you want to move on to slide nine and then at that point I will turn it back to Councilmember Moore and then Council President Nelson.

Or I guess she already asked her question.

I don't know if you want to re-ask it or if you want to address the concerns that she brought up.

SPEAKER_04

I'd be happy to address it if you want to say a little bit more about your urgent question.

SPEAKER_14

Well, I don't know.

Maybe it's been answered by the council options.

I'm just curious about going back to the drawing board, I guess basically is what's been the request made to the council.

Council members is basically to put this money back into the pot and redirect it.

SPEAKER_04

What I would say about that is procedurally, the choice that you have before you now is to fund these projects that are identified in the legislation in part or in whole.

with the caveat I mentioned before about reductions to individual projects may make them not viable any longer because of the assumptions that have been made about the amount of funding available.

Or, of course, if the council chooses to not move forward with this legislation, then the balance of that fund would revert to the general fund, and the council could make decisions about that any number of ways.

In terms of the process, I will say, as I mentioned before, it's been a fairly lengthy process dating back from the original appropriation as money in 2021 through OCR's stewardship of the process from that point forward to where we are now.

The funding, identification and funding CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT THE BUDGETING PROCESS THAT LASTED FROM 22 TO THE END OF 2023. SO THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A LOT OF PROCESS AND QUITE A LOT OF INPUT BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS THROUGH THE PB PROCESS AS WELL AS THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO IT FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST SAY THAT TO The council has of course the option to pass this legislation or not, but there has been quite a substantial process already involving community input in various forms.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, I'm aware of that.

So let me just clarify, would the council have the option to fund one or two or three of these particular projects and then put the balance, the remaining balance back into the general fund or redirect that to different funding like home ownership, legacy home ownership?

SPEAKER_04

The council could make amendments to this legislation that removed specific appropriations to certain departments, which would have have the effect effectively of funding or not funding specific projects.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, and then I just had another question that wasn't procedural.

Under the Native Youth Center, my understanding is that we are looking at that being for a Duwamish Native Youth Center.

That's correct.

We haven't chosen a particular provider, but it is for the Duwamish community.

SPEAKER_04

Yes, that's been the intent throughout the duration of the proposal, yes.

SPEAKER_14

And then, so when you say there's additional staffing at OPCD, are we creating a new FTE, or how is that working?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I think the intent is to fund a temporary position for the duration of the project to provide additional support to the partner around, specifically, technical capital acquisition and improvement capabilities.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

Okay, great, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Council President Nelson and Council Member Saka.

And Council Member Rivera is present.

SPEAKER_08

So just in background, the reason it took a while between transmission of this legislation and when it ended up being referred to the finance slash select budget committee is because central staff had additional questions about ongoing funding that were not listed on the fiscal note.

And there was an effort to dig into more detail about really is there going to...

How can you say there's no additional budget impacts when it seems as though there could be programmatic funding that will be potentially ongoing?

And this is a concern of mine from the get-go.

And you don't have to have a crystal ball to understand how this goes.

We say the funding is for a certain amount of time, and then that's it.

And then we're prevailed upon to continue that funding.

And we're experts in using one-time funding for ongoing expenses.

When the project list came before, was sent down in October of 23, the projects for contention, not the final list, you know, there was a back and forth between me and the mayor's office.

I've been given repeat, this is on October 30th, or 26th, I've been given repeated assurances by you and OCR leadership that the $27 million investment is one-time funding.

However, looking at the menu of items that are currently on the list, it looks like the vast majority will require ongoing funding.

I'm concerned about council being put into the position of having to cut those expenditures in the following budget cycle.

It's a long exchange, but one of the things, one...

One of the things that surfaced in this email exchange with the mayor's office was conditioning the RFP when it's put out that the organizations that are applying have to have a wind-down plan that is credible so that that will minimize the potential for us being prevailed upon to come up with the ongoing funding plan ourselves.

Another was writing that language directly into the legislation itself, that a condition of being awarded funding will be that applicants have to have, and then there are some other conditions that are listed.

I end up saying, after a couple weeks.

I'll definitely want some language to that effect in the bill that's referred to council and I don't think it is in there but one option that's not identified in the options in the presentation is that we can modify the language to try to right-size expectations when we're going forward with some of these projects.

Personally, I think Council Member Moore is referring to some of the meetings that we've had with community members.

I've always preferred that we fund capital projects only because it's more concretely a one-time funding and not even entering into a contract with an organization that's going to then reapply for funding in out years.

But regardless, I do think that now is the time that if we do want some changes to the language and the legislation to try to make sure that everybody's on the same page about what this is funding and expectations going forward, now is the time.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

Yeah, the only thing that I would say in response to that is certainly the legislation language could be added to make that clearer.

My understanding is that all of the departments involved in the projects have clarity around this and would design their TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME OF THESE FUNDS WILL BE PROCURED TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGS, THAT THEY WOULD DESIGN THE PROCUREMENTS TO BE VERY CLEAR, BOTH IN THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS IN THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES AROUND THAT.

AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT WE COULD, THE COUNCIL COULD TAKE IN THE LEGISLATION, I'M SURE, AS WELL.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SPEAKER_10

THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN RUSSAKA.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

AND I HAPPEN TO LIKE MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE PROJECTS HERE IN THIS in this initial proposal.

But I guess following along a similar line of questions that we've heard, including from you, Mr. Chair, I want to share a few thoughts.

And I do have a question as well.

So central to my approach personally on issues like this is to, as best as we can, fully respect the process and honor our prior decisions and commitments that have been made previously, including by others, but by the city.

And in this case, there clearly has been an inclusive process via a hired consultant and among other things, and that these funds were committed back in 2021 and 2022, I believe.

and continue to be carried over now.

It's unfortunate, however, that it's taken this long for the legislation to come before us, for whatever reasons.

And central to my approach in kind of guiding my decision-making on issues like this, factors that I personally use are the currency and recency of the commitment.

Was it made last year or five years ago, 10 years ago?

The city's efforts to deliver upon this commitment in good faith or not.

Their ability to deliver.

Whether that commitment has been made to a specific organization, community group, specific group to fund a specific project or program.

Or was it made for a high level commitment to fund something not more broad and kind of vague and opaque.

viability of a current project, or the staleness of a project.

Things change over time.

We have to be nimble in assessing these situations on a case-by-case basis.

But we do, as a city, need to live up to, as we can, prior commitments.

And that's kind of how I generally approach the issues.

And the same factors I use and I'm going to use in parallel processes when we explore the proposal, for example, to allocate the general, the jumpstart funds, PET, And breaking down of the percentages, we haven't even lived up to our own commitments on that in the past couple years.

So, I mean, a compelling argument could be made.

Why not just adopt legislation that recognizes that we need flexibility in any event?

Again, we do need to honor our past commitments that have been made, and I do not see a compelling argument or rationale here to walk back from these commitments.

And while I'm saying this, I do want to acknowledge that we have the Duwamish Tribal Services here present.

members of that organization who have had a commitment made to them in the past.

So shout out to Duwamish Tribal Services, Christina, Jake, others, welcome.

As an aside, had I known, if you guys had come here directly from the Longhouse, maybe we could have carpooled or taken the same bus, but next time, in any event.

So my question along the same kind of line, There is this project in my district, again, the Duwamish Cultural Education and Recreational Youth Community Center.

While I understand it is preferred to do a competitive process, RFP, for public dollars, I also understand that there likely was a commitment made to the recipient, in this case the Duwamish Tribal Services, through this community review and input process.

Is this true?

Can you confirm this?

SPEAKER_04

What I can confirm is that my understanding of the intent of the project all along has been, as you said, to have a community center focused on Duwamish youth.

I don't know.

I'm not in a position to speak to commitments per se, so I'm not saying that that didn't happen, but just based on my knowledge of the process, you know, I couldn't say there, but I know that that has been the intent throughout the duration of the project development.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

Just another comment pertaining to the Department of Neighborhood Food Producers Project in this proposal, which I fully support.

Projects in under-resourced communities, and in my district, there are many small producers, such as the growers at South Park's Mara Farms, visited personally, great fresh produce.

My kids even love their vegetables.

and other pea patch programs throughout West Seattle.

So we support entrepreneurs while at the same time assist in getting fresh foods to those communities who have limited access.

And colleagues, you've all heard me talk about over and over and over again how we need to do a better job as a city in thoughtful planning and addressing food deserts.

And you know my approach is it's neither either or.

I viciously clap back against the false choice of it's either this or that.

So, yes, we need to have grocery stores and—but an essential part of that is providing fresh food access and addressing food deserts, is making sure we have, you know, locally sourced foods like this and small providers like this project here.

In any event, those are—I just wanted to share my thoughts on those, because I do like a lot of the projects in here.

And in summary, I fully support this legislation.

And moreover, I want to ensure that proper technical support is provided to project recipients, whoever they are, so they can be set up for success.

All the recipients that I've spoken to, they don't just want the check.

Yes, they want the check.

It's a precondition to build the project.

But they want empowerment to be able to actually do it.

And so the city needs to keep and living up to its commitments.

It can't just be in the business of writing checks.

We need to have the technical resources and tools to empower communities to bring that project to life in any event.

Thank you.

No further questions or comments, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Tommaso, anything you want to share there?

You've answered his questions all along the way.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, just to your last point, my understanding of the intent for all of the involved departments is to not just write a check, as you said, but to be actively involved in the contract management in an ongoing way throughout the duration of the project, which would include providing support and technical assistance to the selected providers.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

We've got Council Member Morales and Council Member Rivera.

And I did miss a note on my stand here that Council Member Rivera has been present with us since 945. Apologies there.

SPEAKER_99

No worries.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you for the presentation, Tommaso, and for kind of diving in on the particular projects.

I do want to acknowledge and appreciate the comment that Council President made about, and I think you've addressed, about wherever we land, making sure that these projects, that the contracts are well managed, well monitored, that the organizations and departments that are participating in implementing all of this are administered well, that is incumbent upon all of us, whether it's participatory budgeting funding or any other city funding.

I think it is important to give a little bit of background for my colleagues who were not here.

And I know you are aware of some of it anyway, but I still think it bears repeating.

So the original intent of the participatory budget process was to share power with the community.

That is the intent of this, whether it's in Seattle or anywhere else in the country or the world, to share power with community and give them an opportunity to directly provide input on how city resources are allocated.

That is what this is about.

and to run this particular process to support black and brown community members in the context of the history of disinvestment in these communities and in the history of the context of the racial reckoning that was happening in 2020. So it is very particular to that year and that context.

I will acknowledge, unfortunately, the process was delayed extensively.

The previous mayor was not on board with this and so delayed the process.

And in fact, contracting didn't proceed until Mayor Harrell was elected two years later.

So it was already two years after the community requested this that we actually began the work of implementing it.

So priorities that were identified in 2020 and 21 included housing, mental health, youth and children, economic development, crisis response, and in the context of looking for alternatives for black and brown community members that focused on their wellness and that focused on city investment in things that were not sort of the typical kind of investment that they get, which is around policing.

And given the context of 2020, I think that was clear why that was the case.

So all of that to say, this particular investment of $28 million is the only remaining acknowledgment of what was happening in 2020 in black and brown community that has not been rolled back.

So I think that's important to remember too.

This is the biggest portion of money that came out of community demands after the 2020 reckoning.

And this is our city government's response to acknowledging what our neighbors were experiencing at that time.

The community requests were that we change the conditions, the community conditions that lead to violence in the first place, and that we really build up a regional approach to allowing and sharing power with our neighbors.

And I will say that while we were sort of dithering with whether we were gonna start this process or not in the city, King County is on round three of their participatory budgeting process.

So it is possible to do this, to share power with our neighbors, to allow our neighbors to have a say in how their tax dollars get spent.

And I agree with Councilmember Saka that it would be a real disservice and really disingenuous for this institution, whether you were here when these decisions were made or not, to go back on the promises that we made to our community members.

And I'll stop there.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Morales, Council Member Rivera, then Council Member Hollingsworth, then Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair.

There's a lot of history on this particular investment, but I would be neglectful if I didn't say, because I was here, that Mayor Durkan promised $100 million to BIPOC for an equitable initiative, and a third of that went to the Equitable Communities Initiative.

That money was contracted and out the door.

A third of it went to the PB process that we're discussing today, and about a third of it went to the strategic investment fund that is being allocated out of OPCD.

So that is the history, the original history of the $30 million or so, or $27.3 million now, after a million was taken out for a consultant to help.

community with the process of identifying how this money should be spent.

So we need to be truthful.

And there's a Seattle Times article that talks about Mayor Durkan's commitment to community back when that was done.

And it was post the, you know, the racial awakening.

And so I'll say that.

I will say that, you know, I agree participatory budgeting was supposed to be and is supposed to be about community having a say in how the investment is made.

And we need to be true to that process because that's the initial investment.

That's what was intended.

It was for community.

to be it's intended to be participatory it's in the name.

I will say that I agree with council member council president Nelson in that you know I and I have said I shared the concerns about on items that need ongoing funding.

There are several in all of these projects are really great needed and needed projects some of them the capital ones are as council president described easier because it's really One-time funding when you're doing a capital project the ones that have operating expenses are the trickier ones because those are the ones that need ongoing funding and this money was always intended to be one time So that just makes it a little trickier.

And so I do think that clarity around this investment at this point in time is important because to Council Member Saka's point, we can't be making promises to community that we can't keep.

That is not fair.

And so to further...

to further the projects that would need ongoing funding without clarity is not fair.

And so we either have to right-size the legislation to make it very clear that this is ongoing funding and there has to be a rapid ramp down would be critical I think to the process so we're very clear with community because it's just otherwise it's just not a true process it's not fair it's just not right and otherwise then we need to figure out what we would do in the absence of that so the clarity is very much needed because we want to honor the commitments that we make to community so thank you

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Rivera, Council Member Hollingsworth, followed by Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a couple comments, and I know that I've met with a ton of community members regarding the participatory budget, and I was on the opposite side of the participatory budget, you know, being one of the people in the community, and I know that this was...

This was brought out of George Floyd in 2020, obviously the racial awakening for some people being black.

I've been had a racial awakening since I was born for 40 years.

But I think one of the things that is concerning to me is, and I've heard from community folks, is that particularly for this budget, when I look at this, I don't see how it impacts black community.

And I think that's, and correct me if I'm wrong, and some people might say differently, but I think that's the concern that people have is that it does not directly, you know, there's not language in this that says, hey, this is going to directly benefit black community or black people or be able to move the needle on the average household income of a black family.

42,500, 50% of the black people in our community have 0% net income.

net worth.

I will continue to repeat those statistics because I think it's important for us as we're trying to figure out when we're trying to make these decisions on closing the wealth gap or impacting black community, it's land and housing, it's economic mobility, it's workforce development, it's healthcare as well.

And I know I recognize that, and I've talked to our Duwamish tribe, and I really appreciate you all being here as well, and I've expressed my concerns.

So I'm pulling that number four out, but when I look at number one, number two, number three, number five, and number six, wanting to understand how that's gonna benefit our black community, specifically because this was brought out of George Floyd, a black man who was unfortunately killed, and we had all these things move the needle on that.

We had EDI come out of that.

We had a lot of things.

But I wanna remind people, 70% of the positions that EDI people hold are white women.

They are not black folks.

So these issues to me are concerning because I know that we had participatory budget and people participate and say, hey, this is where we want money to go.

But I guarantee you if I went to any black community and I just said, hey, we're going to give $7 million to public restrooms, you know, for participatory budgeting, I think they would be very surprised about that and understanding, okay, well, how does that impact us?

Not that they don't want it, but they want to see stuff that impacts them because there's three things that happens when you exploit communities.

You either take resources...

you take their pain or suffering or you take their labor.

This is specifically the pain and suffering of something that happened to a black community and it's not impacting them because we're using it in different ways.

And so as I'm very supportive of these six, Phenomenal ways in which we're going to continue to move the needle on the community and investment I'm advocating for black community and the people that have really raised concerns about how it's going to impact them So anyways, I'll stop there for my comments and thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Mr. Chair Thank You councilmember Hollingsworth councilmember kettle then councilmember Moore Thank You chair Strauss.

SPEAKER_03

I think You know, as a white man, I don't think I can follow that except to say ditto and that I support Councilmember Hollingsworth's points.

I'm well aware of the public safety aspects of the last number of years.

I am not an expert in terms of the process of participatory budgeting and some of the things in this locate, you know, within this list and the overall process.

But I do know that Councilmember Hollingsworth is definitely speaking a truth that seems to be missing And as the D7 representative, obviously this is not a D7 program.

And I recognize that much like sidewalks before and transportation, there's other areas of the city that need to have this prioritization in terms of the intent.

And as the public safety chair and to council member Hollingsworth's point, Why is there $2 million going to CARES participatory budgeting?

It does not make any sense to me.

It should be part of the regular public safety budgeting process, and it should not be part of the budget and participatory budgeting.

Unless they were to say, we're going to expand into the East Precinct and with a dedication to the CD, but that's not what's happening.

So there's obviously a disconnect there.

As the public safety chair, and following Council Member Hollingsworth's comments, I don't really understand, to be blunt.

And I'm not sure how we could fix that, or as I say in my office, square that circle.

But that's something that's out there.

Councilmember Hollingsworth also parsed out the Native youth piece.

And that's an important piece that I think needs to be discussed.

And as someone who represents downtown and the waterfront, I've often talked about how we need to enhance and celebrate our Native communities.

It's one thing that separates Seattle from cities around the country.

And in order to celebrate it, there's got to be you know, an understanding of building the base of it.

You know, otherwise it's a bit of a fraud.

And so I definitely support the Native youth past, present, and future item within the participatory budgeting.

And I also know and want to recognize the fact that the Duwamish Tribal Services Group is here and, you know, and showing up is important, particularly on this kind of topic.

And so I wanted to acknowledge that and thank you for coming.

And My last thing that I'll say, I had reordering following Council Member Hollings' response, is we need to ensure that we got the right community.

Community involvement can sometimes be a throwaway line or arbitrary.

We need to ensure that we are engaging with the communities, the right communities, based on whatever topic it is.

My experience in public safety shows that that can be kind of shortcomings.

SO WE NEED TO ENSURE MOVING FORWARD THAT WE DO HAVE A BROAD APPROACH TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A DISCONNECT.

I'VE OBVIOUSLY SEEN IT IN PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT HERE AS WELL.

I CAN'T SPEAK MORE THAN THAT OTHER THAN REFLECTING ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH SAID AND LOOKING AT THE LIST.

AND AGAIN, AS THE PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR, I FEEL LIKE I'M PARTICIPATORING IN THE undermining of the participatory budget by looking at the care team expansion as part of this as opposed to the regular public safety budgeting process.

Chair?

SPEAKER_04

Tommaso, I see you've got something to share.

Yeah, if I might just speak first to the last point you made about care team.

The project priority that was identified through the PB process vote was People not police I believe crisis response was was sort of the the headline on the priority that was voted on there the idea being that you know, there was a need there was a identified need for a crisis response other than SPD officers.

There's, you know, I think arguably a variety of forms that could take as the project proposal was being developed in collaboration with community members involved in that PB process and the subsequent interdepartmental team.

It was identified that a way to facilitate the goals of that priority were by looking at the synergy, if you will, that exists already as the care team was being stood up.

And so part of the reason why you see that there has to do with the desire to avoid duplication between funding a non-governmental entity to do that non-police crisis response work and looking at the work that was already being done by the care team.

So that's a little bit of background I think that hopefully can go towards answering some of the question that you had and that's what I would say about that.

THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH AS WELL AS YOURSELF.

I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME LEGAL CHALLENGES IN THIS STATE WITH SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFYING OR ATTEMPTING TO EARMARK PROJECTS OR FUNDING FOR RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUPS.

SO THAT WAS A FACTOR IN THIS.

I WOULD ALSO JUST SAY THAT THROUGHOUT THE consultant process and the process that OCR engaged in around I do believe there was extensive effort made there to make that process both inclusive but also specifically focus on outreach and engagement with black and other people of color communities in Seattle to ensure that their voices were heard in the process and I don't know demographically off the top of my head the demographics of those that engage in the process but could follow up with OCR and get you more information about that if that would be of interest.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

I recognize the state law piece.

That is a very important point to make.

I know that from other angles.

But back to care, I understand your point there.

I recognize it, but there's still a disconnect, I believe.

And that's something that we can follow up on.

Maybe that we can't do anything, but this is a one time at least, because I don't think it...

There's a disconnect, so we can follow up on that.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I'm going to add just a little bit more context about care, which is that when the voting was occurring, the success and the future of the care department was not yet set, is the way I would put it.

We heard Chief Barden this year say a year ago she wasn't...

We hadn't really gotten the pilot going, and so...

before we were lucky enough to have you on the dais with its full support, I think that there was some concern in the city, whether or not the city would fund care or not, where this was coming from.

I think this was intended to give us wind in our sails rather than waves at our bow.

And so that's where it's coming from.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, and I appreciate the maritime references, although I think you should stick to paddle boards.

SPEAKER_07

You know, I don't paddle board, actually.

I'm an avid kayaker.

But with that, over to...

Sorry, kayaking.

Over that to Councilmember more than Woo than Socket.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you very much.

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you so much to Councilmember Hollingsworth for your really insightful and educational and grounding comments.

And also ditto to Councilmember Kettle.

And I think it's important to remember that we live in a representative democracy.

And while participatory budgeting is important, this idea of sharing power, we share power through representative democracy.

But it's also important to be, I think, to counsel Member Saka's point, which is we have to be, we have to honor our commitments to direct parties, and clearly one of the goals was to directly invest in black and indigenous and people of color communities, and clearly a Duwamish youth center is directly investing, and to the comments that Councilmember Kettle made, and so I am very much supportive of that.

But we also need the flexibility, and I think the CARE team as a perfect example of where is our responsibility as the elected representatives of the City of Seattle to exercise appropriate judgment when we are looking at how to distribute the people's money.

Not just the one group that made these particular decisions, but the money that belongs to all the residents of the City of Seattle to exercise wise judgment in how we do that and to be mindful of changing conditions and to the point of the care team really being a public safety piece.

And going back to the drawing board and thinking about how do we really truly deliver on the promises that were made when we put out the participatory budgeting, which was to create intergenerational wealth, economic opportunity, mental, physical, and emotional well-being in black, brown, and indigenous communities.

And the way we've set this up here, aside from what we have with the Indigenous Youth Center, I do not believe addresses those promises that were made.

And it's incumbent upon us to deliver and to do it within the context of a representative democracy.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Wu, Saka, and then Morales.

SPEAKER_01

I'll make this really quick.

I just want to echo my colleague's sentiment, Council Member Hollingsworth, Council Member Moore, Council Member Kettle.

Like, the original intent was directly invest in black, indigenous, and people of color communities.

And trying to—looking at these line items, it's very obvious with one of them that it's directly going to indigenous communities.

The other ones aren't very clear on how they directly invest in black, indigenous, and people of color communities.

And so I would too like to look at what the engagement process looked like, and also the decision that centered around which, why every single one of these landowners were picked and the decision making around how they directly invested in black indigenous people of color communities.

And so we'd love to hear more from this group of how they, what the process looked like in engaging with these communities as well as decision to pick these certain groups.

and how that direct investment was to go back to the original intent.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Wu.

Council Member Saka and then Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to look.

quickly share that I love the conversations that have been going on right now.

Every last one of you colleagues have contributed something meaningful to this broader conversation here.

And I particularly want to acknowledge and call out Council Member Hollingsworth for her very insightful and poignant comments.

And in my earlier comments, I kind of shared the specific elements and features of this proposal that I like.

But I, again, want to call out and acknowledge and agree with Councilmember Hollingsworth that It also leaves more to be desired, particularly with respect to the black community.

I'm not seeing, for example, a direct nexus or tie for expansion of the care department, like how that somehow benefits the black community.

I visited, I've talked with many, if not all the care department workers from the chief to the frontline social workers to the new training staff and support.

And I did a ride along with them and I read all their documentation and familiar with the program.

I'm just not convinced that.

That program in and of itself, it's a great one.

Let's continue it and expand it.

But in and of itself, there's a direct nexus there, connection, and a benefit can tie specifically to black communities.

If the care department needs $2 million more, which I'd be inclined to support, then why not just raid Jumpstart another $2 million?

And instead of trying to...

make an argument with a straight face, which is difficult to do, that the Care Department, $2 million investment in the Care Department somehow benefits black people.

So, in any event, I do think there are some great projects in here and also think that there is more to be desired.

But I just want to, again, acknowledge and, you know, respect, appreciate all the thoughtful contributions.

This is a very insightful conversation.

And also, shout-out to Councilmember Kettle.

He said a lot, a lot of great things.

The first two minutes of his response was excellent.

He acknowledged his privilege.

He acknowledged his blind spots, acknowledged that we need to do more.

That is how we show up and be allies, regardless of whatever your background or ethnicity or whatever it is.

That's how we support each other, and that's how we learn from each other.

So shout out to Council Member Kettle for putting on a clinic for all of us on how we show up and support each other.

Anyways, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Saka, Council Member Morales, followed by Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chair.

Just two things quickly.

I just want to clarify that when I am talking about the events of 2020, I am saying racial reckoning, not racial awakening.

So I heard a couple folks, I think, refer to what I said, and I just want to be really clear that I fully understand that it was a reckoning and that that was an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the long history of...

discrimination and violence and all the other things that our black community experiences and has for 400 years.

The other thing I do want to acknowledge is the frustration about how this program was implemented.

Trust me, I share that frustration.

I do think the fact that it was not even begun until two years after the community asked for it really did contribute to an implementation that was, you know, inconsistent to say the least, and really also contributed to a lack of clarity for all of us about how these city department allocations benefit our black and brown neighbors.

So, you know, the program is intended to help departments identify how they will spend resources to benefit, you know, what the people have voted on.

And I share the frustration with not having the ability to make a direct connection with the exception of with a couple of things, the Duwamish Tribal Services included.

So all that to say, I think it's important that we hold true to the process and to the commitment we made to community to allow them to weigh in on how funding gets allocated.

And I acknowledge that the implementation of this could have been much better.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair.

Just by way of background, because I was here at the onset of this.

I will say that to the question as involvement, when I said there was a third, the strategic investment fund went to OPCD, that got allocated fairly quickly the equitable communities initiative created a task force it was made up of folks from community led by that task force the city staffers took a supporting role I participated as part of that in a supporting role but it was really led because it was intended to be led by community.

So I can speak to that particular task force, and that money did get allocated by the task force.

And like I said earlier, it went out the door.

That was a true process.

The PB process, I can't speak to because it's taken longer.

I will say it did start back when the ECI, the Equitable Communities Initiative, and the Strategic Investment Fund process started.

And I can't speak to why it's taken that long.

It did start then.

There was a consultant that got hired, I believe, by community at the time.

And then, you know, I've since lost track, so I cannot speak to that at all.

But I will say all of these things got started around the same time.

And the ECI did involve community leading with city staff taking a supporting role that was welcomed by that particular task force at the time.

If that helps with context, I really just want to provide as much information to you colleagues as I have, because I feel like as someone who was here at the City of Seattle at the time, I don't want to sit here and not speak on things that I I think might be helpful to you all.

And so that's why I'm sharing that in the spirit of this is how these things were at the inception created.

This is how some of these things went.

And like I said, this particular process has taken longer.

And I don't have additional information as to why.

But that said, as I said earlier, I agree that we need to always keeping our commitments to community is important because that's one of the reasons, right, government often there's no trust because we say we're going to do things and then we don't do them.

And that's why I feel really strongly we always need to have clarity about and always be upfront with community.

And if we said we're gonna do it, then we need to do it because otherwise that goes to building the trust.

So anyway, just wanted to add that as well.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_12

I'll be super quick, and I apologize.

I want to make sure I apologize, Council Member Morales.

I didn't mean to misquote you on the reckoning or awakening.

I've heard both out there in the community, so I apologize.

There was no knock on you or your leadership and support in black and brown communities.

I know you've always been an advocate, so I just wanted to state that for the record.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

I have some last statements and questions, but once I start talking, that's going to be the last word.

So giving everyone due opportunity to raise their hand.

All right.

I'm gonna go pretty high level and then I'm gonna come back to this issue and then I'm gonna, so past, present and future is where we're gonna go.

Real high level participatory budgeting is a style of allocating, it's a process of allocating funding for projects.

It is not, participatory budgeting does not mean voting on money as it stemmed from the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd for certain things.

Participatory budgeting is a type of process.

It is also used in the city of Seattle in transportation, for instance, within the Department of Neighborhoods.

Your voice, your choice, neighborhood matching funds.

I don't know about neighborhood matching funds exactly, but your voice, your choice is absolutely an example of how the city does use the process of participatory budgeting to make decisions where resources are allocated.

So I just want to ground us in that fact.

Regarding this process, the voting on these projects, I will say that I have deep concern about that voting and understanding that that voting process is done.

It is complete.

Whether I liked it or not, and the concerns that I have are based on what happened.

But either way, it's done.

So what we have before us, now I'm grounding us in the present, is if we could go back to slide, I got onto the next presentation, the last slide with our options, slide nine.

Our options before us today are to pass this, to change it, or I'm gonna add another option, which is to pass this and add funding for the things that I've heard described on this dais.

And what I mean by that is funding and adding funding to black organizations, indigenous organizations, and organizations serving people of color.

Allocating money and funding and resources to these types of organizations should not be a one-time action or a moment in time.

Separate from the PB process, or this participatory budgeting process, separate from this.

Now I'm going to the future.

This was a product of trying to respond to a societal racial reckoning when George Floyd was murdered.

We colleagues, separate from this process that's before us right now, need to continue the work to move the needle and to make shifts in government to better serve our black community.

That's where I'm gonna end us at.

Anything to add?

That sounds great.

We're gonna move on to the next item on our agenda.

Phil, if you could read the next item into the agenda.

SPEAKER_06

Agenda item two, human services department for briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

We have our human services department, department, uh, presentation.

We've got Jennifer Labreck and Ann Gorman and Gorman.

So good to have you here.

Um, as they're getting set up before they do introductions.

I'll say, welcome to budget, we are finally in it.

We just had a presentation that lasted an hour and a half, that felt normal to me.

So here we go.

Welcome to day three, presentation number two for the morning.

And as you all are ready, I'm gonna turn it over to you, Jennifer and Ann.

SPEAKER_00

All right, are you ready Ann?

SPEAKER_07

Hello, good morning.

SPEAKER_00

Hi, good morning.

There we go.

I'm Jennifer Labreck.

I am a central staff analyst here with my colleague, Anne Gorman.

And we're here today to walk you through eight different policy considerations in the Human Services Department budget.

SPEAKER_07

And as you're starting up, after you give your high level, I'll pass it over to Council Member Moore, and then we'll go through all of your policy considerations.

We're now back to a standard central staff presentation rather than just an implementation item.

So we'll do high level, Council Member Moore, back to you for all of the policy considerations, and then we'll pass it back to Council Member Moore and then have discussion.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00

What is the trick for moving?

SPEAKER_15

There we go.

SPEAKER_00

Okay.

All right.

So we'll start first with two slides with a high level overview of the HSD budget.

Overall, HSD would see a net increase of, excuse me, So the 2025 proposed budget for the Human Services Department, or HSD, would increase by 23 million, or almost 7%, relative to the 2024 adopted budget.

And the 2026 proposed budget would increase by 13 million, or 3.4%, relative to the 2025 proposed budget.

That net increase really obscures quite a bit of activity happening within the HSD budget.

That includes additional appropriations for programs and mandatory increases for wages and contracts, along with reductions in fundings for programs and elimination of funding for vacant staff positions.

The major appropriation increases are due to new ongoing funding to expand, create, or sustain investments in homelessness, community safety, and human trafficking interventions.

You're going to be hearing more about some of those today when we discuss policy considerations.

there was an annual wage increase.

Under the city code, human services contracts that are administered by the Human Services Department are required to receive an inflationary adjustment each year.

That inflationary adjustment was 4.4%.

in 2025 and 3% in 2026. So that led to some of the increase.

And then there was also new grant revenue.

The major appropriation reductions are due to the reduction or elimination of funding for programs, about $1.8 million in 2025 and $2.1 million in 2026. The elimination of funding for three vacant FTE, although two of those FTE funding was eliminated, but the positions were transferred to other BSLs, and there was removal of 10.7 million of one-time appropriations in the 2024 budget.

And again, we'll be talking about some of those in more detail today.

And just as a reference, there is a HSE budget overview paper that has far more detail.

Just covered that at the high level right now.

HSD would see a net increase of about 32 FTE in the 2025 proposed budget.

That's an increase of 7% compared to the 2024 adopted budget.

And then FTE would remain flat from 2025 to 2026. Most of this growth is within HSD's homelessness division, and it occurred with the passage of the 2024 Mid-Year Supplemental, which added 19 positions to HSD for the Unified Care Team and two others related to supporting the transition of outreach and homelessness contracts back to HSD.

We'll be talking about the Unified Care Team after this presentation if council members have specific questions.

Other notable FTE additions in the proposed budget include two new FTE to provide customer service to the UCT, five new positions to support proposed new investments in human trafficking interventions, which Anne will be talking about more in a bit, and one new FTE to coordinate a proposed new school-based gun violence prevention program, again, which Anne will be talking about here in just a moment.

Just as a general note about sources of revenue for the Human Services Department, as you can see, the vast majority of their revenue does come from the general fund.

The Human Services Fund is comprised really of restricted grant revenue, things like the Title 19 grant that they get from the state for Medicaid, and then also other sources such as the Community Development Block Grant funding.

With that, I'm going to turn the presentation.

Actually, I'm going to stop and let Council Member Moore speak.

SPEAKER_07

Yeah, Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_14

Oh, thank you.

I don't really have much to add other than just to say that HSD is a huge budget, and the fact that we're adding 32 FTEs, and it's because I think this all began with...

as our resident historian chair, with council member Jim Street, who was the one I think that decided or brought forth the idea that the city should be engaged in providing social service funding.

That had not really been something that the city had taken upon itself before.

So that began under his leadership, and now here we find ourselves with an ever-growing commitment to addressing the various aspects of human need and services, and that's what we see with HSD.

So that's my general comment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Back to you, Jennifer and Ann, if you'd like to walk us through all of the policy considerations.

Colleagues, take notes.

If you have things that you'd like to come back to, we're going to let them go through the entire presentation, come back to Council Member Moore, and then open it up.

SPEAKER_09

Good morning, Chair Strauss and council members and Gorman Council Central staff.

The first policy consideration that we have identified for you today is a proposal in the 2025 proposed budget for an ongoing $2 million investment for commercial sexual exploitation interventions.

We use the acronym CSE.

In broad strokes, this proposal is consistent with Ordinance 127086, which was sponsored by Councilmember Moore and passed by the Council in September.

That ordinance included a new approach to enforcement for victims of exploitation and trafficking, emphasizing that the preferred dispositions for these individuals are diversion, referral to social services, safe house placement, and other alternatives to booking.

And the proposal that we're looking at right now provides an opportunity for the council to make sure that those intentions are reflected in ongoing programmatic changes.

This proposal includes five FTE in the victim advocate function.

to provide support for CSE survivors and sex worker interventions, including community-based support resources.

The total cost for those positions would be about $706,000 in 2025. And HSD's intent is that of the remaining $2 million, About half of it would be allocated to community-based organizations providing direct services, and about half would remain with the department with those new FTE to allocate programs and services at HSD's discretion.

One thing to note, we are not aware of any kinds of any needs assessments that HSD completed.

that caused them to land on five FTE in the victim advocate function.

I don't have any information right now about where that came from.

There are currently 13 FTE and HSD in the victim advocate function.

There are nine in the mayor's office on domestic violence and sexual assault.

and there are four on the Crime Survivor Support Team.

And the Crime Survivor Support Team, those victim advocates are in the HSD budget.

They are HSD employees, but they are co-located with SPD investigators who are investigating the crimes for which victim advocates are needed.

And until 2021, those staff were SPD employees.

They were moved to HSD, to recognize the fact that they did not have a law enforcement function, that they were human services employees.

That's why they are in HSD, even though they're alongside SSPD employees.

there is an opportunity for council to change the number of positions that are included with this proposal.

There is an opportunity for council to express a preference about the use, the specific use of the non-personnel costs included with the proposal.

And one thing that I want to point out is that when that ordinance was before council, A lot of community advocates made the case that an emergency receiving center for people who were seeking to leave prostitution was a high priority.

for investments that accompanied the legislative changes in the proposal.

The costs for an emergency receiving center, or ERC, are estimated at about $700,000 a year ongoing.

Under the proposal, which is 5 FTE, City gets half of the rest.

Community-based organizations get half of the rest.

There would be not quite enough for an ERC out of that remaining 1.3-ish million.

And Council added a recital to that ordinance, whereas the provision of services including but not limited to an emergency receiving center is critical to a functioning diversion process.

The concept of the funding that's in the executive proposal, it does not preclude the establishment of an emergency receiving center, but it is not as explicit about that center as council was when that ordinance was before you all.

So options that we have identified associated with this proposal would be do not authorize some or all of the included positions reallocating funding to experienced community organizations.

This option could include a proviso on funding other than for position costs potentially one that is developed with stakeholder input.

For instance, some of the stakeholders that came and spoke as this ordinance was taking shape.

And one thing that I do want to note is that the victim advocates who currently work at HSD, they do not work nights and weekends as would presumably be required of the victim advocates who are doing direct outreach to women who are currently involved in prostitution and sex work are being trafficked.

They are represented and under their contract there are provisions for overtime, shift differentials, et cetera, but the actual operationalization of what that looks like would have to be bargained because it just hasn't been the practice so far with HSD victim advocates.

We can never predict how long a bargaining process is going to take, but there would be a delay, perhaps, in HSD's ability to put city staff in that outreach role.

Another option for council would be to adopt a statement of legislative intent that includes policy guidance for the award of funding, including contract funding.

also adopt a statement of legislative intent requesting that HSD provide updates on the establishment of an ERC funded by this budget allocation.

SPEAKER_14

The chair's not here to recognize me.

SPEAKER_11

You are recognized.

Thank you.

Vice Chair, I can recognize you, sorry.

That's okay.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized to speak.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Anne, for identifying the issues around the five FTEs and also identifying the issues around the Emergency Receiving Center.

Very much appreciate that.

and also just wanted to say thank you so much for all the work that you did on the legislation.

I have a couple of statements and then questions as well.

So in terms of the five FTEs, I would say that the conversations that I have been having with advocates in the community also really support the conclusions that you've drawn in that analysis, which is right now there are many of the groups that are working with this community.

There are people who are able to be available to collaborate and sort of provide that service on a 24-7 basis.

And so they are already doing that work and it would be very helpful if they could have those hours and that work supplemented.

So I think that's something for us to look at is whether we take the funding for all five positions and reallocate it through the CBOs.

or we have maybe one position.

But I think that's something to definitely be given further consideration.

I would also say that I attended the rest fundraiser last night and the message was very clear that what is needed is additional, not necessarily a new receiving center, but at least additional bed space in the current emergency receiving center and also the traditional, transitional housing.

So I would like to see another option here be a proviso that directs money to either expansion of current receiving center beds and or creation of a new emergency receiving center.

And I'm just, I guess I'm asking, is that another option that could be provided?

SPEAKER_09

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, these are, when we have options on a slide, these are just options that we identified in our review.

And part of what they're designed to do is to spur further discussion among council members.

These are in no way limiting.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, thank you.

No, I appreciate that.

That was basically my comments and question.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Vice Chair, for covering while I stepped out of the room for a moment.

Colleagues, any other questions on this policy consideration?

I'm seeing Council President Nelson and Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

This is related to this discussion, but it doesn't have to do specifically with this allocation for this new program that the city is doing.

Central staff just noted that the victim advocates that live in HSD are there because there's no direct law enforcement nexus, and that makes sense to me.

There's also, I want to highlight, funding in the supporting communities BSL that goes to the PDA, Purpose, Dignity, Action, for two attorneys and one paralegal to support the CAO's work on cases of domestic and sexual violence.

And so in that case, what happens is that the PDA then takes that money and then contracts directly with the city attorney's office for those two lawyers and one paralegal.

And I just think that now would be a good time for me to just sort of be transparent about the fact that I think that moving that money, which would be $500,000, $212,000 general fund dollars in 2025 and then $527,000 in 2026, move that from HSD to directly the law department criminal legal services BCL.

could be advantageous because we've seen that the CAO's criminal division is very short staffed and they do have timelines and policies around deadlines for closing cases and they are so constricted in the staff that they do have right there that there's no flexibility to deploy anybody these two attorneys to work on any other cases because these two attorneys are supposed to serve lead clients.

And so I just thought that I should mention that this is something that I've been working with Tommaso on.

I think that he is the staffer that is working with CAO issues.

So just thought I'd mention that there because we are talking about this BCL.

Thank you.

Any questions?

SPEAKER_07

Great.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for this presentation and thank you for your very thoughtful look at this particular additional service.

I won't say new since we do do some of this work, maybe not as exactly proposed here.

Obviously, I support this.

There is a huge need for this.

I thank Council Member Moore for your leadership on this.

I would be supportive of looking at a proviso both to look at either additional beds or an additional receiving center, as well as does it make more sense for us to fund the community-based organizations to do this work versus in-house?

Although I think sometimes having one person in-house that can help coordinate all of it is advantageous because often when we're just...

relying on, you know, we outsource these things and it makes sense, but it's hard to know exactly for lack of a better word, keep track of what's going on, and I think it's helpful for us to be plugged in because there's so many pieces to it, not because I don't think that the groups are doing great work, they are, but then there's this legal component, there are other components to it, and I think that would be helpful, including the victim advocates that we ourselves, out of the city.

So I think having a person, I would say, might be helpful to help coordinate all of that.

Because often, as a big city government, we don't have someone that's tracking all the pieces.

And I think long-term, it's advantageous, too, as we look at future investments in this area.

So I'll just say, put in a plug for that.

SPEAKER_07

Wonderful.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Great.

Hearing no questions, you don't have anything else to say on here?

Council Member Moore, anything else to say on this policy consideration?

Let's roll to the next one.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_09

Next policy consideration is a proposed new and ongoing $4.2 million investment for gun violence interventions.

The HSD and the Mayor's Office came to the Housing and Human Services Committee in July and just to give an overview of investments in the Safe and Thriving Communities program.

And in that presentation, they noted that gun violence has risen to an all-time high and would require an investment shift.

They said the new investment strategy was being created.

I am not sure if this is the referenced strategy, but this is a new investment strategy related to gun violence interventions.

And I'm gonna provide a little bit of background to disambiguate this proposed investment from another one in HSD that is ongoing.

So if you'll permit me to talk for a couple minutes, I appreciate it, thank you.

HSD currently has a program called the Seattle Community Safety Initiative that was first funded in 2020. at the same time as the racial reckoning to which council members have already made reference this morning.

It was funded at about the $4 million level at that time, and it became ongoing in the HSD budget in 2023. SCSI is a black and brown led partnership between Community Passageways, Urban Family, Boys and Girls Club of Southeast Seattle, and the YMCA.

And it partners with the Seattle Police Department to respond to and de-escalate shooting incidents by means of its ties to community and its trusted outreach workers.

And the SCSI also provides support to individuals and families directly impacted by violence.

It has three hubs in the Central District, in Rainier Valley, and in West Seattle.

And these hubs are not physical locations.

They are just sort of concepts for the receipt of service requests and the distribution of service through other organizations.

And as it happens, these hubs encompass three high schools, Chief Seale, Garfield and Rainier Beach.

These communities were selected for investment under the SCSI, excuse me, because they are communities in which there has been a historic level of disinvestment and there was a recognition in 2020 that we needed to do better, that we owed these communities more.

However, the fact that these three high schools are there, it just has to do with the communities themselves.

SCSI was not an investment program that targeted schools.

Schools are here.

And when we say community, as in the Seattle Community Safety Initiative, this implies a neighborhood or a group of people, and the SCSI is neighborhood-based.

It seeks to reduce gun violence in those three discrete neighborhoods.

That's what it's all about.

And it is based on a public health-informed framework called the Community Violence Intervention, or CVI, approach.

And the CVI approach, it's been tested nationally, perhaps internationally.

It's in wide use in other cities that are trying to address rising gun violence.

It uses evidence-informed strategies to reduce violence through community-centered initiatives.

Excuse me.

There is evidence that the CVI works.

A 2016 study found a 35 to 60% reduction in homicides in neighborhoods where the CVI neighborhood-based framework was put into practice.

And it works by changing the community conditions that lead to violence.

And these conditions are different for every community.

Whoever is seeking to make the investment and change the patterns of gun violence does an assessment, finds out what the community needs, and puts the money there.

Often these are services like mental health supports, tutoring.

after-school activities, whatever a community decides that it needs.

And the new proposed investment would be consistent with the CVI approach, but instead of allocating resources to identified neighborhoods, it would allocate them to identified schools.

So it would take the ethos of the Seattle Community Safety Initiative and weave it into a new, more surgical investment that is school-based and is specifically designed to reach youth.

because that is one place where the growth in gun violence has been most concerning over the past couple of years.

HSD worked with the Seattle Police Department, Seattle Public Schools, and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Education, Public Instruction, excuse me, to identify 11 focus schools for new investment based on in-school incidents of violence and or incidents of violence around school campuses.

So this, again, is the evidence-based strategy that is...

you know, a critical plank of the CVI approach.

The theory of the investments in schools is that these early investments will pay off in the future.

Research has shown that firearm violence is intensely concentrated within small identifiable social networks and that it is contagious within those networks.

Sometimes a network can be a school.

The closer a person is to a victim of firearm violence, the more likely that person is to be a victim of firearm violence themselves.

And what this investment seeks to do is to you know, ensure that fewer people are victims of firearm violence and that this, you know, when we reduce that violence, um, there will be less violence in the future because of the network effect.

The specific set of proposed interventions as part of this proposal, there are four elements.

Again, 11 schools, four elements.

Those elements are school-based violence intervention specialists and case managers, expansion of the safe passage programming currently funded under the Seattle Community Safety Initiative, I'm sorry, school-based violence intervention specialists, number one, case managers, number two, expansion of the safe passage programming, number three, and number four, family resource funds for those receiving case management.

Under the framework of the proposal, on average, each school could receive about $375,000, $380,000.

These are the things that are eligible for funding with that money, but the specific parameters for the program, for the investments are still taking shape.

As the memo that you have points out, HSD does not yet have a financial plan for the new funding, does not have an allocation methodology across the four investment areas and 11 schools, or a finalized set of the data it will collect and analyze.

And my saying this, this is not an indictment in any way.

This is a new proposal.

Sometimes money needs to be reserved in the budget without a super clear understanding of specifically how it will be used, who will benefit, how it will be allocated.

But there are opportunities for the council to request more information about the proposed new investment as it becomes available.

Some of those that we have identified, Council could adopt a statement of legislative intent requesting that HSD provide an implementation plan, financial plan, and additional information for the proposed new investment.

There is as yet no timeframe for this information to be available, but it will be available.

The council could adopt a statement of legislative intent requesting that HSD clarify the interrelationship of this investment and the Seattle Community Safety Initiative and the basis for proposed additional investment in any currently funded program area.

There is some overlap between what SCSI currently funds and what is proposed to be funded in the new investment.

And in a broad sense, you know, SCSI targets neighborhoods.

The proposed new investment would target schools.

But I think that it would be reasonable for council to ask For specific information just to understand that there's no Double investment in in any area that is this is for neighborhoods.

This is for schools This is how we know that that that will be that will be ongoing Theoretically council could impose a proviso on some of the proposed funding until information referenced above is provided although HSD points out that a proviso may impede its ability to get the work started.

And given the seriousness of gun violence issues in Seattle Public Schools, I think that's a fair concern on their part.

Any questions?

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

So that is, in sum, your policy consideration here, correct?

Fantastic.

Council Member Moore and then Council Member Rivera, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Moore, you don't have to speak.

I just always recognize you.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Fantastic.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for taking us through that.

And I will say, given the gun violence at schools, I know that I've spoken with the mayor's office, the Department of Education and Early Learning, and the Human Services Department.

about this work and ensuring that we're able to respond to what is going on on the ground and also in partnership with Seattle Public Schools since a lot of this gun violence is currently happening either in or around the school.

So I support this approach.

I will say that I want to disclose my intent to create a community safety hub for youth on the north end because we currently don't have one on the north end.

And we've seen the youth violence on the north end escalating with the shooting at Ingram High School and then a lot of activity both in other areas of the north.

And so I will be, I am having conversations with the mayor's office and HSD and Anne from our central staff to include an investment to start, because this isn't an actual physical place.

I know that it starts with building relationships with the community-based organizations I'm in the north end who can provide that service to to the youth and can partner with the city And ensuring that we are addressing the needs of the youth on on the north end so I wanted to to transparency say that and the supportive of this and and I very much appreciate all the options I do think that a sly requesting more information since we don't know exactly what it'll look like is prudent and I I would support that chair more as part of this What was that?

SPEAKER_09

Sorry.

No, you referenced in your remarks just now response to gun violence.

And one thing that I want to emphasize is that this policy is designed in part to try to stop it before it starts.

Correct.

It's about intervention, identifying students who have been exposed to gun violence or who are potentially at risk of gun violence.

The SCSI is more response-based, but this is another way in which the new proposal kind of takes off from the SCSI and goes a little bit further.

This is really about early interventions and support in creating a more safe environment in schools so that you know, this isn't a place where gun violence happens.

SPEAKER_11

Exactly.

It's prevention, and we know prevention is what really helps when you're talking about youth gun violence.

And so prevention, yes.

And I meant response in terms of this particular expansion.

SPEAKER_09

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure I was being clear.

SPEAKER_11

No, the program has existed at HSD, and these three hubs have been there for, as you said, since 2020. This most recent expansion, I believe, is really, and in my conversations with Mayor's Office and HSD and Deal and folks working on this, is really, we've seen an increase, and so we need more investment.

And so I didn't mean to say this was only in response to.

It really is approached to be prevention.

And that's what we need on the north end.

Council Member Moore and I have talked about this.

This is what we need on the north end is this type of prevention for the youth there as well.

So it's just we need more of it.

And we know it works, as you so aptly pointed out in your presentation.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Rivera, Council Member Morales, and then Council Member Nelson.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

And I really appreciate you doing a little bit of a deep dive because I will admit when I first read this, it sounded to me like the proposal was to shift from neighborhood hubs to school-based instead.

And I think what you're saying is that is not the case.

SPEAKER_09

That's not the case.

There is no reduction contemplated to the Seattle Community Safety Initiative.

This is an additional investment that specifically targets youth and concentrates the services in schools.

SPEAKER_13

Okay.

So that's good to know.

So the service providers may be a different set of service providers than we are currently working with.

Or there could be overlap.

We just don't know yet because that process hasn't been identified.

SPEAKER_09

I think that's one of the questions that is still being worked out in HSD and on the executive side.

People I've spoken to in HSD and in the mayor's office, they are aware that working with students is very different from just taking a broad community safety approach.

And I think that we can assume that the investments will be made in organizations and with individual staff who have experience doing school-based work.

But again, let's make sure that we do understand what is eventually funded.

SPEAKER_13

So I guess what I want to, yeah, I mean, I absolutely support the idea, but there's not much there there yet.

So it's hard to know what we're being asked to fund, but I am interested in making sure that it's clear whether there will be a change in who provides intervention services in the CSI program.

as it exists now.

And because I think it's important not to delay funds to the existing CSI program, because as we all know, the gun violence continues.

There continue to be issues in the three hubs that are part of what we have already.

There was just a shooting at Garfield last week.

And so it's important that the existing contracts Don't get delayed as we're figuring out what this new process is going to be.

And then I guess...

I'm just going to ask my questions, but it sounds like we don't really have answers yet.

I am interested to know both if we have some sense of who the service providers might be and how they get chosen.

I'm assuming an RFP process, but we don't know.

There are 11 schools identified.

And so I'd be interested to know, you said about $375,000 per school.

With how much certainty do we know that each school will get an allocation?

So I guess the bottom line is, I don't, well, I won't speak for the whole council.

I will say this is something that I would be very supportive of.

And I just feel like we need a lot more information before we can make a decision about it.

SPEAKER_09

HST has committed that each one of the 11 identified schools would receive some investment under this proposal.

As for the other parameters and process that you're asking for, my sense is that it is still taking shape.

I do know that People in the other branch of government are working really hard on this.

We'll ask some questions.

We'll find out what is available now and of the information that is not available now, when will it be available?

SPEAKER_13

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Rivera, you already spoke, right?

SPEAKER_11

I did, I have another hand after everyone else.

SPEAKER_07

Fair enough, and then Council Member Moore, did you raise your hand in response to this?

Great, I'm gonna call on you as chair of the committee overseeing this department.

Were you trying to add to this conversation that was occurring?

I am, sorry.

Yes, so then, because I assume, Council President, you've got a new line of questioning?

SPEAKER_14

Yep.

SPEAKER_07

Great.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sorry, discombobulated here.

So I would also, to the point about who's going to be providing the services, and because this is school-based versus neighborhood-based, I would be interested in perhaps seeing a proviso that requires the providers be people who have school-based experience.

and have some expertise in working, particularly because I think some of the schools that are identified are middle schools, and so I think it's important that the people who are working have expertise in working with that age range, as well as with older adolescents.

And then I would like more information about what the safe passages programs are and the establishing a family resource fund.

So I guess that's by way of saying I'm supportive of the SLI proposals that you have put forth for us.

We do need a lot more information, but clearly a proviso about the level of expertise for the people who will be providing those interventions.

SPEAKER_09

I can provide a little bit of information about the safe passage programs and the proposed family resource fund just for council members' background.

The safe passage programs are programs that seek to make the paths to and from school that youth travel every school day safer and staffed by adults who are willing to intervene.

Um, if, if there's, if there's a fight, if, if, you know, they, they get word that there might be a fight after school, um, it safe passages programs work on a restorative justice model.

And, you know, they, they also take into account that CV, uh, C V I framework that, um, It makes sense to stop incidents of minor violence, for instance, a fight, an argument, before it turns into a situation where people go get guns.

And the safe passage programs have been, around those three schools, Chief Sealth, Rainier, Beach, and Garfield, under the Seattle Community Safety Initiative.

The SCSI is like, we're making our community safer.

That includes the areas around these schools.

We're going to put in safe passage programs.

Under this proposal, the safe passage programs could expand into up to the additional eight schools that are on the list.

In terms of the Family Resource Fund, the concept here is that these are funds that are attached to a school.

I need to get some more information about that.

And for students who are receiving case management in any one of the 11 schools, and they will be receiving case management either because they had been victims of gun violence or had been identified as being at risk of becoming victims of gun violence, they and their families could have access to that fund for basic needs.

For instance, somebody wants to go out for football but doesn't have money for the athletic equipment, and the idea is let's just fund this purchase for an activity which in itself could deter somebody from violence.

rather than potentially setting the individual up to try to obtain the athletic equipment by illegal means.

Let's just give people what they need in the moment so that they can do the things they want and not have to worry about constraints or potential violence.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

May I ask one more question?

Please.

So thank you.

That was very helpful, that additional information.

And I'm obviously very supportive of that.

I also have a question about how that's going to overlap with providing the school-based mental health counseling and the case management.

How is that all going to work together?

SPEAKER_09

I have some information about this.

My computer has just locked, so give me just a moment.

SPEAKER_07

As you're doing that, I'm going to add to the example that you just provided about football equipment, that whether or not how the youth comes to having that equipment, playing an after-school sport gives them something very important to do that is structured.

And so there's just another, as you're pulling up your computer, I just wanted to give you that moment of time.

Back to you, Anne.

SPEAKER_09

OK, so the regarding the student mental health investment, the innovation and performance team reported in June and identified priority investment areas for for that funding.

They were improving awareness and access to existing resources.

expanding mental health education, destigmatization in training, expanding enrichment programs that address the nature deficit, implementing screening and referral in high schools, and expanding access to therapy.

So these...

These are clinically proven investments to make in terms of generating better mental health outcomes for youth.

But this investment is specifically designed to reduce gun violence and provide gun violence interventions.

And although there is clearly a link between increased gun violence in schools and students' poorer mental health outcomes.

It doesn't make sense to give one pill for two different conditions.

This is a completely separate investment from the student mental health investment.

SPEAKER_14

But do you know if there'll be some coordination within the schools?

I mean, I'm assuming if they're working with a case manager that...

I do not know.

SPEAKER_09

We will follow up with HSD.

SPEAKER_14

Okay.

SPEAKER_99

Thanks.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

And back to you, Council Member Nelson, Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_08

Thanks.

So just following up on that, one of my questions was, is this funding coming from the 20 million money for student mental health that's Jump Start funded?

And then I have other questions and comments.

SPEAKER_09

That is not my understanding, but I hesitate to give you a definitive yes.

I will follow up.

SPEAKER_08

OK.

So like I said, I have some questions and comments that are not very coherently ordered.

But it does sound like we do need a lot more information.

So my first one is, do we know when we could be getting some more information from the executive about this?

I understand that they don't want a proviso because they don't want to be hampered in when they can start the work.

SPEAKER_09

In my early conversations, there was not a sense that they could provide deliverable dates yet.

Those conversations were just last week.

We can follow up and see if we can land more firmly on a potential date range for those deliverables.

SPEAKER_08

OK.

I'm asking because I do want more information.

I don't know what form that should come in, but it sounds like we are going to be spending $4.2 million to do roughly the same work, same methodology, CBI methodology that we already have in the budget under the CSI program.

And it might go to the schools, not neighborhoods, but we really are talking about the youth in the schools and the neighborhoods, same people that are in the community.

So the geographic distinction doesn't really make that much sense to me, because I don't really know what are the actual programs that are being offered.

And I've asked that about the existing program, the Community Safety Initiative, for years.

Every time there's another shooting, I'm always wondering what kind of relationship is there between the body of work that we're funding already and the violence reduction goals that we have.

I would like to understand that better, because just simply funding the same organization to do the same work with double the money, I think that we should also consider diversifying our funding because prevention also, as was already noted and is one of my budget priorities, is to support the City Panthers.

Because when we're talking violence prevention, here you've got the last remaining team of a league that used to have teams in Beacon Hill and Rainier Beach and I think there was one other place, maybe West Seattle.

This is the last remaining team in the CD When you go to their games, you see this is community building.

This is violence prevention.

This is self-esteem.

It's team building.

All of what we're talking about that lives in the existing community safety initiative.

And it sounds like what they're going to be trying to do in this new initiative is violence prevention.

And so I have been working with the leadership of the City Panthers, and they've identified that they could use support on the gym fees, the league fees, the field fees, the youth camp fees, the logistics, et cetera.

So I'll be bringing that forward.

The amount that they have most recently given is $43,000, but I don't really all need to dig into that a little bit more.

And I've heard other people suggest that they might be supportive of that as well.

And speaking of programming itself, after school programming is really important.

And I would like some follow up information about what the Community Safety Initiative organizations provide for programming after schools are too engaged or in their curriculum for the restorative justice curriculum, what kind of programming is being provided, and are there some other ideas for other programming that could fit into the spirit of this $4.2 million expenditure?

SPEAKER_09

We will follow up.

We will try to get that information.

And one thing that I want to add, I fear I have not made this point clearly enough.

One distinction about this investment as compared to the Seattle Community Safety Initiative is that the violence intervention specialists and the case management that is proposed would be in the schools.

These would be people who are interacting with the students as they go about their days, building relationships, gaining trust.

And the organizations that currently participate in the SCSI, they are not embedded in the individual schools in the same way.

I appreciate that there's an opportunity to clarify the interrelationship of this proposed investment and the SCSI.

there's a big difference in terms of everything being based at these 11 schools.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you for that clarification.

And that does make sense.

I do have to say that I learned something at a recent CD Panthers game when I was talking to a community passageways staffer.

And I asked him, tell me something that you think that I don't understand already about youth violence or what's going on in schools.

And what he said was that What can appear to be as troublemaking behavior is oftentimes hangriness, that kids are showing up at school hungry.

And that was news.

It was a different way of understanding how how students show up at school with different needs not being met, and so that does make sense to me.

And how, one last thing for follow-up, over the summer or spring, HSD did note that they are issuing RFPs for a portion of the programs in the CSI, and so we, I don't think, have the theory of change for that, or do we, could you just, do you know the timeline for letting of those

SPEAKER_09

I do not.

I know that a funding opportunity for various community safety projects will open later this year.

I don't believe that that funding opportunity is specifically part of the Seattle Community Safety Initiative, but in any case, I will clarify that and get some information about the timeline for a contracting process for the SCSI.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Just briefly, if I could follow up to a question, comment you had made earlier.

It's my understanding that this $4.25 million is combined with $15 million for mental health, and it has been presented from the executive as combined not quite $20 million investment around student mental health.

SPEAKER_08

Which was council's initiative in 2023 budget deliberations.

SPEAKER_15

Correct.

And again, per discussion we had two days ago, the implied, if you will, intent is that that funding be ultimately shifted off towards the families and ed levy renewal, at least in part.

But anyway, just to clarify that one point.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Anything further, Council President?

SPEAKER_99

Nope.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera?

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Ben.

As the chair of the committee that will be doing the families and ed levy that's helpful to know so thank you for sharing that um i um you know plus one to council presidents just the accountability piece at the end of the day we know these programs across the country work but it's also not but and i like to always say and It's helpful to have the information now as we're making these investments.

Is it working here?

Because we can feel good about making the investment, but if it's not actually having the intended consequence, then I'm very much of let's feel good that we're actually making a difference, not just patting ourselves on the back that we're putting the money in, right?

Because we know that this investment has been going on at the city for quite some time.

The situation seems to be getting worse, not better.

I'm not gonna attribute it to this investment, the reason why.

I understand that, and I support the expansion of the investment because we need to address, there's more of a need, I'm gonna assume, and that's why the violence is increasing, not because of this program.

So I wanna make that clear.

I also want to make it clear that we're not taking anything from the south end to help the north end.

It's additive, not in lieu of, because my point, and though I represent a district, as chair of the education committee, I care about kids across the city.

So this is not You know taking something from one child in one area of the city to fund a different child in a different area of the city We need to help all children in this city So I wanted to make that very clear from my colleague councilmember Morales because you asked that question earlier so wanted to address that and then on the the 4.5 I thought this is we're doing this work at the three schools already currently or a form thereof and my understanding was we're expanding it to include the other high schools in the city and some of the middle schools because we know middle schools are really important when you talk about prevention it starts at the middle school as it goes into high school and if you really want to do those prevention efforts you will really focus on the middle schools as your point of really getting at avoiding a future issue for these kids.

So my understanding from HSD is that it's really important and from my conversations with Deal for that matter, it's really important to do prevention starting in the middle schools, and that's why they were adding the middle schools.

So the intent is to really add all the high schools and start adding the middle schools and continuing to add the middle schools so that all these kids have the services they need to really do robust prevention.

So if you could confirm that, that would be really great.

I don't want to be thinking something that isn't, but that was my understanding.

SPEAKER_09

Yes, we will confirm all that with HSD.

With respect to the three high schools that are in the Seattle Community Safety Initiative investment areas, they are not currently receiving the same level of services as is contemplated under this proposal.

There are safe passage programs that are being run, but they don't have the school-based violence intervention specialists.

They don't have school-based case management.

So they would be eligible for an increase in the types of services and the depth of service that could be funded.

And two points about accountability.

One, as part of this proposal, HSD would add a senior planning and development specialist to coordinate all work with the Seattle Public Schools to track our expenditures and make sure that they were being used consistently and in line with any program policy guidance.

Also, one area that HSD and the city innovation and performance team are already working on is ensuring that the same dimensions of data will be tracked across all of these 11 schools and that everybody has the same understanding of what they mean.

So for instance, if there's a sliding scale of 1 to 10, how effective was something?

How much was somebody helped?

Everybody's got to understand that when we put six, this is what we mean.

So there is a real commitment to accountability and to measuring program effectiveness baked into this program, as I understand it.

SPEAKER_11

That's great.

And my only other thing is, would you confirm those three schools are also good?

My understanding was they were.

So this is news to me that they're being, those 11 or...

that these three aren't getting the same level of support with the funding as the...

I thought it was additive.

SPEAKER_09

The three, yes.

I'm so sorry for any misunderstanding.

The 11 schools on the list are all eligible for the same level of investment in these new areas under the proposal, including these three schools.

SPEAKER_07

Colleagues, I'm going to ask you to take this...

Continue this conversation offline.

We are three hours into our morning session.

We've gone through one presentation and two of the eight policy considerations in this section.

We then have another presentation before our 1 p.m.

lunch, which is in one hour.

And so I'm going to move us along.

Colleagues, snacks are back next to the door in the green room.

So if you're hungry, grab some snacks.

And we're gonna move on, unless you have anything, we're gonna move on to policy consideration number three.

Colleagues, I am going to ask that I'm gonna offer you the opportunity to make statements once.

You can still ask questions as many times as you want.

I'm just going to ask that they are not statement questions to continue us moving along.

I'm really glad that we have finally gotten to budget where we are behind schedule.

This is the first time we've been behind schedule.

Back to you, Ann.

SPEAKER_09

Thank you very much.

The next policy consideration that we have identified and that I will step through with haste is the proposed inclusion of 1.9 million in funding for the Third Avenue project.

This project is funded in HSD's budget.

The Third Avenue project was launched in fall of 2022. in partnership with a local organization called We Deliver Care to address and improve public order and public safety on Third Avenue and the adjacent blocks.

Prior to that time, there was a lot of concern, especially from people in the business community, that conditions on these blocks were impeding people from walking through them, impeding people from getting access to businesses, and generally making downtown, this area of downtown, a less pleasant place to be for many people.

The Third Avenue project was designed to address that and also to connect those congregating in the area with services and immediate needs and whatever they might need in order to move on and you know, start living their lives in such a way that they weren't raising these concerns on Third Avenue.

What WDC does is they establish relationships with people who congregate in this area and may make others feel unsafe, get them what they need in the moment, connect them with services.

And another aspect of what WDC does is their de-escalation services.

When there's a disagreement that looks like it might start to boil over, WDC staff step in, quell the disturbance and reduce the need for Seattle Police Department to need to be called to come and address something.

Also, in this way, the situations are less likely to become law enforcement concerns and people are not exposed to the criminal legal system who do not need to be exposed to the criminal legal system.

WDC came to the Housing and Human Services Committee in June and they identified a current year budget shortfall of $640,000.

So when we saw that the 2025 proposed budget included funding at the same level as the 2024 adopted budget, we reached out to WDC to try to understand what the impacts of funding at the $1.9 million funding level would be.

And this, the proposed, WDC actually submitted a proposal to HSD for full-year operations in 2025 at its identified need level of $2.8 million.

So what is included in the budget is a 32% reduction based on what WDC believes it needs to be effective.

And if the Third Avenue project is funded at $1.9 million, the WDC will need to reduce staffing and will need to reduce the number of hours that it is out there.

Right now the hours of operation for the Third Avenue project are 6 in the morning to 930 at night.

Another function that WDC performs is Narcan administration.

All of their outreach workers are trained in Narcan administration and this year to date they have done that I believe 94 times.

If there is a reduction in WDC staff being available, there may be fewer resources available to administer Narcan in the moment.

WDC believes that its program is still on the uptake.

It's still gaining acceptance.

by business owners and managers in the area.

Every month, they are receiving more calls from businesses to their phone line where business owners and managers can request help at a place with a specific incident.

And their WDC is concerned about the possible impact to public order, public safety, and public health.

of this potential, of this funding reduction.

Options for council include increasing funding for WDC's 2025 contract by an amount up to $900,000, which was the amount originally requested.

Adopt a statement of legislative intent requesting that the executive include such funding in the mid-year supplemental ordinance last year AND OR IN THE 2026 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO SUPPORT THIRD AVENUE PROJECT OPERATIONS.

OR ADOPT A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT REQUESTING THAT THE EXECUTIVE DETAIL THE REDUCTIONS IT RECOMMENDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROGRAM AT THE PROPOSED FUNDING LEVEL INCLUDING IMPACTS.

SPEAKER_07

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

SPEAKER_14

THANK YOU CHAIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION AND A Statement that I'll phrase as a question So my question back to serious matters My question is my understanding is that there is a funding gap of that six hundred and forty thousand Do you know if that remains?

Unallotted or the unfilled I guess so I'm trying to say I

SPEAKER_09

I last spoke with WDC executive staff about two weeks ago, and at that time, the funding gap remained, and they were very concerned about running out of cash for 2024 operations.

The budget season is very busy.

I have not checked back in.

Perhaps the problem has been addressed in the meantime.

I will follow up.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

And just to say that I think that We Deliver Care does excellent work.

They really earn the money, and we need to find that 640,000.

And then the other question I have, this is a BIPOC-run group, is it not?

SPEAKER_09

Yes, that's correct.

Yes.

It is the executive management, our BIPOC, and most if not all of the outreach workers are as well.

And they have lived experience with homelessness, economic instability, behavioral health that allows them to form these connections with the people they're reaching out to.

SPEAKER_14

And I think many of the majority of people that they are interacting with in the Third Avenue project are people of color, unfortunately.

SPEAKER_09

I don't have the demographics in front of me, but yes, that is the case.

SPEAKER_14

I just raised that because to me, this is a group where participatory budgeting dollars would perhaps be a really good place to put some of those dollars rather than care.

Anyway, just expressing that.

And then I think I've expressed my intent that we need to fully fund this group.

So thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Colleagues, anyone else?

Nope.

Covered it well.

Let's move on to number four.

SPEAKER_00

All right.

Thank you.

I think I got ahead of myself there.

All right.

So policy consideration number four is regarding the repurposing of $1 million intended for a new safe lot.

A little bit of background here.

The Low Income Housing Institute receives, and I'm going to start with some background about tiny house villages, which I promise is related to the safe lot.

So just going to take a step back to provide the big picture overview.

The Low Income Housing Institute receives about $12 million annually in ongoing operating support for its 11 tiny house villages, or THVs, and one non-congregate shelter.

Lehigh, I believe starting in 2033, identified that they had essentially a $2.5 million operating gap above and beyond the $12 million that they were receiving, and that that gap was due to higher than anticipated operating costs, along with the need to provide behavioral health services for many of its residents.

The 2024 adopted budget Sorry, the 2023 adopted budget provided $2.5 million of one-time funding to fill that operating gap.

The 2024 adopted budget provided $500,000 of ongoing funding to fill that gap, along with $500,000 of one-time funding.

And then KCRHA was able to fill sort of the remaining operating gap through some administrative mechanisms.

The 2025 and 2026 proposed budget, excuse me for a second here, just lost my notes.

The 2025, 2026 proposed budget provides another $1 million of ongoing operating funding specifically for Lehigh to close that gap.

So that brings them up to 1.5 million of ongoing funding.

The executive then also directed Lehigh to use $1 million from its 2023 Safe Lot Award to support its existing THVs instead, bringing the total amount of ongoing support to fill its operational tiny house village gap to 2.5 million.

But again, in order to do that, they directed Lehigh to take $1 million that it had received for its safe lots and use it instead for its tiny house villages.

Lehigh received that safe lot award in 2023. The safe lot is not yet operational.

They are still working on identifying a site.

KCRHA has estimated that they would still have sufficient funding for Lehigh to develop and operate a new safe lot with about 30 spots rather than the 60 they had originally intended.

Just another additional piece of information is that Lehigh's lease for their Salmon Bay Safe Lot for recreational vehicles will end in May 2025, and thus the program will close at that time.

That would free up additional operating funds until or if Lehigh finds another location for the Salmon Bay program.

The options here are to reallocate a different ongoing source of $1 million for Lehigh's THVs to preserve the original 2023 Safe Lot Award to Lehigh or no change.

I'll stop there for questions.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Jennifer.

Council Member Moore?

I'll take it then.

We worked quite closely together on the difference between safe storage of recreational vehicles or vehicles people were living in, which was intended to be that storage lot that was not maybe physically, but directly connected to a tiny home village, confirming this is different.

This is the second safe lot expansion.

SPEAKER_00

This is different.

This was money specifically to set up another safe lot.

SPEAKER_07

Great, repeating back, what I think I heard you say is because that second safe lot is delayed in opening, these are dollars saved that could be repurposed.

Did I hear that correctly?

SPEAKER_00

That's not entirely correct.

I hear what you're saying, but this is really, there is some maybe one-time savings that would occur, right?

Because the funding...

was allocated in, I think, 2023 or 2024 has not yet been spent, right?

And so there is sort of maybe some one-time savings there.

But what the executive is proposing is to take that $1 million of operating costs on an ongoing basis, year after year after year, and use it instead to fill the operating gap at tiny house villages.

So this isn't taking sort of savings on a one-time basis and applying it to solve the problem for one year.

this is taking it on an ongoing basis and essentially reducing the amount for safe lots by $1 million on an ongoing basis.

SPEAKER_07

Very helpful clarification.

And colleagues, I'll just say that it took, I think, two years to find the location for Salmon Bay Village on 15th.

I know that there were many, many sites that we had looked at, we had attempted, that proved unsuccessful.

With the lease ending in May of 25, I started earlier this year already looking for new locations because I know that it takes time.

So I hear you raising the flag of we don't know what will happen in May 2025, and I'm also just sharing there have been productive conversations in the neighborhood.

SPEAKER_00

And I also want to clarify that this $1 million is not coming from the Salmon Bay Safe Lot Award.

This is from an additional award that was made to Lehigh for another safe lot.

So this would not impact the Salmon Bay funding.

SPEAKER_07

Fantastic.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Jen, can you just clarify what you said about KCRHA saying that they have the money to cover this?

Is that going forward?

SPEAKER_00

It's more that all the money for the safe lot funding is transferred to KCRHA via the master services agreement.

And so when there was a question about what would be the impacts of reducing funding, I went to KCRHA to understand what the impacts would be.

So that's the only thing that I'm intending to convey here, is that they communicated that their analysis is that Lehigh would still have sufficient funding to do a safe lot with 30 units rather than the 60. Make sense?

SPEAKER_14

Indefinitely, going forward, they could sustain that, but at half the capacity.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Moving on to number five.

We suddenly have been making good time.

Thank you, everyone.

SPEAKER_00

Now, these are a different nature, so maybe we'll move a little faster.

This is another policy consideration that just takes a little bit of background and kind of stepping back in history to fully understand.

This is regarding the end of one-time funding for homelessness services programs.

Beginning in 2020, the Human Services Department provided about $5.1 million in one-time COVID federal relief funding for 16 different homelessness programs.

That included 11 shelters, three day centers, and one diversion program, and one rapid rehousing program.

That funding has been renewed each year since 2020 on a one-time basis with a variety of funding sources.

In 2024, HSD provided 2.5 million, and King County, for the first time, contributed 2.7 million via a state grant.

And if you want to see the impacted programs, you can look at the attachment with the policy consideration memo to see which programs we're discussing here.

In the 2025 proposed budget, HSD would not provide any more one-time funding, while King County's one-time funding would continue for one more year at 2.7 million.

This would reduce the amount of one-time funds available for these 16 programs by just about half in 2025. In the 2026 proposed budget, HSD would provide no more one-time funding and neither would the county.

So this would reduce the amount of one-time funds in 2026 to zero.

None of the shelters will close in 2025 as a result of the funding being reduced by half.

However, the diversion program will end and funding for day centers would be reduced by somewhere between eight to 61%.

In 2026, the impact of the one-time funding elimination is uncertain and will really depend on a number of factors, including when the King County Regional Homelessness Authority implements a system-wide re-procurement process, the availability of other fund sources, and how the executive would decide to distribute available resources among programs.

As a note, HSD is also contributing about $6.8 million of ongoing funding to these shelters in addition to the one-time funds.

Potential outcomes in 2026 could be the continuation of some shelters with the same number of available beds, some shelter closures, shelters moving from an enhanced model to a basic model, essentially a loss of services, loss of some beds or hotel vouchers, a conversion of shelter to a day center, or fewer households served with rapid rehousing.

HSD has stated that it will continue to work with KCRHA in 2025 to understand the impacts to 2026 services and determine options.

One potential option, a one-time option, would be to utilize KCRHA underspend in order to cover 2026 expenses, and this is a strategy that has been deployed before.

The options here are to add funding to replace some or all of the one-time funding ending in 2025 and 2026, adopt a slide that provides regular updates on the anticipated 2026 service impacts related to the loss of the one-time funding and the executive's plan, if any, to mitigate those impacts, or no change.

SPEAKER_11

All right.

Council Member Moore, did you have a statement as chair?

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Vice Chair Rivera.

Can you just explain a little bit more about the diversion program that would be eliminated?

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, a diversion program is a program that is intended essentially to divert people.

So it's for people who have lost their housing, and it's intended to provide resources to immediately divert them from shelter.

So they lose their housing, they're able to get something quickly so that they become rehoused and they never have to enter the shelter system.

And that could be something as simple as like a a bus ticket or a train ticket to go to stay with a family member or, you know, just helping them out, for example, with a security deposit so that they can, or moving expenses so that they can relocate.

SPEAKER_14

So yesterday we were talking about rental assistance.

Is that something that could be encompassed by rental assistance?

I mean, it's a broader definition of that.

That's a great question.

SPEAKER_00

We could look into that.

I don't have the answer immediately.

Okay.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_11

Council President Nelson.

Oh, yeah.

Do you want to take back over or do you want Council President?

SPEAKER_07

We did a really good job of doing it at the same time.

Nice work there, Vice Chair.

Council President Nelson.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

So I think it's unclear to me and maybe to our viewing public when we're talking about homelessness services in general, what is the city's responsibility and what is KCRHA's responsibility?

Because we're talking about the same kind of housing We're not talking about permanent supportive housing, which lives in the Office of Housing.

So how much are we in 2025 going to be, what is our commitment to KCRHA in the budget right now?

Do you know?

SPEAKER_00

I do not have that number off the top of my head.

I can get it for you.

It was about $100 million in 2024. So let me actually hold on one moment.

I do have an answer to that question.

SPEAKER_08

$104 million rings a bell, but I don't know.

SPEAKER_00

Let's give me one moment.

Okay.

Just have to flip through a lot of paper first.

Ah, here we go.

So it looks like in the 2025 proposed budget, good memory, it is $104 million to KCRHA.

So the city is providing KCRHA in the proposed budget, proposed to provide them with $104 million.

which the city contracts with KCRHA to administer, and then KCRHA administers that funding on behalf of the city.

And really, that master services agreement they sign is detailed, and so KCRHA is negotiating with the city on exactly what programs and services they are supporting with city funding.

SPEAKER_08

So this body of money and work we're talking about is completely separate from that?

SPEAKER_00

It is because this $5.1 million was to the best, you know, half of it is now coming from the county and the other half is coming from money that was carried forward administratively.

So it's not in either the 2024 or the 2025 budget for that reason.

It's sort of happening outside of that budget.

SPEAKER_08

I do thank you for that clarification, which still, to me, it's still a little bit muddy who's paying for what in terms of jurisdiction.

But you mentioned underspend.

And I do want to note that for the past two years that I've gone through budget deliberations, it seems as though there's a panic from KCRHA saying that the one-time funding is going to end, and so therefore the shelter capacity is going to end, and then council members step up and make a CBA.

to fill that gap and then all of a sudden that money's been found because there was an underspend.

And I'm really, I think that the new CEO and some of the things that she has said about, well, financial management could solve for that this year, that we won't be at that point again.

In the meetings that I and Council Member Moore and Deputy Mayor Washington have been in when, as members of the governing board, I've heard her say, DM Washington, that that one-time funding was one-time funding and please do not come back to us asking us for that again because that was COVID era funding, my understanding was.

So just wanting to make that point when we're talking about the city's contribution or maybe even the county's contribution to KCRHA.

I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_00

And I think that that is correct.

When it was given, it was COVID federal relief funding.

It was one-time funding.

It has been used ultimately to sustain operations of programs, including shelters.

So the impact of loss of funding could be, but I want to say could be is not a certainty, the loss of some shelter units.

SPEAKER_08

And are we sure we're talking about shelter units, not staff members that are getting people into those units?

SPEAKER_00

I think we're talking about, in some cases, just no longer being able to sustain the shelter.

So having to close it or having to do something like convert a shelter to a day center.

So it's still offering services, but it's no longer offering shelter beds.

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Anything further, Council President?

No.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera, followed by Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair.

Can you just confirm, Jen, so this type of diversion program, is this the only one at the city, or is there a...

There is at least one other diversion program, and I can get you information on that.

SPEAKER_00

It is not the only one.

SPEAKER_11

Okay, so...

presumably some of this work could transfer to that program.

I mean, because they're doing similar.

SPEAKER_00

I mean, I just think there's the number of people served.

So if you have less money, you can serve less people.

You can't necessarily just transfer those folks, because there may not be enough resources to serve them.

SPEAKER_11

Except for KCRHA will be doing some of this work, presumably.

SPEAKER_00

KCRHA only has the money that the city gives them to operate programs.

And so they are administering the city's funding on the city's behalf for these programs.

There's no extra pot of money that exists at KCRHA outside of what the city is providing.

What about the county?

the county is providing funding as well, right?

So I don't, I appreciate that point, but I think it is, and this is, these one-time projects are an example where the county did come in and contribute in order to be able to sustain their programs for at least another year.

SPEAKER_11

Because we're taking this regional approach, so that makes sense.

So I don't think I understood you correctly.

So is there a diversion program separate from KCRHA?

SPEAKER_00

The diversion program, KCRHA is receiving funding from the city of Seattle, and they are using that to contract with the provider, in this case, Africatown, to administer the diversion program.

KCRHA is also contracting with another provider to offer another diversion program, or maybe more than one.

So they could have multiple contracts for diversion programs with different providers.

SPEAKER_11

So there'll be some diversion program, still capacity.

It's not like we're ending that.

SPEAKER_00

Not that I'm aware.

I will confirm that to be doubly sure, but not that I'm aware of.

SPEAKER_11

That would be great.

Thank you, Jen.

And then I have a question about there's some of the funding that funded the...

There were two day care center...

Or sorry, day centers, not day care, for youth care.

Yep.

And so was that with one-time funding, those day centers?

Because I know youth care has...

Do they get funding outside of this one-time funding?

SPEAKER_00

I thought they did.

They do.

So all of these programs, so most of these 16 programs, if not all of them, also are receiving ongoing funding from the city plus the one-time funding.

And so those day centers are also receiving ongoing funding from HSD.

SPEAKER_11

Oh, they are the two that we're getting the one time.

I have, you know, let me go back into the details for you afterwards, but I believe so.

Thank you.

Cause I am supportive of youth care.

They do great work and it would be helpful to know really what, what is being lost here and what, what they're getting.

So that's, that's just helpful information as we're engaged.

Thank you, chair.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, council member Rivera, council member Morales.

SPEAKER_13

Oh, boy, there's always so much to try to unravel as we're having these conversations.

Sure, I understand the impact on shelter availability.

And I see your little footnote that says go to the other review that you wrote.

And I don't have that in front of me.

So I'm going to ask maybe a broader question about the nine shelters.

You said two will be closed for reasons unrelated to this one-time funding, leaving nine shelters on the list.

Do you know how many beds or how much space is available in those facilities?

SPEAKER_00

You know, KCRHA had provided an estimate that included those two that have since closed of about, oh, actually, you know what, let's go to the, if you go to the attachment, that's what maybe what you had said.

Give me one moment here.

I do have that information.

They seemed well-organized when I started, but in practice, it's a little harder.

So Attachment A does include the number of beds associated with each of these.

I did not total them, and I'm not able to quickly do the math in my head, but that information is available in Attachment A to the HSD policy consideration paper.

SPEAKER_13

Okay, and so I guess my question is, so...

Do we, so if these are the nine that are going to reduce, for whom we are reducing services, do we know if the impact will be that they are just not going to be available at all anymore?

Or are they going to be getting funding from other places in order to be able to continue providing the service?

SPEAKER_00

For 2025, all the shelters will be able to maintain themselves as is, so no change.

For 2026, we just don't know.

And I think that's because KCRHA is still planning to do a system-wide re-procurement.

We don't know the timing on that, but that could impact.

That could change funding levels or services for many shelters, not just these, right?

So that's one unknown.

There could be other funders that step in.

HSD could decide, work with KCRHA to say, we want to reallocate our existing ongoing resources in such a way as so that we can maintain some of these shelters while others close.

So we just really don't yet know what the impact would be for 2026. Okay.

SPEAKER_13

Well, I think one impact that we can anticipate is that people could potentially have no place to go.

And given the crisis that we're in right now, it's...

really troubling that this is one of the things being contemplated.

So I'll have more questions as we start to talk about the work and the availability of referrals when we get to the unified care team, but I am very concerned that we are contemplating something that might reduce homeless services.

SPEAKER_00

I will also add that the executive has communicated to me that they are actively working on this, right?

They understand that there is this sort of cliff coming in 2016, as it's really been coming each year, that they continue to actively work with QCRE.

So I do think, but they did, they felt like they had a plan for 2025 to keep it open, and they have bought themselves some time to continue to work the problem and figure out solutions for 2026. Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments on policy consideration number five?

Hearing none, let's move on to number six.

SPEAKER_00

Right, so this is around the proposed reduction in food investment programs.

The 2025-2026 proposed budget would reduce direct investments in food security programs by about 1.4 million.

Of that amount, about $1 million is due to the removal of one-time appropriations in the 2024 adopted budget for meal providers and food banks.

About 650,000 of that was for food banks, and the remaining amount was for meal providers.

The proposed budget would also reduce sweetened beverage tax or SBT funding for another food program, the Culturally Nourishing Food Program, and that reduction would be $350,000.

That reduction would start in 2026, and it would reduce the total amount of funding in this program by about half.

HSC has stated that they're not yet sure how they would distribute or handle this reduction of 350,000.

It could eliminate some existing contracts.

It could reduce all contracts by a certain level or eliminate the culturally nourishing food program altogether and reallocate the funds to a different program.

This program did begin in 2024, so it's in its first year.

So there are no past outcomes to look to, but anticipated outcomes include providing almost 30,000 culturally appropriate meals and delivering 20,000 culturally appropriate grocery bags to seniors.

The proposed budget also eliminates $80,000 of SBT funds for produce bags for in-home family child care providers, also known as the Farm to Child Care Pilot.

This would result in the discontinuation of the program, which served 84 sites last year.

HSD has stated that while the pilot produce bag program is a best practice, it is an additional value add that does augment existing programs.

HSD has other programs that are providing food in child care settings.

Options here are to add funding for some or all of the 2024 one time food investments or to restore funding in 2026 for the culturally nourishing food program and or the farm to child care pilot.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Jennifer.

Council member Moore, anything here?

Sorry.

You're totally fine.

I think we were both caught off guard by how quickly we were able to get through that one.

There we go.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, I actually want to defer to Council Member Hollingsworth, but I just want to be on the record that I am looking at restoring all of the food funding cuts.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_12

Council Member Hollingsworth, do you want to say anything?

I appreciate that, Council Member Moore.

I don't have any comments, but we're looking forward to working with you in your office for that.

Thank you.

Amen.

SPEAKER_07

I'll add my name to that motion.

Council President?

SPEAKER_08

I have a question about the language that is used in the memo for these items in the reductions of the food.

So reduces culturally nourishing food, sweetened beverage tax funding by $350,000 and also reduces $80,000 in sweetened beverage tax funds Is that because the sweetened beverage tax fund is decreasing on its own, or is that SBT funding that's going somewhere else?

SPEAKER_00

Thank you.

That's a good question.

And yes, overall, SBT funding has decreased.

I think Ben can speak to more detail about that if needed.

And these reductions in funding is a result of that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Well, that was the policy goal.

of the sweetened beverage tax, which was to reduce the consumption of sweetened beverages.

And over the years, that funding source has gone down, presumably because it is working, or people are going outside of town and getting their concentrate and using it in their small businesses.

But my point is that we need to figure out a way to acknowledge that this is a funding source that will be decreasing because it is presumably having the desired effect.

And so every single year when we're approached with reductions in the amount of money, then there's always this sort of panic about where is the money going to come from.

So follow up with the executive if there's any thinking about going forward, how are we addressing this, and is there a ramp down of some of these programs, or is there any thinking about how we're going to get out of the reduction panic cycle going forward?

SPEAKER_15

I think those are all good questions.

For what it's worth, I'm actually looking at the revenue forecast right now for the Sweet and Berbershack.

What it is is essentially flat, and it may be that it's a question that increasing costs are such that sort of having the net effect that you're describing, but it's not a dramatic drop-off.

So I think it is worth us investigating to see what's going on there, and I'm about to go.

While I'm sitting here, I may do some of that, as a matter of fact.

SPEAKER_08

And one of the difficulties of a separate fund, a sweetened beverage tax fund, same thing as the ad fund, same thing as the jumpstart fund, all of these general fund adjacent funding sources means that the programs that we're funding with this specific money, they don't...

We oftentimes don't hear about them until budget time, because they don't compete in the same way as other general funded programs do.

So that is also something to consider.

SPEAKER_15

Yeah, just a high-level observation about them as well is that they're usually set up sort of to protect them from the budget process otherwise, so that they become a priority, become something that has its own dedicated funding source, and it's therefore not subject to the vagaries.

But interestingly, my experience is that that works well as long as the revenues are growing, and as soon as they start going the other way, then the conversation shifts to, well, how can the general fund help subsidize?

And that's a natural conversation, but it It leads one to the question about whether sort of walling off things in that way really makes as much sense as you might think it would initially at least.

But anyway, that's just an observation.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Any other questions on this?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

SPEAKER_12

I'm sorry.

Don't apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to mention this really quick, and I think this gives us as a council an opportunity to think of more creative ways in which we can stretch our dollar a lot farther for a lot of our food programs because we are going to continue to see a dip in the sugary beverage tax revenue and we're going to see food costs continue to go up and a lot of the culturally...

curated foods amongst a lot of cultures are rice, beans, grains, flour, protein, fresh veggies, and some type of bulk purchasing program that our city could be able to help craft and work with potentially a food distributor, a nonprofit, or whatever it is. to help figure out how we can stretch our dollars just a little bit more, a collective buying program for a lot of the programs, because right now they're doing individual purchases.

And if we can kind of streamline that and help identify an organization that could do that, we could stretch these dollars a lot farther than a lot of the programs going out individually purchasing a lot of the same goods.

So anyways, it gives us an idea of like, hey, this is dipping.

but we can come up with some creative ideas to sustain it and make sure that the dollar stretches because food costs are only just going to continue to go up.

So anyways, I just wanted to throw that out there.

It gives us an opportunity to be a little bit more creative.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Council President, another hand?

Just to follow up on that point.

SPEAKER_07

Do you have a question or a statement?

SPEAKER_08

It'll be a question.

SPEAKER_07

Is it a question statement?

SPEAKER_08

say it okay i could have said it already by now um that kind of creative thinking around bulk purchasing is one example of what i was trying to get at before is how are we dealing with um flat or decreasing funds that are supposed to go for this purpose so i endorse uh what council member hollingsworth is saying and want that that's a good example of what i'm talking about going forward

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

With 21 minutes left and an entire other presentation before lunch, let's move on to number seven.

SPEAKER_00

The next item is around proposed elimination of funding for legal services.

The proposed budget would eliminate funding in HSD for two legal services programs.

The first would eliminate $50,000 of funding for the Public Benefits Legal Assistance Program, which provides legal representation, advice, and counsel to adults who have received an adverse decision regarding benefits.

HSD funds only 9% of this program, and an estimated 25 fewer people would receive services due to the funding elimination.

The proposed budget would also eliminate $124,000 of funding for legal counsel for youth and children, which provides homeless youth free legal assistance.

HSD funds about half of this program.

In 2023, 1,500 hours of attorney time, WAS USED TO SERVE YOUTH EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND 60 YOUTH HAD CASES CLOSED AS A RESULT.

OPTIONS HERE ARE TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR SOLID GROUNDS PUBLIC BENEFITS LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND OR THE LEGAL COUNCIL FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN PROGRAM.

THAT'S IT.

SPEAKER_07

THANK YOU.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS TOP OF MIND FOR MANY EARLIER IN THE FIRST DAY OF PRESENTATIONS.

COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS HERE?

I'm gonna keep us moving then.

SPEAKER_00

All right.

The last one here is regarding removal of $100,000 at a one-time appropriation for the United Way of King County's tax preparation program.

The proposed budget would remove this $100,000.

Looking at the history here, it looks like this was an ongoing funding for United Way.

In 2024 budget, the executive removed the ongoing funding and council added it back as the one-time appropriation.

United Way, this funds about 10% of the United Way budget, and their other funders include donors and the IRS, and they serve about 5,000 households a year.

Options here are added funding for the United Way King County Tax Preparation Services in the 2025 and 2026 budget.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Council Member Moore, anything else?

SPEAKER_14

The only thing I would ask about this is, do you know if the tax preparation is helpful to those lower income households for claiming the earned child income tax credit?

SPEAKER_00

Yes, I think if I remember the stats correctly, it generated about $1.4 million in the earned income tax credit for participating families.

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, and I know when this came up previously at the beginning of this week, whenever we started this section of the budget, I had made mention of looking into another way to help solve this problem.

I looked into it.

My idea doesn't work.

I just wanted to flag that coming back to everyone that I've done the research.

It doesn't work.

SPEAKER_13

If I can make one very quick comment, I agree.

It's a severely small amount of money for a really important service that United Way provides.

I did speak to them to see what kind of impact this would have.

And what it allows them to do is to prepare about 4,800 tax returns for 9,800 Seattle residents, and it helps them claim over $6 million in tax refunds.

So that's money that we get back that starts to circulate in the economy that, as you mentioned, supports low-income families who are—and the other thing that is interesting is that if these families are going to TurboTax or one of the other tax preparation services, They don't connect them to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Working Families Tax Credit.

So that is just sort of an added benefit of supporting this local tax preparation service is that it helps families connect to that additional family support.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00

That was it.

SPEAKER_07

Anything else?

Otherwise, I'm going to...

I'm going to send us on recess now and bring us back at 1.45, not 2 p.m., and do Unified Care Team and Office of Economic Development.

I said if we could get done before 12.45, we would do this.

We're at 12.44.

Any objections?

Hearing none, we will be in recess until 1.45 p.m.

Sharp.

Thank you.

Sharp.