Seattle City Council Public Assets & Homelessness Committee 1/18/23

We are recording.

Thank you, son.

The January 18th, 2022 meeting of the Seattle City Council's Public Assets and Homelessness Committee will come to order.

It is 2.01 p.m.

I am Andrew Lewis, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda is excused.

So Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council President Juarez.

Council President Juarez let us know she would be late.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair, there are three members present.

Thank you.

And as the clerk stated during the roll, Council President Juarez indicated that she will be coming to the meeting later in the agenda.

And Council Member Mosqueda has been excused from today's meeting.

Proceeding to approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Moving on to public comment.

Well, actually, first, I will give a little bit of a chair's report at the top of the meeting.

We are going to be considering the promulgated waterfront park and public spaces legislation, council bill 120492, which we did have the initial hearing on two weeks ago in which we added to the calendar at the council meeting yesterday for introduction and referral.

So I did just wanna flag at the top that on the revised agenda, that item has been included I would like to take action on that bill today.

If committee members are amenable to that.

Otherwise we are going to have consideration of I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

as it's also going to include an update from our partners at the convention center, which is a big January for the convention center, as we are going to hear soon.

So with that, why don't we jump into it by starting our public comment period.

And the public comment period will be moderated by the clerk.

I believe we only have one remote and one in-person commenter.

So why don't we go ahead and set public comment at two minutes per speaker.

And Mr. Clerk, you may moderate the public comment session, starting with remote speakers first.

Our first remote speaker is George Scarola.

George, please press star six to unmute, and we'll start the timer when you begin speaking.

Thank you.

Chair Lewis, council members, I'm George Scarola, representing Lehigh, the Low Income Housing Institute.

I'm here today to advocate for a more robust, severe weather system that can deal with periods of freezing rain and snow, or now extreme heat.

We can't continue to rely on a patchwork of shelters assembled at the last minute every time our region experiences severe weather.

And we need to serve not just those most capable of finding shelter openings on their own, but ensure that we have robust outreach to connect with the folks who have the most barriers.

A robust severe weather response system should include these four elements.

One, a dedicated severe weather budget that keeps more shelters open 24-7 for longer periods.

Two, during weather emergencies, the Housing Command Center is repurposed to coordinate efforts of first responders, outreach teams, providers.

Three, one central phone number that first responders, metro drivers, any resident can call to get information on shelter locations, transportation, and capacity in real time.

for a dedicated team that can provide outreach and transportation for the most vulnerable people during evenings and weekends.

As always, Lehigh stands ready to partner with the city and the Regional Homeless Authority to build a robust severe weather system as part of our comprehensive approach to addressing the homelessness crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you, George.

Our next public commenter is Alec Zimmerman.

Ah, Sieg Heil, my damn Nazi, Gestapo, democracy, fascist mob, and psychopath.

Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman, and I stand here with my red sign and yellow David star.

And I want to speak about Waterfront Park.

Thank you council for good job.

What is you doing for homeless?

So right now, every homeless can use waterfront park.

It's very important.

You spend $6 billion for tunnel.

In tunnel right now have $230 million in debt every year.

Right now you're doing everything service for waterfront park.

You know what this means?

Probably another dozen and dozen million dollars.

You very care about homeless people, you know what I mean?

You spend $100 million for making homeless people happy.

You make probably a little bit aristocrat happy too, who live next to this waterfront.

But homeless, very happy.

Probably these 300 people who die every year, not too much happy because he cannot go right now to waterfront park, you know what I mean?

But who care about people who dying?

It's America, everybody dying.

I think, More dying people now than in the Vietnam War.

You know what this means.

It's only in Seattle, in King country.

So this totally confused me.

By definition, Waterfront Park is very important.

Exactly.

And this friend of Waterfront Park, How many billionaires are friends of Waterfront Park?

It's a very big question.

Maybe these billionaires give a little bit of money, like 1% to homeless people.

So stand up, America, from this 750,000 idiots.

A very high percentage work for Democrats.

You need to be absolutely a cretina to work for Democrats who spend $100 billion and never make our lives better.

Thank you very much.

That concludes our public comment period.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

We will now proceed with our agenda items of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Item 1, Council Bill 120492, an ordinance relating to the maintenance and operations for the waterfront park and public spaces, authorizing the superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation to delegate certain central waterfront maintenance operations and management to the Seattle Center Department, delegating authority to the Seattle Center Director to enforce waterfront park and public spaces rules, and authorizing an extension of the existing pilot agreement with Friends of Waterfront Seattle.

Thank you so much and we are joined here by a panel of stakeholders within and outside the city to talk about this item.

This is a follow-up from a briefing we had on the same legislation two weeks ago at our previous committee meeting.

So I know that we're joined here by Marshall Foster, Christopher Williams, Robert Nellums, and I think Tiffany and Joy are here for this item as well.

So I'm going to hand it over to the panel and let everyone do introductions.

If you could share name, title, and organization, if that's applicable.

And we are also joined by Eric McConney from our Council Central staff.

Eric, I think we want to start with the panel and then have some time for central staff at the end.

Is that agreeable?

That's totally fine.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Good afternoon.

I'll be here.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And I do want to state for the record that Council President Juarez has joined the meeting and the attendance will reflect that she is present and just in time for the first agenda item.

So with that, how about Marshall, I hand it over to you to kind of chair the panel here.

And then after the panel is done, we can hear from Eric if there's any additional questions.

So take it away, please.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair Lewis and committee members.

It's great to be back with you today.

As you mentioned, we were here two weeks ago and gave you a briefing on this legislation.

Let's just start with a quick round of introductions from our panel here.

First off, Marshall Foster, I'm interim director at Seattle Center, and I will hand it over to you, Christopher.

Good afternoon, I'm Christopher Williams, Chief of Staff, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and I'll hand it over to Robert.

Hi, I'm Robert Millums, Director of Seattle Center, and I'll hand it over to Tiffany.

Hi, Tiffany Malacke, I am the Operations and Management Advisor for the Waterfront, for the Office of the Waterfront Civic Projects, and I will hand it over to Joy.

Thanks, good afternoon, I'm Joy Shigaki, I'm the President and CEO of Friends of Waterfront Seattle.

Great, thank you all very much for being with us.

What we thought we would do today, if this sounds good to the committee, is you got to hear from Robert and I and Tiffany about the kind of nuts and bolts of the delegation agreement, as well as the position authorization, and a little bit about how our kind of comprehensive public safety approach would be implemented on the waterfront.

But we didn't get to hear from Christopher from the Parks Department.

You had the unfortunate situation with a power outage.

I did.

And also from Joy Shigaki with Friends of Waterfront Seattle.

So if it's OK, we thought we would just give you all the floor to offer your observations on what we're proposing here.

I'll start with you, Christopher.

Thank you, Marshall.

So we began this conversation probably a year ago.

when Marshall was in his capacity as the Director of the Office of the Waterfront.

And we were right in the middle of doubling down on park maintenance across the system, what we refer to as a park maintenance surge.

And it's interesting because this idea to transfer the operations of the waterfront came at a time when we were dealing with 485 parks across the system.

And I think the timing of just recognizing the level of effort it was taking to restore our parks made sense to be thinking about, you know, maybe it is a good idea to transfer Waterfront Park operations to the Seattle Center.

We began having discussions with Marshall and Robert.

We began talking about our maintenance practices.

We have cultivated a philosophy with not just our internal city partners, but all of our partners, that the best partner we can be is to allow others to do some things that they might be better at doing.

In the Seattle Park and Recreation Department, and that's really how we got here, talking to Robert looking at their history of managing large events, looking at their history of managing their safety and security operation and coming to a conclusion.

that they likely have a different level of better experience doing those things than the Seattle Park and Recreation Department had.

So it kind of made it a easy decision as we are now taking on 350 million dollars in new funding for park district work over the next six years that our hands are pretty full and it does make sense to be thinking about how to work with Robert and his team to transfer this level of work to the Seattle Center.

So sorry, I wasn't here to say that two weeks ago, but that is what I would have said.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christopher.

We'll hand it over to you, Joy.

Thanks, Marshall.

It's really a pleasure for us to be the nonprofit partner to the city on this extraordinary new civic project and part of that approach of having a public space that really is one that everyone can experience and have an extraordinary experiencing is really creating a comprehensive humane public safety approach, right, that ensures a really positive experience for everyone.

And so the public safety model that we are creating and that we've been piloting on the waterfront on Pier 62 has been this really incredible nimble approach that allows us to really be able to respond in various situations with a lot of care.

And this is really important to our work and to our organization.

And so our partnership with Seattle Center, with Evergreen Treatment Services and the REACH program is essential to continue to deliver on this fully.

We have been contracting with REACH for multiple years and investing in the belief that having dedicated outreach teams within the boundaries of the park and the future waterfront park for members of our community who are unsheltered or in need of assistance and services is part of that humane approach.

And this partnership that we all are really gonna be carrying forward to really bring to life in this really critical space and new space in the city, it's foundational.

to establishing an environment that will meet the mission and vision of Waterfront Park.

So we were committed to continuing to fund and support REACH and our efforts with Seattle Center, modeling real values of integrity, equity, and inclusion.

So we're very grateful for the work that we're doing together, and we're really looking forward to continuing to bring this new approach to life at Waterfront Park.

Thank you very much, Joy.

All right.

Well, we, yeah, we covered the, you know, the overall presentation on the legislation at the prior meeting.

We did answer some follow-up questions.

We are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

And yes, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Marshal.

So I do just want to clarify at the top of this conversation that we have two responsive agenda items to this discussion with the Friends of the Waterfront and the Seattle Center.

And so it's agenda item one, but also in case committee members are we are considering an ordinance on council bill 120496 under item two and there's a little bit of overlap between the subjects.

I'm sure the panel will be sticking around for agenda item 2 as well.

information.

I know that the department of the Seattle center responded to committee requests for additional information after our last meeting in a very timely manner.

I know that committee members have had an opportunity to seek and receive briefings on that information in addition to but committee members may have some additional questions before we go to final consideration, so I want to leave some time here for that.

So with that, are there any colleagues who have questions for the panel?

I don't see any questions, and I don't know, Eric, if you want to weigh in.

on this agenda item on item one from central staff perspective?

I have a few things to add, but I am noticing that Council Member Herbold just came on camera, and I want to make sure that I'm not stepping on your toes, Council Member.

Council Member Herbold, did you have a question?

Sure, I just since I was one of the people who did ask for additional information the last committee meeting.

I did want to speak to the receipt of that information.

And again, express express my appreciation for the deep dive into the number of exclusions and the length of exclusion over the past year.

I do want to say for the record, I think there may have been a misunderstanding, perhaps on my part, but I thought I remembered hearing in the last committee meeting that the vast majority of exclusions issued in 2022 were for seven or fewer days.

That is actually not the case.

The vast majority of exclusions are for a year.

Many of them are for serious violations, arson, threats to shoot with a knife, arson.

Some of them, I would have some questions about the merits of a full year exclusion.

I likewise would ask but not in this venue, would argue that some of these other exclusions that there may be a question of whether or not the exclusion was the right tool.

But really for me, what weighs against my non-professional expertise and analysis of this is really the letter that we received from REACH in support of the transfer.

And they refer to the graduated response to incidents as we learned about in our last committee meeting, starting with Tier 1, the social service outreach, Tier 2 being park ambassadors, Tier 3 being basic park rules enforcement, and Tier 4 being criminal enforcement.

And that REACH characterizes this approach as utilizing the most compassionate approach in all situations.

My review of this document that identifies the reason for an exclusion, the length of time, the number of times the person had been excluded prior to that.

I might have some questions.

I don't want to substitute my review of the document and information that I appreciate receiving for the professional expertise of folks on the ground who are doing this work.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold.

Just to briefly build on those remarks as well, I did appreciate receiving that letter from REACH, endorsing this transfer, and I also want to put on the record, it was good to receive the related communication from Friends of the Waterfront, and I thank Joy Shigaki for sending us that letter as well.

It was helpful as we reviewed these materials to see that support and the partnerships that are at play in doing this work, so thank you.

Are there any other questions from committee members, or is this a good transition maybe to Eric, and then we can come back and see if there's questions.

Eric, if you have anything to add before we queue up considering this legislation.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll just, if I might, I'll just add a little context for folks who maybe weren't able to view the previous meeting, the discussion around the reviews, review of the data that was provided by the departments on exclusions flows from the rules that are in the works right now that are parks rules that would port over to the Seattle Center.

They're modeled on what has been going on for quite some time, for years, I understand, at the Seattle Center in terms of conduct.

And so, taking a little liberty, speaking for Tiffany and other folks, people worked over quite some time to say, how do these central rules, how would they apply on the waterfront?

The presentation two weeks ago showed that there's some differences dealing with things like swimming and fishing and, you know, things that you don't, as much as it would be fun, Mr. Nelums, to have that at the Seattle Center is, I don't think folks are fishing there, that I'm aware of.

So anyway, I digress a little bit, but that was the context for the question of if If these rules are going to apply that are being modeled on the Seattle Center, let's have some data on how this has played out at the Seattle Center.

So.

That's just some some framing or some context for that discussion.

And as you know, this bill would authorize the transfer from parks to the Seattle center, along with it, the responsibility for the rules that you all been discussing, it would also direct folks and executive departments that are that are represented here to develop a long term management plan.

with folks at Friends of the Waterfront.

So that is something to expect.

The committee and the council should expect in the future.

We understand that it's actively underway.

And one of the things that was supplied about a week ago or so was an outline, a really detailed outline of what that plan would look like.

So that's something that's called for in this bill.

And then I just also want to say, for the sake of completeness, that the fifth thing involved here is the extension of the current pilot agreement that governs the relationship between the City of Seattle and Friends until that long-term agreement has been authorized so that there isn't a lapse or gap in understanding of how these parties will work together.

So that's, Chair Lewis, I thought I would add those things to sort of stitch that in and provide some context for the decision that is before you all.

I had some communication through Mr. Thorpe in your office that perhaps you might want to offer a tune-up amendment, a little verbal amendment that clarifies the location of the waterfront parks and public spaces.

So maybe I'll queue that up and pass the ball back.

Thank you, Eric.

I do want to clarify one thing from your presentation just now and then I will circle back to queue up that amendment.

I thought I heard towards the beginning of your recitation that that this work would be completely consistent with the current doctrine that Parks uses.

My understanding is that this has evolved in a separate way from how Parks has managed its open space that, and maybe Director Nellams could speak to this a little bit, but my understanding is that sort of this three-tiered system with REACH, ambassadors, and then on-campus on-arm security is a unique model that Seattle Center has developed, but I want to clarify that because it sounded like, and it sounded in your presentation, but maybe I misheard you, that those are the same thing.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page before we move forward today.

Can you clarify that?

Yes, please.

Thanks for asking, and sorry for, I think, blurring that distinction.

What I intended to convey is that the rules that would apply to the waterfront under the management of the Seattle Center are in development.

The Seattle Municipal Code allows directors of departments to develop rules as an administrative function to carry out what is in code.

That's been carried out under the auspices of the Seattle Parks Department because this transfer hasn't happened yet.

And I think that's where I blurred the distinction.

So the modeling of the rule set that you just described comes up from the Seattle Center and the way that these rules have been used there.

So hopefully that is my chance to redeem that commentary there.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Okay, seeing none, I do want to just kind of walk folks through a speaking amendment that I'm gonna be making that was recommended by the law department just as a belt and suspenders kind of addition to this legislation.

And I'll just briefly describe that and then we'll formally, I'll formally move it in a moment, but I just want to explain the basis and what it would be.

So we did receive guidance from law that it would be good for us to specifically reference the Overlook Walk project as part of this ordinance.

It's not something that's absolutely necessary, but we think it would be helpful to our broader efforts in passing these ordinances relating to the future of the Waterfront Project to reference the Overlook Walk.

and other locations that are on the map that is attached to the ordinance.

So I'll read out that text as an amendment after we move the bill and get it in front of us.

I just want to let folks know that the speaking amendment was brought on the advice of law.

I think we have concurrence with central staff that it would be a wise addition, a technical addition to the bill.

So I just wanted to flag that before we move it in case people are, wondering why I'm trying to put in a talking amendment.

And Chair, I'll just interject a little bit.

Yes.

In conversation with Marshall and with Tiffany, not a surprise to them.

And I think speaking for them, not a problem for them either in the spirit of clarifying things.

Yeah, I'm getting, for the record, there were hand nods and thumbs up from the panel indicating approval.

of Eric's comment.

So with that, I'm going to go ahead and move Council Bill 120492. Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 120492 and amend it as currently written, so Section 1, sorry, to amend Section 1 of Council Bill 120492 to reference Overlook Walk and other locations referenced in the attached map so that the text reads as follows, quote mark, and the Waterfront Park Boulevard established under Ordinance 12644, comma, all as illustrated in Attachment A to this ordinance.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

seconded by councilmember Herbold.

the amendment passes and will be incorporated into the legislation.

The amended council bill 120492 is now in front of the committee.

Are there any comments related to

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

This legislation passes and will be referred to the next full council meeting on Tuesday, January 24th.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Item two, council bill 120496, an ordinance relating to the Seattle Waterfront Park, authorizing the director of Seattle Center to accept non-city funds, amending ordinance 126725, which adopted the 2023 budget and creating new positions at Seattle Center.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and we have our same panel as the preceding agenda item to go over this legislation.

So, Marshall, should I hand it back over to you for a bit of a walkthrough on this and to delegate to the panel as necessary?

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

As you mentioned earlier, these two are really companion legislation.

The previous item delegates and creates that authority for the Seattle Center to step in to provide those services.

This ordinance is a critical piece because it puts in place the position authority for them to hire the staff necessary to complete that work.

You'll recall we had a discussion around this as part of your consideration of the six-year MPD spending plan renewal last fall that created the funding for these positions.

This now is giving Seattle Center the authorization to go ahead and make those hires.

I believe it's 11 and a half FTE total.

Is that correct, Tiffany?

Okay, great.

And I will just emphasize, you know, this is critical for us to be able to have the authority so that we can move forward with the recruitment, with the hiring, with the training of this staff so that they can be in place with the goal of being operating by July 1st of this year.

Any other additions from other folks on the panel?

I'll add something.

The legislation also is allowing us to accept funding from Friends of Waterfront Seattle to help fund these positions.

As Marshall mentioned, the MPD funds from fall provide basically it's a 50-50 split between the city and Friends.

And again, we are in great gratitude to Friends of Wirefront Seattle and our partnership with them and their willingness to come to the table to make this model work.

And so this legislation also accepts the funding from Friends to be able to help support these positions.

Thank you, Tiffany.

That was a very important addition.

Excellent.

Eric, any comments from central staff on this before I open it up for committee questions and comments?

Just extend the framework a little bit more.

Yep, in the previous budget discussions, the budget that we're operating under right now, the money from the NPD was added to the sales center for this work in 2023 and 2024. Also, there's positions added.

Among the positions are some security positions, but also positions for maintenance.

So the funds from the NPD fund both the security positions, but also sort of maintenance and operations of waterfront.

The bill that's before you right now would add to those positions, so it would be more positions.

There were three and a half FTEs that were included in the budget, and this would add another, I want to say, 11 plus one part-time position that would change to a full-time position in 2023. Also, you'll recall wearing different hats when you're sitting as the Park District Last year, the spending plans going out six years in 2025 includes additional funds to do this kind of work.

And that was called out of the resolution to add that money.

The information that was provided from the executive, from folks that are here today last week, identified that those funds would be used for additional security positions in the out years.

So that's just some context to say that some of the thinking on this and decision making has happened already as part of the budget.

And this is an extension of that.

And there will be, I imagine, more context for discussing how these positions as well as other positions fit into the overall framework when in the future the long-term management plan comes to you all for in-depth discussion.

So there will be yet another occasion for that.

Thank you so much, Eric.

Are there any, Council Member Herbold?

Just following up on what you said, Eric, so this, the concept that we are contemplating now with this legislation that allows for sort of a 50-50 split in supporting these positions, is one that will be revisited in the long-term management plan.

So that document will also sort of define moving forward what the expected split is for supporting these positions or is that not something that is going to be sort of on the table for sort of that the long-term commitment for that split.

I'll take a crack at it and happy to have Tiffany correct me.

Yeah.

By way of sort of just clarifying.

So this bill before you identifies a specific amount of money from the friends and the splits that you're talking about.

What I was referring to would be the sort of actual function of these positions, how they fit into the overall plan, and all kinds of other things would be included in the plan, not just security, but activating the spaces and things like that.

What will be subject to future decision-making would be any budget decisions the city would make for the future budget.

So when I alluded to the 2025 year for the MPD, for the Municipal Park District, those funds are in the spending plan and identified as being available for 2025. But in order for that to be activated, that will be a future budget decision.

The information we have now anticipates that funding is supporting decisions in the future, but that legislative decision has not been made yet.

So I'll park there and see if I stepped out of bounds on any of that and then maybe see if other folks want to add in.

I think that's generally correct.

Yeah, thanks, Eric.

Um II do just want to emphasize, you know, I think a key thing we were trying to achieve with the timing of this agreement was to align it with the MPD spending plan so that the the funding commitment here again, you know, friends is doing something pretty unprecedented in terms of stepping in to support city staff resources is matched by what we're bringing to the table and they are essentially for the which also the management agreement will have that same time frame.

So then we have the opportunity to revisit and reestablish for the next phase as we go into the next, you know, after that.

I believe it's 2026, Tiffany, is that right?

2028. Sorry, 2028. We're already in 2023. Yes.

So this vote, as well as the MPD vote, is

the venue in which we made the decision for the 50-50 split is not something that will be revisited in this first six-year management plan.

It is something that could be revisited in the subsequent

Correct.

Just trying to say back what I think.

Thank you.

You said it much more in a more pithy way.

Thank you.

Council Member, there is an attachment to this council bill that is a commitment letter from Friends that outlines the amount of funding they're going to be providing annually between 2023 and 2028 that they're committed to.

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other questions or comments on this council bill?

Seeing none, I move Council Bill 120496 to recommend passage.

Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Are there any final comments or remarks on the legislation?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation of Council Bill 120496. Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The legislation passes and will be referred to the next full council meeting on Tuesday, January 24th.

Thank you, panel.

I think that we can now let you get back to the rest of your afternoon.

So thank you for joining us, and we will move on to additional business.

Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

Item 3, Council Bill 120484, an ordinance authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a Fifth Amendment to the Leasing Concession Agreement between the City of Seattle and BH Music Center for Benaroya Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We have a panel of presenters here with us, and I don't know who I should hand it to first.

Is it Jamie or Christy?

And we have Lisa Kay from our Council Central staff as well.

Council Chair, this is Lisa Kay from Central staff.

I will be giving the presentation and then- Great, excellent.

So I will hand it over to you, Lisa.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you and Happy New Year to everybody.

Let me show my- Lisa, you're coming in a little faint.

Sorry to interrupt.

You're coming in just a little bit.

Okay, is this any better?

A little bit better, yeah.

I can turn it up too.

Here, the clerk is gonna try to turn it up a little as well, just to- Okay, I'll try speaking a little bit louder, if that helps.

That sounds great.

Is that good?

Actually, the clerk just made me sound louder.

which I guess reciprocally also made your mic louder.

So thank you, Lisa.

Go ahead.

We can hear you great.

Oh, great.

Okay.

All right.

I'm Lisa Kay with Central Staff.

I'm joined by Jamie Carnell, FAS's Interim Director, and Christy Beatty, FAS's Debt Management Director, who are also here available to answer questions after just a very brief overview that I'm going to give.

I only have six slides to go over with you today to describe the legislation.

So I'm flipping my own slides, so bear with me as I try to multitask here.

So first is a short overview.

Benaroya Hall is a city-owned facility that houses the Seattle Symphony Orchestra.

The facility is managed through the nonprofit Benaroya Hall Music Center under the terms of a lease that extends through 2037. Director Carnells currently serves as the city's designated representative on the Music Center's Board of Directors.

Among other terms, the lease agreement has required the Music Center to pay the debt service for bonds issued to construct and improve the facility and to provide annual contributions to a capital renewal fund.

And you'll see more about that in slides three and four.

The Music Center generates revenue from ticket sales and parking garage fees and concessions sales during events, in addition to private donations and grants.

As with many other music facilities, the Music Center is still recovering from the mandatory closure of Benaroya Hall during the pandemic, and ticket sales and other revenue have not yet fully achieved the previous levels.

So last March, the Music Center asked for the City's support to help address its operational deficit and long-term capital needs, and FAS worked with them to develop this Fifth Amendment.

The agreement would provide a revenue stream for capital improvements to the facility and reduce the operational deficit.

I would note if the facility falls into disrepair, it will become a greater financial liability to the City, since the City is the owner of the property.

Finally, because this is a two-party lease, the Council could request that the City reopen negotiations, but can't make unilateral changes to the proposed amendments.

So what would this Fifth Amendment do?

It would respond to the Music Center's estimated five-year operational deficit, which they report at $3.4 million through 2027, and to their identified a little bit over $20 million in capital needs through 2037. So put another way, if approved, this amendment would reduce the operational deficit by about $2 million to about $1.4 million, and it would provide $15 million to reduce the capital funding gap to about $5.5 million.

This amendment would also require the Music Center to provide and report on a minimum public benefit rent of $1.2 million.

The lease's definition of public benefit rent includes the value of discounted tickets and discounted rental rates for nonprofit groups.

So the next two slides that you'll see describe the financial relief that the amendment would provide in a little bit more detail to help meet the Music Center's operations and capital needs.

I'm going to have to get a little bit into the weeds here just to explain some terminology.

You're going to hear me refer to base concession payments and 2014 alterations payments.

each of which are linked to specific bond financing that come into play here.

The base concession payments refer to the music center's debt service payments on the initial construction bonds issued in the late 1990s.

So those bonds have been restructured several times and they were ultimately repaid in 2020 because of the allowed to be repaid sooner than anticipated.

And you'll see that that has provided the opportunity for this amendment.

The 2014 alterations payments refer to the Music Center's debt service payments on a $1.1 million bond issued in 2014 for some capital improvements.

Those bonds will be paid up in 2024. So the first two bullets on this slide summarize how the amendment would reorient the Music Center's concession payments to build a revenue stream for capital improvements to the facility.

Specifically, the amendment would cancel the current $760,000 a year base concession payments that have been used to pay the debt service on those construction bonds that have been retired.

It would redirect that revenue to the Music Center's Capital Renewal Fund.

Also, the Music Center would be required to pay a little over $240,000 in previously deferred concession payments from 2020 and 2021. And as previously described, the amount would require that the Music Center provides the equivalent of $1.2 million a year in public benefit rent.

You'll see in your agenda packet that Council Member Lewis has sponsored three technical amendments.

These are really relatively minor changes.

The first would change the date in the title of the Fifth Amendment to 2023. It had been 2022, which is when the legislation was transmitted.

Amendment two would clarify that all the provisions in the lease are retroactively effective on the dates that are in the legislation, not the effective date of this bill.

and amendment three would change the due date by one month for repayment of the deferred 2014 alterations concession payments.

So my last slide just notes two potential policy issues.

The first one pertains to those concession deferrals and redirection that the bill would use to partially offset the music center's operational deficit and provide a funding stream for the long-term capital needs.

If council doesn't approve the bill, the terms of the most recent amendment to the lease would remain in effect, so that's the fourth amendment to the lease.

In that case, none of the concession payments would be abated and the capital improvements to Ben and Roy Hall would likely be deferred, which could increase the City's future financial costs.

Alternately, the Council could choose not to approve the Council bill and ask that the City reopen negotiations with the Music Centre toward an alternate outcome.

The second potential policy issue pertains to possible equity considerations relative to the proposed public benefit provision.

So FAS didn't complete a racial equity toolkit for the proposal, but the department does intend to monitor whether the public rent benefits are being distributed equitably and are responsive to the city's race and social justice initiative.

So if the Council approves the bill, the public rent program will proceed as legislated in the bill.

Alternatively, the Council could pass the bill and also request that FAS complete a racial equity toolkit and report back on any findings and recommendations for improvements.

That's all I have for my presentation, Chair Lewis, and I'd be happy to entertain questions or Director Carnell may have some comments she'd like to add.

Yes, thank you so much, Lisa.

I'm happy to turn it over to the rest of the panel first, if there's any additional comments, and then open it up for questions from members of the committee.

Mr. Clerk, could you turn my mic down a little bit now?

But I don't know if Christy or Jamie want to jump in to provide some remarks here before we turn it over to questions.

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

I would be happy to provide some brief remarks.

I just wanted to thank both the Benaroya Hall Music Center board and the staff for working with us and working with me.

This was something that was transitioned to me when our former city finance director, when we left, and so they have been more than patient with me getting up to speed, although I was at the city of Seattle in 1998, I was not participating in the full work, so I really appreciate everybody's patience and support as I got up to speed and I really appreciate Christy Beatty.

providing me all of the background on the debt as well.

So we are rising in support of this lease and the amendment.

This is an important Seattle Arts Institution, and it's a city asset.

And so it's really important that we maintain our city asset in the long term.

You know, we are really dedicated to continuing that partnership with them.

working with them to understand capital improvements and definitely working on the public benefit side and understanding the equity impacts of that public benefit.

So happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And Christy, did you have any additional comments or at this point, are we good to open it up?

I don't have any additional comments.

I think Lise described the debt perspectives well.

If there are questions about debt, I'd be happy to answer those.

Great, thank you so much.

Okay, with that, are there questions from committee members?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I am gonna walk through my questions in hopes of demonstrating that I understand this.

And if I don't, please clarify for me.

So the city retired the bonds in 2020, but Benaroya Hall still owes two more years on payments.

Is that right?

Yes.

So let me describe that a little bit more.

So the original bonds that were issued by the city were LTGO bonds, and they were issued back in 1996 to help support the development of the garage as part of the overall facility.

And over time, as the city typically does, the city took advantage of the opportunity to refinance those bonds to a lower interest rate.

But those bonds remained on schedule over time and ultimately matured in January of 2020. And so those those bonds remained on schedule as originally anticipated.

At the same time, through various legislative actions, the City Council approved a different payment schedule for Benaroya Hall over those same years.

And that was really intended to allow Benaroya Hall the flexibility to respond to changes in the economic climate, including the 2008 recession.

and various changes that also impacted revenue similar to what we saw downtown with the COVID-19 pandemic.

And so as was intended, the bond schedule deviated from the actual schedule of payments that Benaroya Hall was making back to the city.

So while the city's own bonds matured in 2020, the fourth and current amendment to the lease indicates that Benaroya Hall would continue making payments through 2037. And that's essentially meeting the same net present value, but over a longer period of time.

Okay.

Did that answer your question, Council Member?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

So okay.

Yes, go ahead Council Member Morales.

You have the floor for as many questions as you need to ask.

So is the capital renewal fund, is that like a maintenance fund?

Is that savings for future capital improvements that are needed?

Sure, I mean I could take this question if that's helpful.

The capital renewal fund is a fund that's maintained within the better Royal Hall music center management structure within their own funds, and the city at the initiation of the of this lease agreement.

had required that Benaroya Hall place an amount each year into that capital fund that resides with Benaroya Hall.

And that is dedicated for capital purposes.

And the intent was that Benaroya Hall over time would accrue funds, currently it's 175,000 per year, that would be used strictly for the capital maintenance of the facility.

And what we have found over time is that the magnitude of those capital needs has exceeded what is able to be funded by that regular contribution of $175,000.

And so when you're looking at a roof or an elevator for a facility of that size, it's just simply not able to be funded by keeping on track with those amounts.

And so with the city's bonds now retired, that amount of $760,000 is being proposed to stay within Benaroya Hall and be included in that transfer to their Internal Capital Renewal Fund.

So I guess what I'm trying to understand is if that $175,000 a year is not sufficient to allow you to save for future maintenance costs, And so you're spending, not saving those dollars.

How do we ensure that you, is this sufficient?

I don't wanna put the hall in the position of having a bunch of deferred maintenance later because we all know that that's more expensive to fix, but are you able to save and continue to contribute in some way so that you can build up adequate resources for that future maintenance?

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

I would know the council member else I would indicate that least I think you have some numbers in your packet that speak to that are in your agenda packet.

While this may not meet the full scope of the deferred maintenance needs.

It certainly addresses a significant portion of those.

And so over time, this would allow been a royal hall to use this capital renewal fund as a larger source to meet those capital needs.

Yeah, Council Member, I think they're anticipating that it will generate $15 million by 2037. So I think your question about, are they going to spend it faster than they save it?

That kind of depends on how they program the expenditures and what comes due when.

But straight line numbers look like it would be $15 million by 2037, at least contributed to the fund.

Contributed to the fund, not getting spent for other capital needs that you are identifying now.

No, it would be spent on that.

I think there is a schedule of what they're anticipating to spend the money on.

Yes.

So I think, obviously, they're going to be constrained to spend the money faster than they say that.

Yeah.

OK.

OK.

OK.

And then the other question I have is around the public benefit.

So I think we talked about this a little bit in the last committee meeting, but I'm trying to understand what kind of educational activities, you know, the value of the of the activities that you provide now.

Or an understanding of how many tickets over time are we talking about?

And, and related to that is the question for me of the, the equity issue that is raised that Lisa raises in her policy issue identification.

you know, I'm really interested in making sure that that million dollars a year is is allocated in a way that is equitable, that is providing opportunity for folks who may not typically, you know, be able to enjoy a music experience or music education or exposure at the symphony.

So I'm wondering if you have any sense yet of what that would be.

Are we talking about you know, is this a free concert a couple times a year?

Is this a teen night at the symphony?

I'd love to see, for example, some South End middle school or high school kids being able to get some exposure on a regular basis.

So can you talk a little bit about how and whether you have kind of processed what that might look like yet?

So I know for sure that they do community oriented, but to Lisa's point on the public benefit, I think I would want to partner with council staff and Benaroya Hall and get a more detailed planning effort around what that public benefit would look like.

I don't know all the details for that, but happy to reach back out to Benaroya Hall board and work with their staff and get you what they've done currently.

And then we can come back together and talk about how does this public benefit, what does it really look like in terms of it?

Okay, that would be great and I will say you know I know, one of the things that's listed as a possibility is doing the racial equity toolkit on the on this element, I will say in my experience that that that is very staff intensive, I don't know, you know, there's a capacity question there for me so I know that.

This is a really important issue, a really significant aspect of this potential public benefit.

And I want to make sure that we aren't sort of shooting ourselves in the foot with how we do this.

So I look forward to continuing to work with all of you to make sure that we're doing that well.

Thank you.

I think this is a great opportunity to partner between the Benaroya Hall Board of Staff and Council and City Finance to really come up with what works for the Seattle Symphony programs and the community in general.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales.

and this is for central staff and the committee clerk, it would, I think, be a good idea in the first quarter of this year to maybe have a presentation from Benaroya Hall and some of the tenants, like the Seattle Symphony, to just come to the committee and give us an update on what they're up to and what it's been like coming out of COVID and be responsive to some of the questions Council Member Morales had.

I think this is a good time of the year for check-ins like that at some of our institutions and with some of our cultural partners.

And that might be a good thing to queue up, similar to the presentation we're going to have later today from the convention center.

It's just good to have occasional check-ins on some of the cool stuff that we do as a city and some of the cool partnerships that we have.

And that line of questioning was a reminder to me that we haven't had the honor of doing that yet.

And it's always good to hear from what Benaroya Hall and the Seattle Symphony are doing in that facility that we have this close relationship on.

So the only other question that I have, and I appreciate the creativity of the department and central staff's presentation in queuing this up, is if we weren't to do this proposal, this fifth lease amendment, we don't currently have any other pending plan or strategy as the city to address these capital needs, correct?

Correct.

Okay, yeah, just confirming with central staff.

No other plans.

Yeah, so given that, I mean, I'm inclined to move and support the legislation today on that basis.

I think this is a creative way to do this and to continue this important partnership.

And I do wanna continue to engage with Benaroy Hall on how we're making the most of our partnership.

And it is good to take advantage of having nights down at the symphony.

My wife and I go on a fairly regular basis.

It's really good to be in a position to continue that partnership and meet our ongoing obligations to keep that city asset in good shape.

Are there any other questions?

Council Member Herbold.

2022 or 2023, it's this proposed budget.

I assume that was because this was written back when the budget was proposed.

But what are the implications for the fact that the payments were not included in the 2022 budget and presumably they weren't included in the 2023 endorsed budget?

I'm going to let Director Carnell, I mean, I'll give, I'll take a crack at it and then turn it over to FAS, but there was no revenue coming into the city, so there wouldn't have been a budget action for those two years.

And I would agree, that's correct.

I can just add on a little bit, Council Member Herbold, to what Lise just described.

Given the uncertainty during COVID of Benaroya Hall's ability to make those payments of $760,000, Those revenues were not included in the general fund budget for the city.

And so general fund was balanced without those revenues.

And so the decision today relative to the fifth amendment to the lease would determine whether or not they would be presumed going forward or not.

And if not, then they would reside with Ben Arroyo Hall going forward and be contributed to that capital renewal fund for this specific capital purposes.

Thank you.

That's very clear.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any additional questions or comments from committee members on this legislation?

May I say something, Council Member Lewis?

Yes, Lisa, of course, please go ahead.

If you're going to be taking this to a vote, you'll want to entertain the amendments also.

And I can share my slide.

You read my mind, Lisa, because I was about to queue up the technical amendments that you alluded to earlier in your presentation.

So as Lisa is about to apparently pull up a slide to walk us through them, there are three amendments that I'll be proposing when we do move the bill.

Should we just do the presentation now Lisa and then I'll move the bill and we'll just move the go through the amendments.

Sure, let me just share my screen here and I've got them on there on separate pages so And it is my plan to move the amendments all together as a package, a consent package, unless a committee member wants to pull one for separate consideration.

So I'll flag that at the beginning and I'll turn it over to Lisa to walk us through

Okay, so this is amendment one, as I mentioned, it just corrects an internal reference to the proposed lease amendment.

Sorry, my cat just made an appearance.

So there was just a typo referring to, you know, Council Member Herbold's cat does the same thing.

Not anymore.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

My heart.

I'm sorry.

So this amendment just corrects instead of referring to the Fourth Amendment, it refers to the Fifth Amendment.

It's just a correction here.

The amendment number two.

just makes sure that it just clarifies.

I'm not sure the attorneys thought this was essential, but I thought it was helpful to clarify that the effective dates that are throughout the lease stay in place, that they are not modified because the lease was adopted on 23 instead of 22. This basically makes clear that those effective dates are retroactive.

Amendment 3, basically changes an effective date from September to October.

And I believe that the music centers already made that payment and they made that payment in October.

So I just wanted to align the processes properly through that amendment.

That's all I had on that.

Thank you so much, Lisa Kay.

Are there any questions or comments on these three amendments that are technical in nature?

Okay, seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and get the bill in front of us.

I'm going to move that we recommend passage of Council Bill 120484. Second.

And there is a second.

The bill is now in front of us.

I'm gonna move to amend Council Bill 120484 with the distributed amendments one, two, and three to Council Bill 120484, and I'm motioning this as a consent package of all three amendments.

Is there any request to remove an amendment from the consent package?

Seeing no request, are there any comments on the consent package of amendments as proposed?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the consent package of amendments to Council Bill 120484.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The amendments pass and will be incorporated into the underlying bill.

I am now going to move Council Bill 120484 as amended for recommendation to full council for passage.

Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on passage of the ordinance?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

The legislation passes and it will be considered at the next full council meeting on Tuesday, January 24th.

Moving on to item four.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

Item four, Seattle Convention Center opening update.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, we are joined here by a panel from the Seattle Convention Center, which I understand just had its first on the down low convention from Redfin the other day to do a dress rehearsal of the site.

So I see Jeff is here and Daryl, is there anyone else who's joining you or is this the full panel?

This is it, Chair Lewis.

Great.

Jeff, I'll hand it over to you.

OK, if I can have somebody bring up the slides, that would be great.

Just one moment, Jeff.

Sure.

Perfect.

Thank you very much.

Chair Lewis and members of the committee, we're really happy to present to you today a little bit of the history of the Convention Center and how this will affect us with our new facility that you see right here.

The Seattle Convention Center is very proud to reach this milestone for the opening of its new addition summit pictured here that you see.

The expansion has been a vision for a long time coming and has really required a true partnership from the city, the county, the state, and a lot of our downtown neighbors and partners.

The tremendous accomplishment is worthy of reflection, and we'd like to talk a little bit about that and briefly walk through that, highlight the impact that the center's had, and also how this, as we move forward, will be of a new addition in the heart of the downtown Seattle.

Next slide, please.

The signing of the Regional Convention Center early back in, almost 40 years ago now, was considered a bold move to do it in the downtown, especially over a freeway.

In the partnership with all the governments, Arts was opened in 1988 and has been expanded a couple of times.

You can see on the left there, the original building, and then on the right, my right, hopefully that's yours, the expanded convention center, conference center, and also the expanded exhibit hall on top of that.

Summit is now our third building, and we're really looking forward to making the entire campus available to folks.

So that gives us three buildings and three garages that we will operate.

The nine-member board of directors appointed by the state, city, and the county in 2011 became a public facilities district, and as such, we're responsible for our own management operations, capital improvements, debt service, and our financial success.

Next slide, please.

Some details here, as you can see, the primary mission of the center is really to help spur economic impact and generate the activity that really help us and the statistics show we've had a tremendous impact on the community over the last 35 years we've been in business.

Mostly attendee spending is subject to retail sales tax.

We help generate money for operations of the state and local governments without imposing any additional taxes on our state residents and local residents.

Short term visitors spend their money in the community and don't really consume a significant amount of governmental services.

As the health and popularity of Seattle grew, it also became clear that the demand for our building outweighed our capacity.

We partnered with Matt Griffin and Pine Street Group to help us expand and meet that need.

We were able to serve, now we'll be able to serve conventions and further benefit the community with economic impact.

Conventions are returning to the community.

We had a tough time there for about three years, but they are coming back.

Post-pandemic meeting industry is evolving and the long-term outlook for conventions, especially for Seattle, remains highly desirable as a destination.

And we will add to that economic strength with two centers now operating and to generate more out-of-state spending and getting more dollars, fresh dollars here to the region.

Each of these events really bring an economic impact, depending upon the size of the group, for tax collections.

We also create a huge amount of employment, both full and part-time, for the community from the events that we have.

We continue that legacy now that will help our mission with the new building.

Next slide, please.

This gives you a really good idea of the photo here of the footprint.

This was the original starting of the construction of the building of Summit.

Like the original building, right downtown, right in the heart of our city.

And this location is very, very helpful to us because it's near the hotel, it's near transit, it's also near all of the amenities, whether it's retail restaurants or attractions.

So it's really good to be in the downtown core with both buildings.

Next slide, please.

The vision required great effort and collaboration.

It involves several different things for the new building, procurement of several parcels of land to assemble the site, collaboration with city departments to finalize design, public space, traffic impacts, and public art. collaboration with architects really to develop a facility that provided form and function for integrating into the community while also meeting our clients' needs.

LMN was our architect, did a very good job of putting those two items together, form and function.

The vision has many benefits, opportunity for over a thousand contractor jobs on this site.

We will also create $260 million in additional spending as well as an additional 19 million in tax benefit with the new building in addition to Arch.

It will also create an additional 2,500 jobs related to the business that comes into the convention center into the city.

Opportunities to fill the demand for events for more space, more dates, and more ability for the clients really expands our ability to be able to attract folks and continue to have a destination for people to want to come to.

This really puts in place our ability also to level out the hotel occupancy.

We had in the past basically valleys and peaks A lot of hotel activity for three days when a convention was here.

No activity for convention business during the end times where we're moving out or moving in a show.

And then again, so this really will help us be able to put that together and really level that out.

Next slide, please.

The SEC Board and Pine Street Group view the construction of the summit as a way to demonstrate through action our true commitment to the community.

We met and exceeded goals that included nearly $150 million in work scopes for summit construction were awarded to MWB firms, also doubling the voluntary goal that we had set early in the project of $80 million.

32% minority workers on the construction project, 30% workers from priority hire zip codes, which we set up to make sure that we could reach those communities, exceeded a 19% goal, 22% apprentices, A little over 1,400 folks, including 34% minority and 12% female.

We also achieved, which I think is a huge attribute to the construction company, over a million apprenticeship hours on this project to really help build capacity for our construction trades.

The trades rotation program through a new education empowers women, people of color, and others to pursue careers in the building trade.

Clark Construction Company and Lise Crutcher-Lewis, who was our joint venture partners, also provided the expertise for companies that got into what we were doing to grow their business and really understand the opportunities to help with the construction project.

The strategic partnership is an intensive eight-month MBA-style course program that really targeted the small business owner, including minorities and women, which echoes the center's emphasis on reaching out to businesses representing diverse communities.

Ongoing collaboration with professional community advocate groups was also part of the impetus for this project and instrumental in the success of this project's outreach.

Multiple chambers of commerce and community councils, neighborhood groups, regional contracting forum, Table 100, Black Collective, National Association of Minority Contractors, Washington Contractors, Designers and entrepreneurs, National Association of Women in Construction, ANU, the Ethics Chamber of Commerce Coalition, BIPOC Media, government agencies, and union partners were all part of this program and really helped us be able to get the outreach that we needed to reach these numbers that we were trying to do for this program.

Next slide, please.

We're proud of our commitment to sustainability.

Both of our facilities are LEED certified.

The new building will be gold.

We're hoping to reach platinum.

Current building is silver.

We're hoping to get gold LEED for the current building.

Really makes a lot of sense for us.

We incorporate locally sourced recyclable recycled products and materials in the construction.

We recycle a lot of the concrete, we recycled the old rebar from the bus station.

We utilized some of the wood from the old Honda property as well and put it back into play, which really made a lot of sense for us.

The salvage logs that you see here in the ballroom picture suspended there, where we really came as part of the program to be able to recycle current land local products.

Buildings are both efficient, energy efficient, and our food service equipment is as well.

We have electrical charging stations.

We have solar power in the new building.

We also have the ability to capture rainwater off the roof of the summit building and utilize it for use with irrigation and for restrooms.

We had a lot of diversion of construction debris.

We have solar panels.

Most of our utensils that we use for our products or for our food service, I should say, sorry, is 100% compostable.

So we allow for that just to be put into the compostable bins.

Local source when we can for all of our food and beverage, about 90% of that is locally sourced.

We also repurpose our cooking oil, food waste, and everything is sent to Cedar Grove if you're familiar with Cedar Grove.

Next slide, please.

Some of the mission, so with part of the summit project, we wanted to make sure that the mission guided by the board is to provide both direct and indirect economic and civic benefits.

This includes generating civic benefits for the people of the community where the center is located.

The board sought to ensure the creation of summit provided more for the community than just a place to gather.

As part of the land purchase and permitting agreement, the center provided an investment package for the community totaling over 93 million.

This investment package included funding for affordable housing, parks, open spaces, improvements to Pike and Pine Streets, bicycle infrastructure, a study for the living of I-5, and as you can see, a couple other items on the list.

It was pretty extensive and it was nice for us to be able to provide this community asset.

Next slide, please.

One of the other items that maybe a lot of people don't know, but since the opening of the arts building in 88, the board has recognized responsibility to not simply mitigate adverse impacts created by the development of the center, but really to create a better social and physical environment where possible.

Good housing for people of all incomes is essential for the vitality of the diverse and livable region and is a positive factor in attracting meetings and conventions to Seattle.

SEC funds were responsible for the preservation and restoration and creation of a net gain of 1,040 affordable housing units in and around Seattle.

The center's funds really allowed for the replacement of housing units that were demolished to make way for the construction of the original building in 1988 and its significant expansion in 2001, as well as construction of additional low-income units to lessen the direct impacts on availability of affordable housing.

This just gives you a list of those items in the years and how many of those units were that we were involved with.

Next slide, please.

As part of the summit package, you can see here, again, the housing benefits that were created by the project here, $30 million in coalition agreement funds, King County.

We continue our track record here and continue to support affordable housing with the construction of the Summit building.

To provide the Summit building, the city requested the city vacate three alleys.

We requested the city help us vacate three alleys with underground portions of Olive and Terry.

In exchange, the city, the center paid full market value for this land and provided the package of investments that you just saw, as well as the housing benefits that you see here on this slide.

We're happy to have this.

huge opportunity for us to be a major contributor to the community.

And housing is one of those ways that we think made the most sense for us.

Next slide, please.

Our public art program, we've had a significant public art program.

It's really a one of a kind in the nation in a convention center was established by the board to help provide an environment that enriches the experience of those who are attending events, as well as those who are passing through the building.

The Arch Building's public art program was established in 1988, has grown to over 100 works of art, and this exceptional collection includes many important Northwest artists.

Many of the works that were made available through the courtesy of artists and galleries and museums, corporations, foundations, private collectors, and government.

In addition to the long works to date, we have over 200 rotating art exhibits in the Arch Building that have been featured local and regional artists.

and really continue to create the opportunity for emerging and diverse art groups to showcase their art.

SEC Public Arts Galleries are also expanding with the Summit building, continuing the connection among the community, neighborhood, and artistic vitality of the region.

Summit will carry on the legacy of our program with an overarching vision of drawing inspiration from the Pacific Northwest.

As you can see a part of these here, the benches on top there and the welcoming Native American figure there on the right.

We will continue to make sure that we invest in natural beauty, art that exemplifies natural beauty and also helps us with the urban environment.

Next slide, please.

Since 1988, the Center has sought out creative ways to equitably advance the common good.

Summer internship programs we've had in the past, sponsorship of two educational scholarships, helping minorities in the field of culinary in the culinary industry.

For surplus food is inevitable in our business.

We usually have leftover.

The kitchen, we will donate those to local food kitchens.

Biggest donating we've been doing is with Fair Start.

In 2019, over two tons of food was donated to Fair Start for their training program.

We also have clients that leave things behind.

And we donate those to charitable organizations such as Pike's Place, Pike Market Food Bank, sorry, Habitat for Humanity.

And examples of leave-behinds were, you know, a lot of things were pairs of socks.

We went through a Bomba program and donated pairs of socks.

Microsoft left behind Big Bang Chairs that went to the Habitat for Community or Humanity.

And in 2021, Comic-Con actually, gave us a whole bunch of T-shirts that we then gave to the food bank to give out.

In October, Pike Place Food Bank received 1,900 tote bags.

So we continue to try to give back to the community, mostly as a means to be able to recycle things, but also to help those communities in need.

Next slide.

Certainly last but not least, we are very, very proud of our opening that's going to be showing up here next week.

As Chair Lewis talked about, we did have Redfin in the building last week, last Friday.

A thousand people for one of their conventions that they do.

We were the last of the four that they did on this sales program.

They used the ballroom and some of our meeting spaces.

But just want to kind of give the idea here or where we are with our opening activities.

A ribbon-cutting ceremony, hospitality night is on the 25th.

We have a ballroom dedication to our chair.

Then on the 27th, we'll have a five-hour public open house where everybody can come into the building and see where we are.

All of these require an online registration so that we understand how to make sure we know the number of people that are coming to each of these events.

And Daryl Brown-Archie, vice chair of our board, is also on the call.

And Daryl, maybe I'll just turn it over to you.

OK, thanks, Jeff.

Jeff did a great job with navigating this business through covid and a great presentation.

Jeff, the reason I'm here, I'm here on behalf of the board of directors for the Washington State Convention Center Public Facility District.

We wanted to thank you and thank the city council and this committee for the time and support.

Of this project, it's been a long process, but you and your departments were very helpful to us.

We look forward to ongoing partnership to fully realize the public benefits of this project.

And that's my message to you.

Thank you very much for your time.

And thank you so much.

You know, just to start off, I am very excited for these upcoming events and for seeing the role the community, the role in the community that the convention center is going to play in the overall recovery of downtown and just in the economic vitality of a broader region.

It's gonna be such a great asset.

If committee members have not had the opportunity yet, it's a fantastic tour.

I think I've taken, maybe four tours over the course of the construction of the convention center.

And it was just great to see the progress every single time, just a little bit more, a little bit more, a little more public art, another completed staircase, the elevators finally working, but to really see it come together and see the potential of that space.

I do want to give, give a shout out.

I know if council member Mosqueda was here, she would give a shout out, but give a shout out to, our women and men in the building trades for their great work and really bringing this forward as a great example of keeping our jobs and opportunities in the community and really cultivating strength and organized labor and that this really is a monument to the capability of skilled organized labor and finishing this product.

So I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that awesome contribution, and just really looking forward to these upcoming festivities to celebrate this massive new community addition.

And also just a testament and proof that when we come together as a community, we can do big things.

We can take on big projects, and we can deliver on complicated build sites for things that are wholly beneficial to the community.

Not to mention all the tertiary benefits and affordable housing and everything else that have come as a result of this project so you know it's great to be on the other end of this and and open it up and get on with the business of.

being a host nationally and internationally for folks who wanna come and take advantage of having their gatherings in our city and having a great time while they're also contributing to our local economy.

So with that, I'm gonna open it up for questions and comments from colleagues, Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair Lewis, and thanks so much to you, Jeff and Daryl.

In addition to all of the incredible work around making sure that we have union jobs for folks, I think it's really important to honor and thank you for also focusing on priority hire, on WMBIE-owned businesses, on the apprenticeship programs.

I think it's really important that we are creating opportunity for folks who might typically have been left out of projects like this.

And really make sure I'm especially excited about apprenticeship.

We've been trying to work in the south end on some pre apprenticeship programs as well to make sure that we're getting young people, particularly those who may choose not to go to college, really start to make some connections for them and make them aware.

of the opportunity to find good livable wage jobs that can support them and their families as they progress through their careers.

So really wanna thank you for all of that work and all that it means to the community for the focus that you put on those communities.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thanks so much just a couple of additional comments around priority higher and the affordable housing development.

You know, priority higher was passed by this council in 2015, and it only related to public works projects city funded public works projects.

In 2017, under the Murray administration, there was an executive order that extended priority hire to public-private partnerships and named a couple of particular projects.

Convention Center was not included.

And just really appreciate that you negotiated in good faith to use the priority hire program for this public-private partnership.

And I think the fact that you've been able to do so and do so successfully might be a flag for us on the council to consider updating the ordinance requirements to include public private partnerships in the future.

but nevertheless, I really, really appreciate everything that you've done again to negotiate in good faith to adhere to the executive order on priority hire.

Secondly, wanna just flag on the past housing benefits provisions on the slide where you note a legacy of housing benefits.

Often we look at net units gained without looking at their affordability.

Often people argue that net units gain regardless of their affordability is inherently a benefit in a city where 85 percent of our housing development is high-end housing.

Really can't say how much I appreciate that the affordable housing, this net units gained, it looks to me to be exclusively affordable housing.

We've gained, I think it looks like about four times the affordable housing lost.

I think that's a really positive model for the city to consider when looking at development that results in the loss of affordable housing, for the expectation that those affordable housing units are replaced and as in this case, increased.

I just really want to call that out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Any additional comments from council members?

Okay, seeing none, I mean, speaking for myself, I certainly look forward to participating in these events coming up later this month to commemorate this historic event of having this be a fully functioning public asset in our community and look forward, Jeff and Daryl, to seeing you guys there among other partners in bringing this about.

And I really appreciate you taking some time to come here, give us this update.

Jeff, I'd love to, I think it's a great way to connect if you have a chance to maybe learn a little bit more offline about how that initial inaugural convention went in terms of seeing the convention center in action.

And otherwise, I just look forward to this being a place we all get to visit downtown.

So thank you so much.

Mr. Clerk, will you please read item five into the record?

Item five, Human Services Department quarterly report on activities responding to unsheltered homelessness.

Thank you so much.

So who do we have here for a panel?

I see everyone is still off camera.

There we go, okay, Michael Bailey from the Human Services Department, and I believe we have Jeff Sims from King County Regional Homelessness Authority, but he may still be.

away from his computer.

So Michael, why don't I turn it over to you to start, and thank you for your flexibility in rescheduling this report to this meeting in January.

We were originally scheduled, I believe, to have this in December.

So I appreciate the opportunity for you to come to us now, and I'll turn it over so we can go through your slide deck here.

And there's Jeff off, at least camera mute, so.

Michael, we can see the slide deck, so feel free to proceed whenever you are ready.

All right, well, uh, good afternoon committee chair Lewis and council members for the record.

My name is Michael Bailey serving as deputy director at the human services department and on behalf of the department.

Just like to thank you for the opportunity for us to provide an update both to counsel, but also to the community really on how we're responding to unsheltered homelessness here in Seattle.

This work is done in partnership with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, but also with many of you here.

So, as we enter into 2023, just want to say that we're looking forward to partnering as One Seattle to move the needle on this important topic.

Today's presentation is intended to provide a high level overview of our Q3 2022 activities.

The data provided here was also shared in our previously submitted slide report to those listening from the general public.

SLIDE stands for statement of legislative intent.

Our Q4 and full year report are both scheduled to be submitted to council prior to February.

So, by the end of this month and council.

Chair Lewis, you mentioned Jeff's attendance today and we are excited to be joined by a familiar name and Jeff will be representing the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and as such plans to provide an update on their efforts to respond to unsheltered homelessness within our region.

And we'd like to thank Jeff for carving out time to join us today.

He's been a great partner and we look forward to supporting both him and his leadership in 2023. All right, so today's agenda looks a little like this.

We'll start off today's presentation by providing an introduction to HSD's role as part of the larger regional approach to addressing homelessness here in Seattle.

Afterwards, we'll discuss our Q3 2022 data outcomes and key activities.

And finally, we'll end with a brief update on operations and future plans.

Once we get through the HSD slides, we'll hand things over to Jeff to brief counsel on some of the amazing work taking place at the Regional Homelessness Authority.

All right.

So the mission entrusted to us here at the Seattle Human Services Department is a simple but demanding one.

And as we work to support the residents of Seattle, our department has made a commitment to connect people with resources and solutions during times of need.

In doing so, we create a city where all people can live, learn, work, and take part in a strong and healthy community.

It's what our reps, it's what our residents deserve, and it's what our team seeks to provide every day of the year.

And while the department recently transferred its portfolio of homelessness contracts over to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, or KCRHA, the department remains committed to supporting those living unsheltered.

This is most visually seen through the work of the department's system navigators, and under the direction of the Unified Care Team, the system navigators are responsible for coordinating the shelter recommendations and the overall referral process in partnership with KCRHA and its contracted outreach providers.

This allows us to connect unsheltered individuals to city-funded set-aside shelter resources.

And while HSD is fully committed to connecting unsheltered individuals to resources at scheduled removals, I do want to remind folks that HSD is not responsible for leading encampment removals, nor is the department responsible for scheduling the sites.

We are, however, responsible for project managing the human services aspect of the work and ensuring that KCRHA and its contracted providers have the information needed to successfully support individuals living unsheltered.

This includes, one, transmitting the priority site schedule to RHA weeks, if not months in advance.

And this is really to assist outreach providers with developing relationships and trust.

Two, it's conducting pre-engagement assessments, and that's to identify the needs and challenges of the people experiencing homelessness, residing on site.

This information is then handed over to providers, either through RHA or through the weekly huddles.

And three, facilitating the huddles in partnership with KCRHA and outreach providers.

And that's citywide, and that's really to ensure sites receive outreach and connections to shelter.

And the fourth would be referring individuals to shelter on the day of removals, particularly in cases where other providers have chosen not to be present.

So we'll now transition into our Q3 data.

Overall, HSD coordinated a total of 614 referrals to 542 unique individuals during the quarter.

Of these referrals, 437 were initiated by the Human Services Department.

The remaining 177 referrals were made in collaboration with approximately 17 outreach providers, and referrals in this quarter originated from approximately 90-plus encampment sites.

Of the 614 referrals, 76% were made to 24-7 enhanced shelters, and 24% were made to tiny home villages.

In terms of the individuals served, approximately 54% of referrals were made to people experiencing homelessness who represent the BIPOC community, so that's Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and often these individuals are overrepresented as part of the region's homelessness population.

HSD coordinated referrals based on 1,200 shelter recommendations from contracted outreach providers This data point is duplicated, meaning the same person could have been recommended multiple times during the quarter prior to an eventual referral.

Of the referrals coordinated, we know a minimum of 250 individuals were confirmed by HSD as enrolled into shelter.

This represents a 155% increase in number of enrollments compared to Q3 of the previous year or 2021. Additionally, this represents a minimum enrollment rate of 46.1% for the quarter, which is an increase compared to the 41% in quarter 2. I also want to stress that while we recorded the minimum enrollment rate, the 46.1%, that number is likely to be an undercount, and that's for several reasons.

One, approximately 25% of shelter enrollments have anonymized data.

This makes the reconciliation challenging.

There's also the fact that two individuals or the individuals must opt in to share personally identifiable data.

This further creates challenges when we're trying to compare data.

There's also missing data, misspelt names, missing and or wrong date of birth.

And last, if an individual shows up after 24, perhaps 48 hours, depending on the shelter, they may not be recorded as enrolled.

So it's an imperfect system, but we're committed to getting as close to perfect as possible with increasing those enrollment rates.

This slide compares the first three quarters of HSD's 2022 efforts with full year data from previous years.

We mentioned early on that the Q4 data will be submitted at the end of the month.

As you can see, partial 2022 results through Q3, at least, have already surpassed previous year's totals for referrals and individuals referred.

And to clarify, the first grouping of the referrals grouping refers to a duplicated number and seeks to capture the total number of referrals made by HSD and outreach providers.

That being said, a single individual can and may receive multiple referrals.

The second grouping, individuals referred, represents a count of the unique persons who received a shelter referral during a given time period.

With a Q3 data point of 552 shelter enrollments, shelter enrollments are also on pace to exceed the 2021 totals.

Regarding the number of unique individuals enrolled in shelter, HSD already matched the 2021 count.

Additionally, the 513 individuals enrolled in 2022 constitutes an increase of 94% compared to 2020. And here again to clarify, the enrollments group represented here in the third grouping is intended to be a duplicated number and represents the total number of shelter enrollments made from shelter referrals.

That being said, a single individual could enroll in shelter multiple times, and the fourth and final grouping represents individuals enrolled, which is a unique count.

I also want to call out the missing enrollment data for 2019. And just to clarify, this data was unavailable due to the data being collected midway in 2019. So that's why you see the pickup in 2020. In here, this slide represents some of the key outreach activities that took place in Q3.

During this time, HSD continued to facilitate outreach huddles with KCRHA and contractor providers in neighborhoods citywide.

We referenced these huddles early on, but this really allows for problem solving at specific encampment sites and or to case conference around specific individuals in need of support.

Additionally, HSD continued to coordinate outreach efforts downtown and in the CID.

This work was done in partnership with KCREJ System Advocates and their Partnership for Zero initiative.

And to ensure that KCREJ had ample support, HSD continues to attend the KCREJ's Housing Command Center on a daily basis.

Other significant outreach coordination efforts specific to Q3, we're also in North Seattle.

These include Stone Avenue and 125th, 96th and Aurora, and property along Interturbine Trail.

And we wanted to point those out just due to the large size of those encampments, but here again, starting that outreach early so that we can establish those connections, those relationships, and also the trust.

And before handing it over to Jeff, we wanted to end the HSD portion of today's presentation by providing a few operational updates.

As the city's approach to unsheltered homelessness evolves, as will HSD's role.

Our department is committed to supporting the City of Seattle and our partners at the Regional Homelessness Authority as we work collaboratively to implement a range of solutions that go beyond removals.

In pursuit of that larger picture, we will sunset the original role and function of the HOPE team and its system navigators.

In its place, we hope to give birth to a team of regional coordinators that can assist the UCT with executing a geographical approach and ensuring that no one person is forgotten.

HSC strongly believes that every person deserves the opportunity to receive shelter, and this revised team was crafted with that mission in mind.

I'll now hand things over to Jeff to provide an update from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

Michael, thank you.

Why don't we actually pause for just a moment because I have a couple of questions on the slide deck and it looks like Councilmember Herbold does as well.

One thing that I don't see incorporated, but I know we have data for it, and this was written up recently in a piece that Real Change did.

covering refusals and the basis for refusals.

And I don't see the refusals as a data component manifested here, which I think if we're to continue to make progress on how we can effectively and equitably get people inside, we do need to take stock and track the basis for refusals from our outreach efforts and try to develop responses that take those reasons into account and try to adapt to have a broader array of services to offer.

And about 36% of the service rejections that we've recorded The list is a reason that a tiny home was not available.

So about a little over a third of our recorded rejections.

So in terms of an immediate area for improvement, it does seem that we have a significant number of community members who are experiencing homelessness, who are currently still moving from place to place around the community and, you know, living in unsanctioned areas who would be willing to accept a tiny home, but we're not in a position to be able to offer them one.

So my first question would be, for future reports to the committee, I would like to see refusal information incorporated.

And I know that this is mostly just a reflection on data today, and we're not necessarily getting into broader policy discussions.

But, you know, going forward, I would like to see the department in partnership with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, and we are doing some of this work through the five-year planning process.

I would like to see that this data that we're collecting on refusals inform some of our planning efforts to drive that number down.

considerably, I think that's the biggest number that indicates if we are or aren't making progress is not necessarily the people who we have figured out how to provide support for, but it's the people who we still are not able to provide support for and not able to provide a way to get off the street.

Those are the feedback loops that I'm most interested in having before the committee so that we can try to develop policy to continue to improve.

So I'll turn it back over if you have a few responses to that, and then I'll hand it over to Council Member Herbold for her questions.

Certainly.

The data that the Chair is referring to would be data collected from October 2nd to November 15th.

I do want to applaud Council.

One of the reasons we started collecting that data was based off of a discussion that happened here.

So just want to acknowledge the collaboration and the desire to really help these individuals, We will continue to discuss data collection and partnership with the regional homelessness authority and some of those conversations have already begun but we acknowledge the fact that this data can and should be used for policy discussions and we're happy to support that.

Thank you so much and I do appreciate that that data is being collected and I think it is very helpful for this committee and for the broader city government to figure out how to move forward on this.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes, hello.

Thank you so much.

I want to just first start off with my recognition that the outcomes have greatly improved over the last six months or so.

And just really want to thank the Human Services Department, the UCT, and King County Regional Homelessness Authority for their collaboration in helping getting us to a place where we're seeing a much better acceptance rate.

And I think that is also attributable to more availability of places for people to go that meet their needs.

And so that is an area that As Councilmember Lewis often points out that we need to continue to be making progress on making more places available for people to go to increase those acceptance rates.

Appreciate that we're doing what we can to improve the data collection in this area as well.

All of that said, I am going to take this opportunity to continue my inquiries around prioritization.

These are inquiries I've been making for nearly a year now.

I remember a spring briefing in this committee where I was assured that I would be given that information about not just the attributes or maybe not attributes is not the right word, perhaps the impacts, the negative impacts that a particular encampment might have on a community.

We know what they are, but we still don't know how they're being assessed.

You may recall that, probably around July of last year, a member of the media found a June memo that described a prioritization process, described a scoring system for how some locations were identified for engagement and potential removal by the UCT.

That reporter, when she inquired with the executive about whether or not that scoring system was being used, I think the answer was this is not the prioritization scheme and it's something that's continuously evolving.

When I've asked about this, received assurances that we would receive this information.

We asked a similar question.

We asked the UTC prioritization matrix during the budget process in October.

We were told that the UCT visits encampment and RV sites, collects photos to visually capture site conditions, listed many of the things that are called site conditions, things like site and environmental conditions, mobility impacts, whether or not the encampment is in a school walk zone, whether or not it's in a race and social equity priority area, and then also a history of nearby violent crime.

The June memo identified sort of, again, a scoring system, or how to prioritize locations that might have these attributes to greater or lesser extents and how to pick one over the other.

And the rest of this response from the executive during budget is that the city is partnering with the RHA through the Housing Command Center to rehouse people living unsheltered downtown.

As part of this effort, the RHA and the UCT are developing shared processes for coordinating housing efforts.

We have an opportunity to build on these shared processes to operationalize a joint encampment resolution strategy that includes a dynamic prioritization system that considers both people and site environmental-based conditions.

I've repeatedly in this committee, this is probably the third or fourth time I've asked for this in this committee, explain why this is so important.

When we have hundreds of locations throughout the city that community members are contacting the city and seeking resolution, we need to be able to explain to those community members why certain locations are chosen and others are not.

So this is just something that I think is incredibly important so that we can demonstrate that we are responding to those locations that have the greatest community impacts negative community impacts, and we're not just simply responding to the communities with the loudest voices.

And we have to be able to demonstrate why and how.

You know, I think it goes on both sides, right?

We have to be able to explain to the communities that have great neighborhood impacts why those locations aren't

Council Member Herbold, it looks like you have frozen up there.

We may have lost Council Member Herbold's connection.

IT?

Sun?

Yeah, it looks like to be an issue on her end.

Could be her Wi-Fi or internet froze on her end.

So it's definitely not on our end.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I don't know if that's the right way to put it.

I'm going to go back to Councilmember Herbold.

I think Mr. Bailey has notes from the first part of that line of questioning and we'll go back to Councilmember Herbold when she returns to the meeting.

her.

Thank you.

Um, and if Councilmember Herbold is able to get back in, I'm happy to wait, uh, defer back to her.

Um, I will follow up beginning my questions by following up on what she said, which is that she has asked repeatedly for an explanation of how these sites are prioritized, what the criteria are, how those decisions are made.

Uh, and so it is mid-January.

I would maybe put some timeline on that and ask if by the end of January we can have that information from the department.

Maybe if Council Member Herbold comes back in she'll have a different ask, but for now that's my ask so that we can try to get this information.

I think I share the frustration in trying to understand As we're looking at the data that you've presented, Mr. Bailey, it's what's missing that seems really obvious, right?

We don't know or we don't have information about why people are rejecting.

We certainly have lots of anecdotal information.

I think many of us have been out and heard directly from people who are experiencing homelessness, why they have chosen not to go into a shelter.

And, and so I'm surprised to know that that information isn't hasn't been collected longer.

But I think for me what this really points to is the.

the lack of clarity that this data provides.

You know, there's lots of numbers here.

There's all, we know lots of folks who are experiencing homelessness, who are living on the streets.

There are lots of folks who we are attempting to refer.

There is no clarity for me about, or maybe I should say there is, There is a frustration that the actual work of supporting people in identifying a solution that they prefer is not being addressed.

And I think it is important to just say, we're not just interested in counting widgets.

These are people that we're talking about.

not just a referral, not just, you know, a number in a shelter, we're talking about people whose lives are, you know, acutely impacted by whether or not they are able to find a safe place to be.

And so, you know, I would just like us to really hear more from the department about the outcomes that are being sought.

And the outcome isn't just the number of people who received a referral, the outcome is how many people's lives have been improved and stabilized because of the work that's being done.

So I know we will be hearing more from KCRHA as well.

It's clear from their brief PowerPoint that part of the challenge is we simply don't have enough places for people to go.

And so I think it's important for us to hear from everyone about how that problem is also going to be solved.

So I just wanted to make those remarks and we'll be looking to the department's collaboration with all of the entities that are involved in helping us improve those outcomes, not just hearing more about what I really think of as sort of an outputs presentation.

I wanna hear more throughout the year about the outcomes that we're achieving.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Mr. Bailey, do you have maybe some responses to Council Member Morales' line of inquiry?

I appreciate there was some overlap there with some of Council Member Herbold's line of questioning.

Certainly, and I'll start with the kind of picking up from where we lost Councilmember Herbold.

And we do appreciate the Councilmember's inquiry.

And I personally appreciate the need for transparency and equity.

The question that you asked as far as how sites are prioritized is best answered by the unified care team.

I'd be happy to work with council and the mayor's office to help provide that clarity, but we will likely defer to the mayor's office on how that's being drafted.

I do recognize that there is a desire to.

Improve and to continuously improve the way that we're scheduling sites.

So, I do want to call that out.

Unfortunately, I, myself do not have that answer, but happy to work with the council members here and the mayor's office to address that.

As far as the follow up questions, why people are declining.

We're hoping that that data collection will continue into 2023, and that's part of the conversations we're hoping to have with the KCRHA, and not just why people are declining, but what can we do to give them to a yes.

From a department standpoint, HSD had started some of those conversations with the University of Washington, just to try to get a better grasp of how we could collect that data.

and we're hoping to leverage any information that was shared with us and hand that over to the KCRHA so that that can inform their data collection process moving forward.

With the number of people whose lives have been changed, I'm extremely excited to see the work of the system advocates from the KCRHA and their philosophy behind ensuring every person has a person.

And I think as you see those relationships evolve, you'll have more of that narrative, but also more of that baseline understanding as far as how is the work that we're doing and the investments, how is that actually making a difference in the individual lives?

So excited to see that work take place with the KCRHA.

Also recognize the need for additional spaces, and I do want to call out that in the previous budget cycle, we did identify budget for an additional 50 tiny home villages, tiny homes rather.

And there's also some work taking place with PDA to ensure that we can continue to increase capacity there.

It's not an end solution, but we are encouraged by the work that RHA is doing with their five-year plan to help identify a potential policy solution or a recommendation to help increase capacity.

I believe I've captured the majority of your questions, but if there's anything that I left out, I'm happy to respond to that.

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Council Member Herbold, did you have any follow-up since I believe you're back with us now?

I am back.

I was kicked out on my computer, but I am back on my phone.

I did not hear the answer, but I will, I heard about data collection.

I did not hear about how some locations are chose for prioritization over others, but I can go back and listen to the answer provided by Director Bailey.

I think, I don't want to speak for Director Bailey, but I think that the answer was that there would be a circle back from the mayor's office to inform committee members on where the executive branch is with that right now.

Is that an accurate summary?

Director Bailey.

That's accurate.

And if I could add the fact that with the geographical approach, more sites will receive attention earlier in the process.

So we recognize the need to ensure that all folks have an opportunity to go inside.

But the question around the prioritization and how that is taking place is a question best answered by the unified care team.

Great.

One last thing that I want to say here before we pivot to Jeff Sims is, you know, I similarly want to echo some of Council Member Herbold's remarks and also acknowledge Director Bailey, your stated goal of being a transparent partner and fostering a climate of improvement in this work in the relationship with the council, because I do think that that has been the case over the course of the first year of trying to do things differently to more integrate our efforts with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, to track data that historically this committee has requested.

I mean, it is unprecedented that there is a new data collection method based on the insistence and recommendation of this committee.

And for that alone, I give a lot of credit to HSD and to you, Director Bailey.

the the the historic um reluctance to not record reasons for refusals and refusals was a massive problem holding back our ability to make progress on this issue.

Candidly, it's an important feedback loop.

And it's great that in partnership, we are putting that together.

And I've just generally found the administration to be more responsive and collaborative on this issue.

So I really appreciate your leadership on that.

And I look forward to continuing working together to make progress.

So with that, I'll go ahead and hand it over to Jeff Sims, because I recognize we're getting kind of late in the day and we had a packed agenda today.

So I don't want to shortchange Jeff's time with us.

So Jeff, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've lost visibility.

Mr. Chair, could you confirm that you can see my PowerPoint on the screen?

Have I lost you entirely?

Jeff, we can't see your PowerPoint.

I'm also able to share it if you're having trouble.

Yeah, please go ahead because I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong then.

It was taking up all my screen.

While we get started.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

and Deputy Director Bailey.

So obviously the report requested by the council in HOM 18A1 and its subsequent version for this coming year and its predecessors was focused on the HOPE team.

So it doesn't cover RHA's contracts or outreach agencies.

However, we were invited by HSD to join in presenting today as well as incorporating some information in the report since we do hold all the outreach contracts now and wanted to make sure the council would have that full information as we discuss overall the activities of the HOPE team.

Some of what I'll present today is material that actually we get from the HOPE team.

Some of it is information that we have in HMIS, and some of it is information that we were able to get on a one-time basis that generally is not received by RHA, but we wanted to make sure we were presenting the full picture.

Mr. Clerk, if you could go to the next slide.

So on this first slide, this is the information that we have in our homeless HMIS, which is the Homeless Management Information System, on the contracts that we have to provide homelessness outreach.

There's nine agencies with 11 contracts to provide those services.

And that's what agencies are required to enter in.

These are requirements and data requirements that we inherited from HSD.

We haven't changed those yet that we will be undertaking a rebid process.

to have new contracts that will have some changes to the data reporting requirement.

I want to highlight the issue that I might have noticed.

These numbers are different from the text submission that you received last quarter.

It's because one of the agencies, there was an error in how the date, it looks like there was an error in how the date was pulled, so that year to date was captured, not just for the quarter.

So these numbers differ a little bit from what was initially submitted, most notably on the second column, It's 700 fewer people listed as being enrolled in an outreach program.

Let me talk through what the main points on the main numbers you see here are, and then we'll get to some of the graphics that just kind of convey the overall points I want to make sure are conveyed.

If you look at the second column, total enrollment of 1786, that is the total number of clients just in the quarter in question that outreach agencies were reporting to RHA as their clients that they were actively engaged with.

It's a bar that's higher than, for example, what the HOPE team reports, what the navigation team reports.

It usually reflects a rather deep relationship between the outreach agency and the individual with whom they're working.

For example, if we were able to work with some of our providers to get information that they don't report to us, to get some context around how big is that 1786, like how many more people are they probably talking to, but not putting into HMIS because it's not that depth of enrollment.

One of the providers that we spoke to would only enter their own proprietary data would have reflected that they were talking with 961 people just in that quarter, which was about six times as many people as what would appear in this report when we pull it out of our information system.

And that's the discrepancy between have reached that really deep relationship where we call them a client versus we are just engaging with them and we have various ways that we're tracking types of care coordination and delivery.

but not yet someone who we would say is enrolled in our program.

So that's the most important metric on this slide.

You'll see that there's every quarter, there's some people that exit, that's what the next three columns are, the referrals to shelter, referrals, it's labeled as an authorized encampment, that's a tiny home village, or to permanent housing.

And just as there's people that are exiting, you'll note that there's people that are newly enrolled as they're categorized by agencies, and that's what that first column of 512 represents.

So that's overall the number, the amount of data that we're looking at.

And if I could go to the next slide, please, Mr. Clark.

We wanted to convey, in addition to that example that I gave already, we wanted to note that there's a lot of activity that is underway by outreach agencies that doesn't get captured or reflected in what is our current data requirements from outreach agencies.

Right now, they need to enter into HMIS if there is a referral to shelter, which would include a tiny home village.

And as you can see, this isn't a perfectly proportional amount, because I am not that good at geometry.

But generally speaking, there's a substantially larger number of individuals with whom outreach agencies are talking about shelter and getting into a conversation than who they put into, than who they actually record in HMIS as having entered a shelter.

Again, for an example, an outreach agency that we spoke to, their own care coordination database where they record what kind of a conversation they had with an individual, captured just in that quarter 491 individuals that they were having a conversation about the type of shelter they would go to, what type of shelter they wouldn't go to, things like that.

But that was six times, they only entered into HMIS that 50 people were referred to shelter.

So from 491 down to 50. So that gives you a sense of the greater work than what's currently captured on our data that is underway that we're not receiving on a regular basis.

We had to do a one-time special outreach to these agencies to have them talk to us about the unique data that they're capturing that helps them coordinate their work and their engagement with people.

And then if I go to the last slide, please.

Thank you.

This actually, the blue bar is actually information that we received from the HOPE team.

At this time, the primary and really only centralized matching mechanism for shelter vacancies is maintained still by the HOPE team, though, as the Council knows, you've passed some action asking us to transition that, and we're underway with the planning around that transition.

But you can see that there's a further factor that affects the ability of outreach agencies to get people into shelter is the availability of shelter that is a good match for those individuals.

Um, that blue bar, which again, we got from the hope team is the number of times that an outreach agency saw how, what vacancies were available on any given day and where that location was assessed.

I have a client that is matching in their needs and their service, um, preferences that bed.

And I've sent in a recommendation to the hope team and said, Hey, we, we would like to fill that bed with a client that we're working with.

Uh, so you can see that that number is, uh, it's like it's 1,258 as a number.

And that's far more than the number that actually end up getting to go into shelter that either has entered in HMIS or in the HOPE team's own data, where the HOPE team gets that recommendation from an outreach agency and says, yes, we received some number of requests for this single shelter bed and you get to have it today, not these other two or three people.

So that's the other number that you receive there.

The duplicated number that was preliminary from The HOPE team was 438 and HMIS captured 418. So you can see there's a little duplication and data variance there.

But the point is that we have our outreach agencies really limited in their success rates because of the availability of appropriately matched shelter to the needs of the individuals that they're engaging with.

That's actually all the data that I want to present this time.

And I'm happy to, as we go forward with the transition of vacancy reporting and matching shelter vacancies to individuals that are being worked with.

RHA is going to obviously have a bigger role.

And so I expect in future quarters, you're going to see us increasingly present and have a greater role in what is submitted.

Jeff, thank you so much.

And it's always good to see you as an alum of our Council Central staff.

Are there any questions for Jeff?

Council Member Herbold, who is now back on a computer.

I'm actually not, this is just my phone, but it seems to be working okay, thank you.

Could have fooled me, go ahead.

Yay, smart technology.

I'm wondering whether or not the data that we heard today represents a partnership for Xero, or does it also include the new citywide geographic approach?

And if the latter, can we get some of these numbers broken down by geographic areas?

It's not actually it's neither.

We are still in conversations with the mayor's office and HSD to do that transition of a geographic approach.

Our expectation is so we are and we'll be rebidding all of our components over the course of this year.

All the contracts that we have inherited and just continued with the outreach agencies, especially the ones that are more.

either geographically based, or maybe a better way to define them is they're not specific to a certain population.

They don't specifically focus on serving our indigenous population or individuals with acute substance use disorder or things like that.

Those contracts we intend to release for public comment, the RFP, so we can obtain comments because of the importance of the impact and that shift in the system that we're doing.

We normally do that with an RFP in a couple of weeks here.

And then we'll have an application period where we expect that in late March sometime in the spring, we would be moving towards the, the awarding of those new contracts.

And then agencies have been told that around June 30th or July 1st sometime in that timeframe is when we would expect the changes because of that rebate to take effect because we need to responsibly allow for changes and staffing if that's necessary things like that.

So that geographic layout is.

To the degree it already existed is still in place, but we haven't moved to the future state system that we're shooting for and it doesn't reflect the activity of.

System advocates that are the real backbone of the partnership for 0 initiative downtown right now.

They are not a contracted outreach agency and even further beyond the scope of the average agencies weren't part of the focus.

Anyway, it was the hope team.

So we're getting very far afield at that point.

So this data represents outreach and engagement of people living unsheltered where?

It is throughout Seattle.

So for example, like you have REACH, Youth Care, Chief Seattle Club, Urban League, DESC.

There's a lot of different programs that are among that list of nine agencies with 11 contracts.

And they are all, many of them are engaged citywide with certain populations.

And then others engage, maybe in certain geographies or generally citywide but have for example reach has largely shifted to a geographic focus.

So all of their data is aggregated into what you just saw.

And so is there any way to, to represent the data in a geographic way so we can see where that work is being done.

Um, I will have to ask that I don't know that answer.

I suspect no, from what I've seen submitted so far, I don't believe there's any geo location or address data that's generally associated in this way.

That's what we would need at this stage.

Once we move to contracts where there's a geographic assignment, that'll be a lot easier because we could look at your service area for this and things like that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Just following off from that line of questioning, Jeff, I think it would be good because we're coming up on, I think we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of kicking off Partnership for Zero, and I want to flag that as a potential committee presentation topic that I think would be useful to hear, and it'd be great to hear how that work is going, and and get that update on the system advocates, which as you say, are internal employees of the KCRHA and not part of the broader provider network.

So just flagging that as a potential area for a future presentation, maybe in early March, depending on what KCRHA would be willing and able to accommodate schedule wise.

Any additional questions from committee members?

Okay, seeing none, thank you so much to Director Bailey and to Jeff Sims for providing this update.

Definitely looking forward to continuing to keep the conversation going on this and make progress on what, you know, we keep.

I appreciate the partnership of the human services department Committee members, that was our final agenda item, which I know at 4.24, people won't find hard to believe.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move to adjourn the meeting unless there are any remarks for the good of the order.

Seeing no such remarks, this meeting is hereby adjourned at 4.24 p.m.

Thank you so much.