I'm your host, Brian Kalanick.
How is the Seattle City Council reacting to what the police department calls a staffing crisis?
Will a new investment in shelter services have an impact on homelessness in Seattle?
And how will a new law to allow at-home businesses affect your neighborhood?
Council members Lisa Herbold and Andrew J. Lewis answer these questions and the ones you're sending in, too, next on Council Edition.
I'm interested in the Seattle Police Department's proposals for how they would spend $5.4 million.
We have a lot of very unmeritorious eviction proceedings in our system right now because only 10% of tenants on average have counsel.
That is a disgrace.
All that and more coming up next on City Inside Out, Council Edition.
And here they are.
We have with us Councilmember Lisa Herbold from District 1, covering West Seattle down to South Park.
Also with us, Andrew J. Lewis from District 7, downtown to Magnolia.
Thank you both for joining us here.
And Councilmember Herbold, I want to talk about the COVID crisis first.
There's a mass vaccination site in your district in West Seattle.
You've mapped out the different spots where the vaccine is available.
But you had to send out a message recently about people 65 and older in West Seattle.
They have one of the lowest vaccination rates in King County.
I want to talk about your concerns about that and what you're doing to try to change that.
Yeah, that's absolutely correct, Brian.
Countywide, 82% of folks 75 and older have received a first shot, but in one zip code in particular.
In West Seattle 98126, only 54% of senior 75 and older have received their first shot.
So it's been really, really important between the equity issues associated with different demographics of people having access to vaccine and the fact that folks who live on the peninsula were very isolated in getting off the peninsula.
These factors mean it's really, really important to make sure that we have equitable access here in West Seattle.
And so I really appreciate the fact that the Seattle Fire Department and the mayor's office, the mayor herself, have worked really hard to get a site located in West Seattle and really appreciate all the work.
that our non-profit community partners have been doing to make sure that the shots that are available in West Seattle are getting in the arms of the folks who need it most.
Yep, yep.
And you can read more about those sites on Councilmember Herbold's blog, also on the Mayor's webpage, so check out those details, please, everybody.
Councilmember Lewis, let me go to you next here.
As federal aid for the COVID pandemic starts to come in to local governments, You've proposed an ordinance to appropriate $12 million for hotel rooms, enhanced shelter, tiny home villages.
The money would be reimbursed by FEMA.
I know there's been a lot of debate about this in City Hall about how this would work.
And we actually had a few emails coming in on this topic.
A common theme was where and how this money would be spent.
Here's what one person wrote.
Can we get an accounting of all the homeless programs the city is spending money on?
Can we understand what the metrics are for success?
I know that's a big question there, but maybe we can apply it to this new money the council is trying to appropriate here.
How will it be spent?
How do you measure the results of that?
Right, so we've had this debate over the last couple of weeks in the city about FEMA reimbursement.
When can we do it?
How can we do it?
How does it work?
And what we really did as a council is hunker down with FEMA themselves through the leadership of Council President Gonzalez and convening that meeting to really learn what circumstances can we seek reimbursement for?
How can we do it?
How does it work?
And really try to come to an accord as a council and a mayor's office on a strategy to do this.
So just to let everybody know, like generally the way it works is the city has to spend the money up front.
And then we can apply for reimbursement.
There has to be something called pre-clearance where, you know, they have to kind of give us the go ahead.
We also need to make sure that we're spending it on reimbursable expenses that are 100% reimbursable.
That generally means catering to the needs of folks who are 65 and older and or have comorbidities that make them particularly vulnerable to COVID.
So, you know, diabetes, asthma, respiratory illnesses, kidney disease.
We know with certainty that there are hundreds of homeless people in Seattle that fall into those categories.
It is possible there are thousands who have those conditions and comorbidities.
The current plan is not being, we're not being terribly prescriptive.
We're giving some leeway to the mayor's office to interpret what assets they want to stand up.
This money could be used for tiny houses.
This money could be used for hotels.
This money could be used for enhanced shelters.
as long as it meets the requirements that have been laid down for reimbursement.
I would just say to some of the questions about tracking the investments, the Human Services Department through their contracting would track this just like anything else in terms of the performance metrics that Mayor Durkin laid down for providers earlier in her term.
All of that is available online if people want to go and see and track.
And actually part of why we know Tiny House Villages works so well is we have five years of data from tracking the performance metrics.
So I would encourage folks to go to the Human Services Department website.
People are welcome to email me and I can send that link.
But we do, the city does track the data, the performance metrics, where the money is going.
The big problem, we don't have enough shelter.
And during COVID, we have hemorrhage shelter because of de-intensification.
So until we can stand up these additional shelter assets, we're gonna continue to struggle with the homeless encampment in the city.
Thank you very much for that.
And Councilmember Herbold, maybe I can go back to you about this, because I think Councilmember Lewis is kind of bringing this up.
One of the big challenges during the pandemic has been this guidance from the CDC to have these non-congregate shelters and, in many cases, to allow people to continue living in encampments unless these individual options are available here.
I know that a camp recently sprung up in your district around White Center, for example, Seattle Public Utilities, responding with a trash pickup program.
But in looking to actually get people off the street, does a new influx of federal money give you and the council more options when it comes to providing this non congregate shelter?
It absolutely does.
I do want to just underscore one of the points that Council Member Lewis made.
We in the City of Seattle are, by ordinance, have directed the Human Services Department to do results-based contracting.
So that is why we collect this data.
That is why it's accessibly available.
with transparency to the public so folks can both see the measurements and the results of those measurements.
So, and as Council Member Lewis says, the issue is not that our social service providers are not doing a good job.
The issue is that we do not have enough options for folks to go to.
So yeah, I have great hope for a hoteling strategy that can both present some options for people in the near term, but that our hoteling strategy can evolve into a pipeline to permanent housing as well.
Okay.
Thank you very much for that.
And Council Member Lewis, I'll go to you next year.
I wanted to talk about another large-scale question about the Regional Homelessness Authority.
Regina Cannon, as you know, recently turned down the job offer to be CEO of that group.
I wanted to know your concerns about that, and what's next in trying to get this group up and running?
It's been a while, and I know this has been tough to get off the ground.
Look, you know, it's always going to be complicated when you're doing a national search to select a leader, especially the inaugural leader for an organization this complicated.
We engaged in the same type of search process that we do for university presidents, for police chiefs, for very, you know, high ranking appointed officials.
And, you know, we made an offer as a governing committee to Regina Cannon.
Regina rejected it.
Yesterday, actually, we convened as the governing committee to make another offer to Mark Dons, who was another finalist, someone who had a hand in sort of the constitution and shaping of the authority.
very well versed in the issues.
And Brian, it was really good that we could just go back to our list of finalists.
We had an exceptional list that was compiled of people in the national search looking for the best potential candidates.
And of course, it was disappointing when Regina rejected the offer, but we had a whole bunch of other great candidates to consider.
We've selected Mark Jones, who's going to be exceptional in this position.
And yesterday in open session, the governing committee voted to affirm that offer.
And I look forward to working with Mark Duns to shape the Regional Homelessness Authority and move forward with a unified county strategy on homelessness.
And we will continue to track that story.
Thank you for that update there.
Councilmember Herbold, I want to go back to you here.
Switch gears a little bit to ask you about some other housing issues.
The mayor recently extended the eviction moratorium in Seattle through June, as you know, and the council has actually pushed back the date to discuss offering free legal counsel to tenants in eviction proceedings until the end of this month.
A double-headed question here, if you would, do you support this idea of free legal counsel in these eviction cases?
And how many people might use that option when, at some point, this moratorium is going to end and that rent is going to come due?
I absolutely support a right to counsel for folks who are facing eviction.
I actually proposed a, well, proposed and the council funded a program that was for legal aid for folks who are faced with misdemeanors, but also might have an underlying civil infraction to allow for attorneys to the public defense.
to actually represent those clients.
And my objective in proposing this pilot was to look at expanding it to all tenants in similar eviction circumstances.
So I wholeheartedly support it.
And you're right, Brian, there is going to be very likely a great need after the eviction moratorium, although I am gratified that we've been able to provide so much rental assistance to both landlords and tenants.
You know, when we help tenants, that helps landlords too.
So the more tenants that we can help with rent assistance, the more that's helping landlords pay their mortgages.
But yeah, there is a great need.
The folks who provide these services now give us an estimate of about 1,200 people being evicted a year under a normal year.
And so I'm also really supportive of a lot of the other work that we're doing to make sure that before an eviction for a non-payment of rent can be filed in court, that people are given the opportunity to take advantage of time payment plans.
Landlords will be required to provide or are required to provide time payment plans to tenants.
And that the COVID emergency will actually be a defense in court after the expiration of the state of emergency.
And so, lawyers to help tenants make that defense will be really important.
Okay.
Thank you very much for that.
Councilmember Lewis, you actually co-sponsored this free legal counsel bill with Councilmember Sawant and Morales here, but I know some of your former coworkers in the city attorney's office have brought up some questions about it with the state restrictions on gifts of public funds.
I wanted to ask your opinion.
Does this bill need to be restructured for one?
And actually looking closely at the bill summary here, is it really only going to cost $750,000 a year to provide free legal counsel in eviction cases for any tenant in Seattle that wants help?
That number seemed low to me.
Yeah, you know, I mean, right now it's hard to say exactly what it's going to be.
Looking at other cities suggests that we probably are going to need to anticipate that the expenses will be a little higher than what we're anticipating right now.
I think it's important to note, though, Brian, and this is something that we've been grappling with a lot.
You know, there is a cost that goes into establishing some kind of cutoff for eligibility.
You know, it's going to require an entire additional FTE at an annual cost of, you know, full-time employee at an annual cost of, you know, around $140,000.
It's going to require the purchase of software that costs about half a million dollars to facilitate that process.
So we got to be clear that, you know, one thing I've really been looking at is like, let's analyze this, right?
Are we really saving money by applying the eligibility?
That's a separate question that you're talking about in terms of the legality.
and the gift of public funds issue.
And that is something where we're taking a little bit more time to look at this, because I think what we need to really analyze here is a lot of other cities are doing this.
So why isn't this a fundamental government service?
If it's a fundamental government service, no gift of public funds issue, we don't need to do anything really to change the law, but maybe do some stuff to build a strong case.
in terms of establishing our expectation that this is a fundamental government service and maybe strengthen the case in court for our lawyers to prove that.
If it isn't, then it would fall into the category of things to support the poor and infirm, and a court might throw it out, right?
They might say, you know, there needs to be an eligibility requirement.
I mean, I'll say this, like I do not want an eligibility requirement.
I don't think that it is administrable.
I think it would defeat some of the underlying purposes of the bill.
And I think we just need to really grapple with how can we strengthen the case that this is a fundamental government service, right?
That this is like, it's like the fire department.
It's like a bunch of other things we do.
And a lot of other cities are recognizing that like we would be I think the ninth city to adopt something like this, and a lot of the cities that have adopted it don't have eligibility testing as part of it.
One last thing I want to share on this in New York, 86% of the tenants who had representation in court.
as a result of their right to counsel, were able to defeat the eviction proceeding.
That tells me that we have a lot of very unmeritorious eviction proceedings in our system right now, because only 10% of tenants on average have counsel.
That is a disgrace.
And we need to step in and make sure that due process is respected, that the law is respected.
And you can only do that if everyone is represented by an officer of the court.
And that's what this ordinance will do.
Thank you.
And I know the council is taking that up.
later here in the month of March, so we'll track that as well.
Councilmember Herbold, back to you here.
The council is considering a cut of $5.4 million to the Seattle Police Department's budget.
This is after the council approved a $5.4 million add to the SPD late last year.
for some higher costs there due to officer separation and overtime.
I know that the council said then it would work to take that money back from the 2021 budget for the SPD from money saved on fewer salaries to pay out.
So this is part of the council's decades long effort to crack down on overtime spending at SPD.
But the mayor's office now and interim interim chief Diaz are calling this a staffing crisis.
911 response times are increasing.
More than 200 officers have left in a 13 month span.
The chief says this budget conversation makes it difficult for him to run the SPD, so I just want to know.
Do you think this cut you're talking about would push more officers to leave impact 911 response times further?
Or what are your concerns here?
Thank you, Brian.
So I think I really appreciate the way you asked the question because you're recognizing that the council's actions have as their foundation importance of responsible budgeting and recognizes the council's oversight role through the budget authority in the city charter.
It's also important to really recognize that the council fully funded the Seattle Police Department's 2021 staffing plan in the budget, which calls for hiring 114 new officers.
If you recall, there was a, during the budget process, there was a cry among some that we should actually extend the mayor's hiring freeze.
The mayor put a hiring freeze on SPD in 2020, and there was a call that we should, in our budget, extend that hiring freeze through 2021. We did not do that.
I'm interested in the Seattle Police Department's proposals for how they would spend $5.4 million.
I've been saying that since December when the bill was introduced that I would not be rigid around a $5.4 million cut.
But by proposing the cut, we are putting SPD in a position where they have the opportunity to come and tell us how they would best use those funds.
And they are not proposing to use those funds to hire more police officers because, again, we have fully funded their hiring plan.
But they are talking about ways to use some of those dollars to fund other functions in the police department, particularly some civilian positions that can help address some of the staffing crises as it relates to the loss of patrol officers.
So that's talking about including more community service officers, This is a program that I sponsored when we reestablished it a couple years ago, including more crime prevention coordinators.
I'm also really interested in addressing some of the longstanding recommendations of the city auditor about public disclosure requests that the police department responds to in the long times that it takes for SPD to respond.
And also the Inspector General's recommendations about lack of sufficient evidence storage space that has resulted in the police department having to destroy evidence.
So there's a good conversation going on about how to use some of the funds associated with the $5.4 million post-cut, and I'm really excited to have that conversation.
I also want to underscore that in February, there is this National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.
It's a 19, it's a national organization, 19 public safety professionals across the country, including Chief Diaz, and they've made some observations in light of the fact that cities across the country are experiencing increases in homicide and crimes of violence.
And the things that they underscore is really important to do during this time where we've seen increased violence in the face of COVID-19 is to address the pandemic, address legitimate concerns that the public has about fair and equitable policing and addressing police violence, and then funding anti-violence strategies.
Nowhere in the recommendations did they say you have to increase the size of your police department to address this.
And these are exactly the things that we're doing.
Yeah.
And we're going to talk about that funding in just a second there, Councilmember Herbold.
But Councilmember Lewis, I want to make sure that I have you weigh in here, too.
U.S.
District Court Judge James Robart has weighed in on this.
Some harsh words for the council last month.
He said this about the council looking at further cuts at the SPD.
You can't simply charge off in a direction without knowing what the consequences are and having in place plans to replace essential services currently being provided by police.
If you do that, then you start to violate provisions of the court's consent decree.
I just wanted to ask you about this.
This isn't an op-ed talking about this.
This is a U.S.
District Court judge.
Are you concerned about this, that this action with regard to this cut could put the council in trouble when it comes to the consent decree?
Yeah, you know, I mean, I think we're going to be having a big conversation here with Judge Robart as a counsel and as a city attorney's office to really delve into the actions that we're taking to protect, expand and reform public safety that I think is consistent with the consent decree.
You know, I mean, part of my reaction to Judge Robart, I think those are fair sentiments.
No one would really disagree.
including the council.
We put in place a process in the fall to have a very intentional restructuring and redevelopment of public safety.
As Councilmember Herbold stated earlier, not a single police officer was fired by the actions of the council, because we do want to put something in place.
Actually, we hired 114 additional officers, as Councilmember Herbold stated.
So, you know, we do want to really intentionally put in place some of those alternative services, scale them up, and then probably go to Judge Robart with a revised staffing plan once that work is all done.
Um, you know, I think that we need to do a little bit of work as a, as a council and city attorney's office to make that plan clear to judge Robart, um, uh, in the coming, uh, in the coming weeks.
But, uh, you know, I think that that's exactly the right tact.
You know, I've talked, uh, extensively about the need to really lean in, uh, to programs like STAR in Denver.
like the hoots in Eugene, Oregon, that emphasize provider based low acuity first response.
The council took actions to expand dramatically the health one program from one vehicle to three vehicles with a with a plan to eventually scale to five.
You know, we just released and Councilmember her bolts committee Uh, you know, well over $10 million in in new investments through the Human Services Department.
Talk about that in a second.
Yeah, impacts and public safety.
So I mean, I would just say, you know, Judge Robart, we definitely are hearing you.
We want to work with you.
We definitely understand.
I mean, I as a barred attorney definitely understand that we need to stay within the confines of the consent decree and work proactively with the court monitor and with Judge Robart, who's overseeing the process to get to a safer Seattle for everybody.
Thank you very much for that.
Council Member Herbold.
Yeah, please, please.
I just I just want to because there's this idea out there that the cuts that the council made in the budget process were staffing cuts.
I want to lift up the fact that the reduction in the police department's budget was a little under 20% and almost half of that was just from transfers.
Transfers of 911 transfers of the parking enforcement officers.
transfers of victim advocates into other departments.
And so the reduction in the police department budget that actually impacts the police department's functions were really focused on things like overtime, technology, you know, And maintaining, for instance, the mayor's civilian hiring freeze for 2021, which is exactly what we're reexamining now, whether or not we should maintain the mayor's civilian hiring freeze for 2021.
But is there a concern, Councilmember Herbold, that perception is a part of this?
And are you worried about this growing number of officers leaving and the message they're getting from the council?
You know, I am.
I think that is a valid concern.
I also, you know, recognize that other department, I think there's a lot that's gone into police officers leaving.
I think the fact that first responders are having to deal with a lot of stresses in the job right now, you know, twice double the number of fire department employees left the fire department in 2020 than was projected to have left.
These are really difficult jobs to do at a really, really difficult time.
I think there's a lot that went into it.
I think the police department officers are not only dealing with incredibly challenging time right now.
But you're right, they did hear the council talking about reducing the budget.
But I also wanna be clear that the number of officers that we ever talked about reducing the size of the department by has never been more than 100. And of that 100, 30 were from attrition.
So we were only talking about letting go in the middle of a pandemic and an economic crisis, 70 officers.
And so it is very unfortunate that 185 left within that context.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying.
I did want to follow up if I could.
Councilmember herbal briefly because this this whole idea of reimagining public safety.
It is underway.
This recent $10.4 million investment in public safety community safety.
I should say building these safety hubs around the community.
Could you briefly go into that?
I can give you about a minute or so.
Sure, so the community safety initiative became more prominent after last year's downtown shooting and well, actually, I can say, yeah, early last year in January of 2020 and it now operates in three different community safety hubs throughout the city, including West Seattle.
It is led by black and brown communities that work really closely with the Seattle Police Department in doing violence disruption work and violence prevention work.
This is an effort that we have added additional $4 million in funding already.
And then there's another $10.4 million for programs like the Community Safety Initiative, but other programs as well that are doing important public safety work in their communities.
And so the council has authorized HSD to go and use those dollars to strengthen the organizations that are already providing this work.
Thank you very much for that.
We need to start wrapping up the show.
We've had so many different topics we've been able to cover here, but I did want to make sure I jumped on this.
A quick question about at home businesses.
The city just passed a measure to allow for this spot for cider out at a home in Ballard, one of the pandemic inspired companies benefiting from this.
I'm trying to figure out what impact you're going to see in your districts.
Councilmember Lewis, is it a new in-home record shop in Queen Anne or a very, very small roller rink in Magnolia?
Just kind of kind of spitballing here.
What what do you see coming out of this?
Yeah, you know, I think it's important as we go forward that we have strategies that are going to activate neighborhoods with new uses new ways to bring people together.
And, you know, I think a big part of that is going to be, how can we allow more businesses that are within walking distance, you know, this could be a strategy to build more 15 minute communities in in the city.
And, you know, it sort of harkens back to the planning strategies that the city used to have historically.
We all walk around some of our single family neighborhoods and see little corner structures that used to be grocery stores, right, and now they're homes or whatever.
And, you know, I think it's really important that we have some options where people don't have to necessarily go all the way to the center of the urban village for some kind of amenity, right, that they can find it nearby.
Now, it's important to note, you know, we don't want to create like a big loophole that's going to allow commercial zoning essentially everywhere in the city.
You know, you need to you need to live in the same structure where you have your business, you know, need the owner occupied.
And so I think that there's some good sideboards on it.
But I think it could also just be a good opportunity to inject a little bit more liveliness and inject some better access to some amenities to folks who right now, you know, have to drive to get some kind of service.
Right, right.
I know there's a lot more still ahead with that.
So thank you both for joining me here.
Unfortunately, we are out of time, but we'll see you next time on Council.