Today is December 5th, 2023. The meeting of the Seattle City Council will now come to order.
It is 2 p.m.
I'm Sarah Nelson, President Pro Tem of the Council.
I understand that Councilmember Mosqueda has indicated that she will be joining us shortly.
Will the Clerk please call the roll?
Councilmember Peterson?
Present.
Councilmember Sawant?
Council Member Strauss present Council Member herbal here Council Member Lewis as a.
Council Member Morales here.
Council Member mosquito.
and Council President pro TIM Nelson present six present.
Thank you very much, we will announce Council Member mosquito is a rival or presence when she gets here.
Okay, I am not aware of any presentations for today, so we will be moving on.
Colleagues, this time we'll open the hybrid public comment period.
Madam Clerk, how many speakers are signed up to speak?
So far, we have five remote and two in-person.
All right, let's start with the two in-person speakers.
We will go ahead and roll the video, but speakers will have two minutes to speak, and then we will proceed to the remote public commenters.
Hello, Seattle.
We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.
The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.
If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.
Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.
Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.
Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and use the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.
If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.
A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.
Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.
That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.
At that time, you must press star six.
You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.
Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.
As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.
A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.
At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.
Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.
The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.
Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.
Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the council.
The public comment period is now open.
And we will begin with the first speaker on the list.
Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.
Thank you, Seattle.
We'll start with our in-person speakers and our first in-person speaker is Reverend Walden and Reverend will be followed by Shannon Chang.
Good afternoon, Councilmember.
My name is Reverend Walden, and I'm speaking for Mothers for Police Accountability today.
And we are here to support the appointment of Dr. Ellis as Executive Director of the CPC.
We believe that Dr. Ellis is the right person to lead the CPC.
Her knowledge of policy and in the 2017 ordinance and also community engagement will strengthen the CPC as it goes forward in the future.
So thank you for letting us speak today in support of Dr. Ellis' appointment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our last in-person speaker signed up is Shannon Chang.
Yeah, and pull up close.
okay it's the right time hello i'm shannon chang chair of people power washington and a district 7 constituent i am speaking in opposition to the spog mou this mou is the first hint we've had in four years as to how negotiations between the city and spog are going in our estimation it is going very poorly the mou before you pay spog officers a bonus for shifts they are already paid overtime for This $4.5 million extra dollars through end of next year is being taken out of a pay reserve that could go towards the eventual back pay we'll owe them when the full spa contract is finally ratified or towards the many other city workers being asked to accept wages that don't keep up with the cost of living.
What the city gets in return for giving up leverage in the full spa contract negotiations is pitiful.
The main outcome is that a dual dispatch pilot, for which we've heard much fanfare, can be launched.
Best practices for an alternate crisis response would include sending out civilian responders in teams of two without police unless the responders ask for it, letting the civilian responders in conjunction with dispatch decide which types of calls they should handle, not the police, letting the civilian responders work without police present or at least start to work before the police arrive, and not being an entry point to the criminal legal system by using the police reporting system.
The MOU prevents any of these best practices from happening.
And for those of you concerned about SPD understaffing, the MOU explicitly says that there will be no impact to the number of officers responding to these calls.
Furthermore, the MOU limits any program expansion by capping the number of crisis responders to 24 and not allowing additional call types beyond person down and welfare checks.
After so much time has been spent in closed door negotiations, I can't believe this is all we got.
what i say is here before city council because that's our only public forum to speak out on this but my message is also for the mayor's office and everyone at the bargaining table don't let spog undermine seattle's efforts to stand up an alternate crisis response the same way they undermine the accountability system stand up to spog and demand a better agreement both in this mou and in the full contract thank you thank you
we'll now move into our remote speakers and first on the list will be howard gale and howard will be followed by matthew offenbecker and please remember to press star six to unmute your phone go ahead howard gale howard gale yeah i'm sorry uh howard gale
Seattle Stop, speaking to agenda items one and four.
Item one is appointing as director to the Community Police Commission an individual who has verbally attacked, slandered, and attempted to silence community members, including a community member whose brother was murdered by the Seattle Police.
This nominee, Callie Ellis, has presided over a CPC that has become intentionally cut off from those most harmed by police, that has ended public comment, and has used our tax dollars to fund junkets to police conferences.
That's right.
The CPC eschews those harmed by police as they gleefully embrace the police.
It is no surprise, then, that the CPC's own commissioned investigation in 2022 concluded that their, quote, engagement of the public is a subject of much criticism regarding who it engages and how, is viewed as uninvolved and disconnected from the community, only engaging certain voices they agree with, transactional in their engagement, unquote.
Under Callie Ellis's leadership during 2023, the CPC has become even more uninvolved, more disconnected, transactional, leading to the kind of hostility and abuse she has engaged in all capture on video.
Item four on today's agenda makes a mockery of the promise from three and a half years ago to have an alternative to police officers for the vast majority of public interactions not needing one.
This legislation provides more money for SBD officers to act as human traffic cones during large events.
This legislation belatedly provides for an underwhelming 24-person alternative to police pilot three and a half years late, where the scope of their ability to intervene is absurdly narrowed and with the SPD having the ultimate power to decide even if they can intervene.
This is a complete betrayal of the promise made three and a half years ago after the killing of George Floyd.
How embarrassing that many of you will close out your career on the council by demonstrating that your wokeness was performative and by further diminishing the very slight gains made in police accountability by entrenching a system that is little more than a fig leaf for continuing police abuse and unaccountability.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Matthew Offenbacher, and Matthew will be followed by BJ Last.
Go ahead, Matthew.
Hi, thank you.
Hi, council members.
My name is Matthew Offenbacher, and I live on Capitol Hill and run a small business in Soto.
I'm calling today to urge you to vote no on the SLOG Memo of Understanding.
What kind of understanding does this memo offer?
Is it the understanding that led SLOG Vice President Daniel Alderer in conversation with SLOG President Mike Solon to mock the tragic death of Janavi Kundala?
Is it the understanding that kept a mock tombstone for Demarius Butts and a Trump 2020 flag as trophies in the East Precinct break room for years?
Is it the understanding that led six SPD officers to participate in the January 6th insurrection and coup attempt at the US Capitol building?
Is it the understanding that led Detective Denise Cookie Bolden to file a lawsuit after suffering more than 40 years of daily on the job racial discrimination and harassment?
My question for you is, why would you grant this police guild so much power in shaping the future of community safety in our city?
With this memo Scott would get the call the shots as we start to implement the severe civilian crisis response that a vast majority of your constituents want and have been begging you to get moving on for years now.
It's great that we are finally moving towards some version of a civilian crisis response, but it boggles my mind that you are considering starting down this much demanded long deferred path by handing control over the number of civilian responders to an organization who have consistently undermined any movement towards a more holistic public safety system and who have lost all trust from the people of Seattle.
So I'm asking you to please reject Spog's bad faith and increasingly desperate attempts to hold on to power, reject the memo, and work towards implementing a truly robust civilian crisis response.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is BJ Last, and BJ will be followed by David Haynes.
Go ahead, BJ.
Hello.
My name is BJ Last.
I'm a Ballard resident.
I'm calling on council to reject the proposed Spog Memorandum of Understanding.
The MOU is the latest in SPD and SPOG's ongoing fights to prevent anyone other than sworn officers from responding to calls or directing traffic at special events by giving SPOG control over the number of responders and limiting the number of call types that the non-police can respond to.
This fight goes back to at least 2016, when a Berkshire advisor's report for the city found that adding just nine civilian positions to respond to some calls would lower the number of sworn officers responding to calls by 7%.
This fight has continued.
Of 911 calls showing that the majority of 911 calls are for non-criminal items.
And the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reforms report that SPD commissioned, which found that one half of all calls can be transferred to community responders today, not at some future date, but as of right now.
Those are just some of the items in SPD and SPOG's constant fight against this.
And sadly, SPD and SPOG have completely won this fight.
While cities across the country, including Olympia, Kirkland, Bothell, Shoreline, and others just in King County, have rolled out non-police responses, supposedly progressive Seattle has allowed SPD and SPOG to completely stonewall attempts to set up non-police responses.
The memo of understanding, however, does put the lie to SPD, SPOG, the mayor, and certain council members' constant claims of a supposed staffing crisis in SPD.
The MOU locks in SPD as handling all calls, plus being the primary staffer of special events through 2026. There's no reason to expect that SPD is suddenly going to go out to hire a material number of new cops.
SPD averaged less than 16 net new hires from 2012 to 2019. Again, 2012-2019, less than 16 net new hires per year.
There's no reason to expect SBD will suddenly change that.
If there's actually a staffing crisis...
Thank you.
Our next speaker is David Haynes, and David will be followed by Katie Gendry.
Go ahead, David.
Hi, thank you.
David Haynes.
A couple weeks ago, I had to go to the Westlake transit link, and there was over 40...
drug pushers and chunky thieves that are hanging around.
And I got down one platform and there was three meth heads that were smoking meth.
So I went to find on the way down an employee and they seem to be pissed off at me that I was pointing it out to them.
And then when I got down to the platform, there was a meth head who came through the two of them through the elevator and he tries to smoke it right there.
And I'm like, Hey man, you can't smoke that there.
And you get on the train and the only thing you get are these security guards that are sizing you up acting like you're a criminal because you might not have paid your fare.
And it's real concerning because it's obvious that we have the most untrustworthy police chief who has prioritized overtime at law abiding events while he purposely goes out of his way to sabotage the integrity and the safety effectiveness of every police fighting crime unit You cannot put civilians in charge of quelling situations when people are conspiring to destroy other people's lives with less than 3.5 grams of drugs, which the progressives in Seattle have exempted from jail, which has created all these junkie thieves.
And it's highly offensive that all of a sudden the police think that they're going to win the hearts and minds of the community by doing Wall Street middlemen things.
by making sure they're going to protect Target from their cheap China-made crap that has to generate profits for non-working shareholder middlemen who will oppress the exploited workers who are forced to pay the tax base.
Let those private security corporate fascists protect their products.
We need the cops to shut down and trespass all these junkie thieves and find out, question them to find out where they get their drugs to shut it down.
You all keep allowing evil to continue to destroy people's lives because it's under three.
Thank you.
Our next speaker, this will be our last speaker, Katie Gendry.
Go ahead, Katie, and you may need to press star six.
Hello, I'm Katie Gendry in D6, and I'm calling in today to fully support a civilian-led mental health crisis response and to express my vehement rejection of the Spog MOU.
Many Seattleites support a civilian-led crisis response.
I have worked as an outreach worker and have been a crisis responder to mental health crisis myself.
Successful crisis response means being in community with the people.
Police are not in community with the people.
Police assert control and do not approach crisis with care or successful existing relationships.
There also needs to be an expansion on voluntary mental health resources and treatment centers so that people can seek the care they need and deserve before they are in crisis.
People having mental health crisis do not need police.
They need a mental health response of people actually invested in their well-being, and they need resources and treatment.
Police are not good social workers and never could be because police represent racism violence, and control.
Police often escalate situations, making them more dangerous for the person experiencing crisis.
Police do not meet people where they are at, and they uphold the pipeline to our criminal punishment system.
Stop allowing police to criminalize and kill people who are having mental health crisis.
Reject the FOG MOU.
Support a civilian-led crisis response.
I yield my time.
Thank you, and that concludes our speakers today.
All right, we've reached the end of our list of registered speakers.
So the public comment period is now closed.
Thanks everyone for your comments today.
Moving on to the adoption of the IRC, if there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.
All right, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Seeing none, the agenda is adopted.
Madam President.
Yes, go ahead.
Excuse me, Madam President Pro Tem.
Just wanted to let you know I was here.
Sorry for being a few minutes late.
It's Council Member Muskie.
Thank you very much.
My notes are covering up all the rectangles here on the screen.
All right.
Thank you for joining us.
Okay, we'll now consider the proposed consent calendar.
Items on the consent calendar include the minutes of the November 21st, 2023 meeting, two payroll bills, and one appointment, appointment 02692 to the Seattle Renters' Rights Commission.
Are there any items council members would like to remove from today's consent calendar?
Hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.
Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you very much.
It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.
Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Sawat?
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
And Council President Pro Tem Nelson?
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
All right.
The consent calendar items are adopted.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes in legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf?
Moving on to committee reports, will the clerk please read the title of item one into the record?
Reported the public safety and human services committee agenda item one appointment to 655 appointment of Kelly mortis and Ellis as executive director of the Seattle community police Commission, the committee recommends that city council confirm the appointment.
Is there a second.
me a second.
There's no motioning.
Okay.
Got it.
All right.
I will move right over here.
Council Member Herbal, this chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.
Thank you so much, Madam Pro Tem.
So under the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance, the Executive Director of the Community Police Commission is appointed by the Community Police Commission itself and confirmed by the City Council to a six-year term.
City Council confirmation is not needed for reappointment.
As reported to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee last week, the CPC voted to appoint Dr. Ellis as the executive director.
So the appointment is now before full council for confirmation.
In committee, we had presentation of the applicant nominee by the CPC co-chairs, Reverend Patricia Hunter and Joel Merkel.
Council members may recall what happened recently when Because of the lack of a deputy director position, there was no one in line under the ordinance to fill the vacancy.
Interim Director Ellis did so.
And we, to make sure that that doesn't happen again, when there's no succession structure, we, during the budget process, added a new deputy director position.
Also want to recognize that over the last several months, the CPC has been doing work that the Council has requested by resolution regarding examining complaint appeals or a complaint appeal process, creating one, and providing updates during CPC meetings on that work.
and also really pleased that this is something under Interim Director Ellis's leadership that the CPC has been working on and understand that they will be presenting this information or these recommendations publicly, but just want to when it's ready, but I want to recognize because it's one of the issues that we've heard from folks that they really want the CPC to work on this issue.
So I want to recognize that the work itself is definitely ongoing under the present leadership.
Thank you very much for that introduction to this item.
Are there any council members who would like to ask any questions or have any comments?
Okay, I'm not seeing any.
I would like to just note that I was present at the at the committee meeting in which the confirmation was unanimously confirmed.
And I have to say that just to repeat some of the things that I said before, the CPC is an independent body whose mission is to advise on policy with input from the community.
And so therefore, as an independent body, the commissioners choose the director and our our job today, I think of it as a formal recognition of their authority and their decision making that went into this choice.
And we heard a lot of public comment last time about Dr. Ellis's work in uh before even coming to the city and the fact that she is well steeped in in the role of um in public administration and policy and i just have to say that i came out of that um that meeting fully convinced and having worked with dr ellis these uh past few months uh as interim director and also as the policy director of cpc in full confidence that she is the best person to uh to lead the body going forward and um contribute to its work strengthening our accountability system so simply to say i stand by their decision and um thank you very much for standing up uh for this responsibility would you is there any other comment yep go ahead yep okay council member peterson yes
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
No.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
And Council President Pro Tem Nelson?
Aye.
Six in favor, one opposed.
Thank you very much, the appointment is confirmed congratulations executive director Ellis sharing deadman the city clerk will now administer your oath of office and after the oath of office, you are invited to provide some comments, so thank you very much.
closer to the camera so everybody can hear us.
Nice to meet you.
Okay, so we're going to read that.
I, Hallie Mortensen Ellis.
I, Hallie Mortensen Ellis.
Swear or affirm.
Swear or affirm.
That I possess all of the qualifications prescribed in the Seattle city charter.
That I possess all of the qualifications prescribed in the Seattle city charter.
And the Seattle municipal code.
And the Seattle municipal code.
For the position of Executive Director for the Seattle Community Police Commission.
for the position of Executive Director for the Seattle Community Police Commission.
That I will support the Constitution of the United States.
That I will support the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of the State of Washington.
The Constitution of the State of Washington.
And the charter and ordinances of the City of Seattle.
And the charter and ordinances of the City of Seattle.
And that I will faithfully conduct myself.
And that I will faithfully conduct myself.
As the Executive Director of the Community Police Commission.
As the Executive Director of the Community Police Commission.
Thank you very much.
Congratulations.
Yes, please make sure that you can hear this.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
So thank you very much to the city council and the citizens of Seattle and the community police commission that entrusted me with this very important position.
This is a critical year in the city of Seattle and the next year is gonna also be a critical year in the city of Seattle for public safety, for the community who expects the Seattle Police Department to conduct themselves in a constitutional manner, constitutional policing for public safety.
When I first was put into this role, thank you very much, Council Member Herbold, back in February, I made my first remarks to the Community Police Commission in March, March 1st.
At that time, there had been 10 homicides in the city.
They have happened all over the city in different neighborhoods.
By now, you may be aware that we have passed a very important and sad milestone.
There have been over 70 homicides in the city and they've happened all over.
So the role of the community police commission is to make sure that the city and the citizens of the city have constitutional policing, but also that the interest of citizens when it comes to policing at all are represented.
Citizens are concerned about the large number of homicides, the dangerous situation that's happening in the city, and CPC is here to listen to them and to support them and raise up their voices to all of you and to future leadership.
Thank you very much for this honor.
I am really excited to begin this work.
Thank you very much.
Congratulations.
Congratulations.
All right, will the clerk please Read the short title of Item 2 into the record.
Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 120714, relating to the transfer of city real property for housing development, amending Ordinance 124917 to transfer jurisdiction of the former DeMar substation, 1605 Southwest Holden Street, to the Office of Housing.
The committee recommends that City Council pass the Council Bill.
Thank you very much.
Councilmember Herbold is chair of the committee.
You're recognized in order to address this item.
Thank you so much.
So this legislation approves the transfer of the Dumar substation site from Seattle City Light to the Office of Housing in exchange for $424,000.
It also authorizes the Office of Housing to conduct a competitive process to solicit proposals for the development of resale restricted home ownership and to negotiate property transfer to the selected developer.
The origin of the legislation dates back 10 years to the disposition of this particular property that Seattle City Light decided 10 years ago they did not need.
A couple years later, in 2015, former council members Rasmussen, Licata, and then council member Harrell requested that the Office of Planning and Community Development study land use changes for this property.
After years of conversation between my office, Seattle City Light, the Office of Housing, and the mayor's office, the proposed community use for this property, about the proposed community use for this property, we have this legislation before us.
We're excited that 10 years later, Seattle City Light is still willing to transfer the property to the Office of Housing for affordable housing development, and the Office of Housing is willing as well.
Additional elements I think that are important for consideration for this legislation is lifting up the community advocacy led by the Highland Park Action Council that resulted in 2019 in a new zoning designation for this particular property.
The community advocated for an up zone of this property so that they could eventually reach their goal of developing it with affordable housing with also a ground floor commercial use.
So we worked to help the property be rezoned to neighborhood commercial 40. The community has also strongly supported not only affordable housing at this location, but as mentioned before, ground floor retail, the neighborhood commercial I-40 M2 does have a pedestrian overlay as part of it.
So looking forward to the next steps on this after hopefully the passage of this legislation today.
Thank you very much for bringing this forward.
Are there any comments from our colleagues?
All right, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll and the passage of the bill?
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Thank you very much.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
All right.
Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record?
Agenda item three, Council Bill 120709. relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2023 employment ordinance, returning positions to the civil service system, exempting a position from the civil service system, retitling existing titles, establishing new titles, and abrogating positions, all by a two-thirds vote of the city council.
Thank you.
I move to pass Council Bill 120709. Is there a second?
Second.
Second.
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.
Council Member Peterson, on behalf of the sponsor, you're recognized in order to address this item.
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Colleagues, Council Bill 120709 is sponsored by Council President Juarez, Chair of our Governance Committee, who is excused from today's meeting.
The Council President asked me as Vice Chair of that committee to speak to this item.
Our City Council Central Staff Analyst who reviews these quarterly employment ordinances confirmed that this bill is relatively routine, and she circulated a helpful memo to us on December 1st.
That central staff memo states that Council Bill 120709 would authorize the Seattle Department of Human Resources Director to return three positions to the civil service system, exempt one position from the civil service system, adjust five job titles and corresponding rates of pay, establish three job titles with corresponding rates of pay, and abrogate seven board member positions.
There would be no direct costs associated with these personal actions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any comments from anybody, any questions?
Okay, seeing none, any further comments from the sponsor?
If not, we'll call the roll.
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Thank you.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
And will the clerk please read the short title of item four into the record?
Agenda item four, Council Bill 120720, relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.
Thank you very much.
Would you like to speak to this item?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
So just a quick overview of the agreement and then I want to go a little deeper on the dual dispatch program because we've been hearing a lot of concerns about it.
Broadly, this is a side agreement with the Seattle Police Officers Guild that allows three things.
It allows the CARE dual dispatch team more flexibility to respond to people in mental health crisis.
It allows for the citywide operation of the park rangers, which are currently limited to central neighborhoods.
And it, thirdly, also enhances the flexibility for police officers the use of civilians for staffing special events when a sworn officer is not required to do so.
We received a memo from Central Staff Director Handy on Friday.
Again, this council bill is not the overall collective bargaining agreement with SPOG.
I think for folks who are concerned about the collective bargaining agreement with SPOG and police accountability, I want to just remind the viewing public that the September consent decree ruling by Judge Robarts states that the city will be required to submit to the court within 30 days of reaching a tentative agreement an analysis of the effect of the agreement on SPD's accountability and review systems and implementation of the city's 2017 accountability ordinance.
So that's just to answer any unspoken questions about how this, why this particular agreement does not address the accountability issues in the 2017 accountability ordinance.
This is a side agreement.
We know that since 2008 park rangers have been limited to downtown neighborhood parks And with the renewal of the parks district the park ranger program was significantly expanded with the goal of hiring 26 park rangers this year and their their work throughout the city this agreement will allow them to provide safety activation and ongoing support for park go park goers and Just a little bit of a deeper dive on the dual dispatch program.
We've been receiving emails.
We heard testimony today from People Power Washington.
I just want to clear some things up.
The agreement allows up to 24 full-time employees to act as responders for this project.
We currently only have seven responders hired, and so this limitation allows the pilot to expand threefold over the term of the agreement.
Totally support the vision of the Albuquerque model the Denver model as does chief Smith the leader of of the CSCC and Those are those are absolutely much larger programs that have been existence for a while, but allowing this expansion to 24 from 7 over the next three years I think is in line with how we handle pilot projects in general.
It's sort of similar to the approach that we used with CSOs.
I think we only had 10 to start, and we've expanded it in subsequent budget cycles.
Dual dispatch under the agreement can occur for two types of calls, person down and welfare checks.
These call types were identified because the council has requested that we prioritize these call types.
And we've done so in many different ways over the last three years.
We've named these call types in resolution.
We've named these call types in budget actions.
We've named these call types as priorities in the term sheet with the mayor's office.
I mean, we've named these call types as priorities at LRPC.
These call types represent several thousands of calls a year.
So the concern that limiting the program to these call types somehow is not going to provide for enough enough breadth for the program.
I think, again, given the number of calls that fit into those two categories, I don't think that this limitation in the MOU will be a problem over the next three years.
Further, the agreement says that over the course of the pilot project, the parties may evaluate additional call types that may be suitable for dual dispatch and may mutually agree in writing to expand the type of calls covered by the agreement.
We've also heard from folks concerns that responders will not be permitted to begin work if they get on the scene first.
This is not the case.
The agreement specifically allows responders that arrive on the scene first to begin work and officers don't have to be on the scene to clear, be on scene to clear the scene for safety.
The language in the MOU says officers can clear the scene as they determine to be appropriate.
That means they don't need to be physically present at the scene to clear it.
If the community responder gets there first, SPD does not need to be physically present at the scene to clear it.
Sorry, I'm repeating myself, but it is an important point.
Further, I think we need awareness that these community responders are working today, but they're limited today on how they can respond to calls by the current contract.
So without approval of this MOU, they will continue operating consistent with the SPD directive that requires officers to actively request care team members and to do so only after arriving and securing the site of the particular call type.
So voting against this agreement would mean that these responders could not respond unless requested by SPD.
Continuing with that approach is just simply not acceptable.
Again, I agree with the desire and the interest to have this program grow, but this is, I think, a really important first start, and it's something that we have been working on for over three years now, and I think this is actually something to celebrate rather than to focus on what the agreement doesn't include.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
That really did help me understand better, and I was actually there in the meeting.
So I need to move this thing.
I move to pass Council Bill 120720. Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.
You've already spoken, Council Member Herbold, as sponsor.
Are there any other comments?
Let's see.
Yes.
Let me see.
Council Member Mosqueda, go ahead.
Thank you very much, Madam President pro tem and thank you to the chair of public safety council member herbal.
Thanks for your explanation.
I believe the chair public safety may have been proactively responding to some of the concerns that I noted before.
So, thank you for doing that council member herbal as the sponsor noted.
There has been concerns that I have raised and perhaps others about.
how this policy, this memorandum of understanding interacts or aligns with the goals of the accountability ordinance.
I recognize that we do not have in front of us the actual contract, this long awaited contract, which we all hope will have more accountability pieces embedded within that contract.
I understand the difference and that this is not specifically designed to drive towards those accountability components that we all, I believe, universally want to see put into action and put into the contract as well once that contract is complete.
The issues that I was raising previously when this came up is around the strategy, the approach to try to include some core tenets of how we would like to realign who responds to certain calls to ensure that there is a dual dispatch or a citizen response dispatch, especially the health-related calls, and to allow for a memorandum of understanding to move forward outside of the goals that we're all trying to accomplish in the SPOG contract and push for those accountability pieces to me seems premature.
From the budget chair's perspective, I raised concern when this came up in front of us last month that this allocates up to around $8 million to compensate officers for changes that we do want to see, but is $8 million in addition to an unknown dollar amount that will at some point be disclosed once the SPOG contract is complete.
We are now in the process here of giving additional funding at this juncture for a small universe of changes that I happen to support, but changes without any information or at least public information about what SPOG will be demanding for the other accountability changes that I believe this council and the executive would like to see put into the contract once that's complete.
I am raising a question about strategy, I am raising a question about priorities, and I'm raising a question about sequencing, because I don't think that it is wise to offer this amount of funding on top of a dollar amount that will at some point have to come again in front of the council.
This is going to be compounding the dollar amounts that we are asking our city to put forward for universally desired changes that we would like to see in policing, but doing it separate from the unknown dollar amount or the unknown changes that will be asked for in the spa contract, I don't think is wise at this juncture.
At some point, the state legislature will have the chance to weigh in and help jurisdictions not have to bargain.
issues related to accountability.
I think that is also a universal desire that we should not have to be bargaining those.
Until the state legislature weighs in and helps us with this process, I have significant concerns with finalizing this MOU, allocating the funding as we discussed during the budget, and doing so absent knowing what the universe of policy changes are or dollar amounts are that will ultimately come in front of this council in the form of a finalized SPOG contract.
We are paying officers extra to do a job that they are already required to do for the privilege of freeing up officers to respond to higher priority calls that we have all been calling for officers to be able to have their ability and responsibility to do their job.
We've heard that there's a staffing shortage, but now we are paying officers to go to the very positions where a civilian could be freed up to go to instead.
It feels like as much as I want to support the underlying goals of this, I have significant concerns about having officers still go to these calls and not have them freed up to go to the higher priority calls.
Just a few weeks ago, we saw the Seattle Times article about a group of police officers who responded to a health crisis.
a call of a man who was intoxicated, who had broken a window, who was throwing things on the street.
And while medics and firefighters successfully contacted the individual in crisis, SPD then entered into a different building and five officers, including one armed with a high caliber semi-automatic rifle, broke down a different person's door, a different woman's door that was not having a moment of crisis.
This is an example of where officers, officers with a gun, are not necessarily the people that we want even co-responding to situations where someone is having a health-related crisis that could be better served with a medic and a firefighter.
According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, I quote, the mere presence of law enforcement vehicle or a uniformed officer or a weapon has the potential to escalate a situation." When a person is in crisis, just seeing someone in uniform with a weapon or their police vehicle can escalate the situation, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Also, from the Center for American Progress in 2020, they said, and I quote, all too often these calls for service result in unnecessary fatalities. People with serious mental health disorders are 16 times more likely than the general public to be killed during a police encounter, end quote. So I raise this both as a question about strategy, The funding crisis that our city is currently facing again, noting that the funding that we allocated in the budget was not specifically being directed to be taken out of the existing police officers budget. Excuse me, the Seattle police department budget, which, as we know from last year, still has 20Million of the 40Million in unused funding from. The salary savings, which 20Million was reprogrammed last year into new investments. Some of those 1 time investments had this been allocating funding from the 1 time investments within the department to this existing investment. I might feel different about the finances, but on the policy, I still have significant concerns that the sets up the dual dispatch to look different from how I know many of us wanted to see it, particularly in the ways where it could. in which it's supposed to be discreet from the co-response system. So with that, Madam President Pro Tem, I again, and consistent with my previous vote, will be voting no on this policy. I do want to ensure that the officer has the ability to show up when there is a crime in process. But I am very concerned about an officer holding the discretion to turn a call over to a crisis responder that still puts the officer in control of whether or not an officer is responding to a health-related crisis versus really making a decision about how to send a health personnel or EMT or a firefighter or a case manager separate from an officer holding that discretion to turn the call over. And that remains one of my major concerns.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Herbal- I mean, Councilmember Mosqueda.
That was a lot to take in.
Here's how I'm thinking about it.
I am referring to the summary and fiscal note that is associated with this legislation.
And for the question that says, are there financial costs or other impacts of not implementing the legislation, here's what it said.
says, if the MOU is not legislated, the city would not gain additional flexibility in its use of limited commissioned, non-commissioned employees to fill special event assignments between January 2nd, 2024 and January 2nd, 2026. Additionally, the launch of these cities Dual Dispatch Alternative Response Pilot Project, which would allow community crisis responders trained to deal with mental and behavioral health or social welfare issues to respond to certain types of nonviolent calls for service, may be diminished or delayed.
Moreover, park rangers would continue to be restricted to operate only in downtown parks.
and we know that there's been requests from all over the city for park rangers elsewhere.
So that is why I will be voting yes, and I will let Councilmember Herbold close us out on this discussion.
Okay, no other comments?
Yeah, so I think the only, point I would make that I haven't already made is, as it relates to the strategy, the strategy to have a side agreement allows us to resolve an issue that many of us have been working on for three years.
If we maintained the approach of bargaining this element in the larger SPOG agreement, we would not have hired already seven community responders that launched the program back in October.
And I know it's really important to make some progress on this effort.
And again, if we had chosen a different strategy, we would not be in a position where we have a program that has been stood up, And that currently requires officers to actively request care team members, but as soon as we vote and approve this, it creates the flexibility to allow responders to start their work when they get on scene and allows officers to clear the scene in any way that they find appropriate.
That does not mean they have to be on the scene to clear the scene.
And this notion of the officers holding discretion, I think many of the cities that we've looked at where we see a purely community responder response, that they're not using police officers, They started their pilots relying more on a co-response.
It's through the operations of the program that resulted in a situation where police were no longer, everybody recognized in the continuum that police were not needed for certain type of calls.
It's not like any of these other cities ban police officers for showing up at the scene where a community responder is.
So I think this notion of police department discretion and them holding the discretion is something that is, widely misunderstood but nevertheless I am excited and grateful to be here to vote on this MOU today because again voting against this agreement would mean that responders could not respond the responders that are working right now for CSCC for the care department if we voted against this agreement those people could not respond unless actually requested by by the police department and that is not an acceptable model for a community responder program.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.
Would you...
Madam President, I'm so sorry.
I put my hand up late, and I'm not trying to get the last word because I appreciate the good work of the Chair of Public Safety.
I just wanted to respond to one of the things that was said and underscore my support as well for the reconfigured...
Park Ranger approach that Council President Pro Tem spoke to that that's not I don't think that's in question.
Just want to make sure that that was clear.
And also appreciate as the chair of public safety noted the number of people that have been hired and wanting to see them deployed.
Absolutely support that and appreciate that there's currently barriers to having those folks do the work.
But I did want to really make sure that I was clear because I don't know that I was explicit in my comments from before.
The concerns that I have with the MOU and the hierarchy in terms of dispatch is that it is how the proposal here is supposed to be discreet from a co-response model.
There is a hierarchy that is set up in this proposal where SPD officers are still the primary responders and then the care mental health responders serve under their direction.
So in the MOU, it quotes, and I quote, officers make the determination as to who will make the initial direct contact, end quote.
I quote, a crisis responder does not approach unless cleared to do so by the officer assisting the scene, end quote.
I quote, the officer has the ability to advise the crisis responder to disregard if the officer's assessment is that the crisis responder is inappropriate for the call." So the officer holds the discretion to turn the call over to a crisis responder and also to determine whether or not they're not needed. I think that that takes away from the capacity, the capabilities, direction that we would want to be offering the care department workers so that they can really be the first responders. So I very much worry about the power dynamic, that they are not being set up to be the actual first responders. And I worry that it solidifies SPD's role in responding to these types of calls in the future. I do hope that as the contract is finally negotiated, that this process can be revisited so that we can truly set up a system where we create a fully autonomous response that is a true police alternative and not just a supplement, which would then also get at what officers and SPD has said they wanted, which is to free up officers to actually respond to high priority calls. I just wanted to offer that clarity. Thank you very much, Madam President Prochem.
Right.
Thank you.
Any final words?
All right.
Would you please go ahead and call the roll?
Council Member Peterson.
Yes.
Council Member Strauss.
Yes.
Council Member Herbold.
Yes.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Council Member Morales.
No.
Council Member Mosqueda.
No.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Five in favor, two opposed.
Thank you very much.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
And then finally, we will go to item five.
Please read that into the record.
Agenda Item 5, Resolution 32117, relating to the 2023 Housing Levy Oversight Committee, setting the terms of office of the members of the Oversight Committee and authorizing it to consider issues regarding programs funded by earlier housing levies.
Thank you very much.
I move to adopt Resolution 32117. Is there a second?
Second.
It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Mosqueda is sponsored.
You're recognized in order to address this item.
Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.
Colleagues, with the successful passage of the 2023 Housing Levy, thank you very much, Seattle voters.
The Council now needs to take the next step of establishing the 2023 Housing Levy Oversight Committee.
This committee provides policy advice and oversight of the new levy.
Resolution 32117 sets the terms of office for the new 2023 Housing Levy Oversight Committee positions.
As you might recall, the 23 housing levy ordinance requires the establishment of this oversight committee and sets out the responsibilities for this committee after approval of the levy by the Seattle voters.
So that is what we are doing here today.
The following, or sorry, excuse me, following the vote on this resolution, we will then have items six through 18. This includes the 13 council and mayoral appointments to the Housing Levy Oversight Committee.
So this is just the first step.
And then we will have the next 13 steps to complete the appointments to the committee.
Thank you, Madam President Pro Tem.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other comments from anyone?
Nope.
Okay.
No closing remarks.
Would you, you just gave opening and okay, go ahead.
Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of the resolution?
Council Member Peterson.
Yes.
Council Member Strauss.
Yes.
Council Member Herbold.
Yes.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Thank you very much.
The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.
And then finally, will the clerk please read the title of items six through 18 into the record.
Agenda items six through 18. Appointments 2705 through 2717. Appointments of Feben Betacu, Cynnery Marshall, and T.
Malone, Denise Rodriguez, and Dan Weiss as members, Housing and Levy Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2025. Appointments of Noah Fay, Joel C. Ng, James W. Lavelle, Patience Gamalaba, Paul H. Park, and Andrea Coffin-Sanderson as members, Housing Levy Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2026. Appointments of Tracy A. Ratzleff and Kara Katoshima Valera as members, Housing Levy Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2030.
Okay.
Thank you.
Did you read 15 through 18?
Yes, you did already.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
All right.
I move to confirm appointments 2705 through 2717. Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.
Councilmember Mosqueda, as sponsor, you're recognized to address these items.
Thank you, President Pro Tem.
Items 6 through 18 make up the incredible individuals proposed as the council and mayoral appointments for the 13 open positions for the new Housing Levy Oversight Committee.
These members are in front of us for discussion today, but they have been thoroughly vetted and highly acknowledged as leaders in the housing field and complimentary fields throughout Seattle.
I'm excited that the Housing Oversight Committee performs this critical role and we'll have potentially these esteemed individuals who will be able to provide governance and accountability direction for the levy programs.
We'll also be providing advice and input on the design and implementation of the 2023 levy.
The proposed members have expertise in affordable housing finance, in development, in operations and management, in behavioral health and resident services, in homeless services and policy advocacy, and local government service.
The committee will be extremely diverse, both in terms of background and experience, and with the members representing the community-based organizations, public and private funders, developers and service providers, and various associations, I know we will be in good hands for years to come.
Roughly half of the committees served on the previous housing levy oversight committees, so they bring with them valuable experience and continuity to help complement the fresh perspectives of individuals who we will be appointing today to serve on the levy oversight committee for the first time.
Last week, we circulated the list of appointees and the resolution to the floor.
I want to thank General Lebrecht and Tracy Raskla from Central Staff.
I want to thank Erin House from my office, Chief of Staff, who's been leading on all things housing.
And, of course, our partners in the Mayor's Office and Office of Housing as well.
I believe Brianna Thomas and our Director, Micah Winkler-Chin, were involved in this, along with her team from Office of Housing.
thank you to the office of housing for proactively helping to put together this list for the appointment packets so that the city is able to hit the ground running following the historic passage of the 2023 levy historic both in terms of dollar amount and overwhelming support colleagues as you'll remember there was 70 percent of seattle voters who said they wanted to pass this housing levy so this is a clear direction for our city as we create more housing which is good for workers, working families, small businesses, and the health of our local economy as well.
Just as a reminder, this housing levy invests deeply in affordable housing and supportive housing services.
It invests in permanent affordable home ownership opportunities, first-time home ownership opportunities, and it creates family size units.
I'm talking about three and four bedroom units, and it provides culturally responsive affordable housing and continues to the work that we have embarked on with Jumpstart progressive payroll tax that helps stabilize the permanent supportive housing workforce.
This can help ensure that more people are able to not only be housed, but stay stably housed and helps us address the incredibly vulnerable community members who have seen their not only housing needs and affordable housing become more out of reach, but the actual health services that people are dealing with inside affordable housing has also become more complex and complicated.
So making sure that the workforce is there to help get people housed and keep them stably housed and keep them healthy is incredibly important as well.
And that's what this housing levy invests in.
I want to thank you all for the work that you have done to provide input into the housing levy before we sent it to the voters.
We increase the ability for people to have access to housing.
We're helping reduce the experience of housing instability.
We're helping to serve more people who are experiencing homelessness.
And we're helping to invest in the wages that help keep people employed so there's continuity and continued improvement of services for those in the human services sector.
As we discussed in our budget committee meetings, this is an essential complement to both the brick and mortar and the vision of creating more housing in our city.
if we're going to be able to keep people stably housed in our community.
So thanks again to the incredible candidates for all of the work that they have done so far in the housing realm.
And I look forward to having all of these 13 individuals serve our city as the 2023 Housing Levy Oversight Committee is stood up effective after this vote.
Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions, comments?
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?
Council Member Peterson.
Yes.
Council Member Strauss.
Yes.
Council Member Herbold.
Yes.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Thank you.
The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.
Will the clerk please read the title of item 19 into the record.
Reported the select budget committee agenda item 19 resolution 32116 related to the city's annual budget process, updating modified by annual budgeting processes, establishing guidelines for mid year budget changes, establishing data sharing and reporting requirements and superseding resolution 2885 and 31954. the committee recommends that city council adopt as amended the resolution.
Thank you.
All right, Council Member Mosqueda, as sponsor, you're recognized to discuss this and address this item.
Thank you so much.
I'd like to make sure to share the opportunity to address the item with Council Member Herbold.
I think she is the appropriate, excuse me, am I on the wrong item, Council Member Herbold and Madam President Pro Tem?
I think I'm looking at item number 21.
This is related to the annual budget process, updating the biennial budgeting processes.
That sounds like you.
Oh, apologies.
OK, I had to scroll up a page here.
Colleagues, I'm just going to address items 19 and 20 together, if that's OK, Madam President Pro Tem.
Excellent Thank you.
So you heard me talk about these items from our previous conversations that we've had in the budget committee.
And then before that, in the finance and housing committee, this is a long time waiting.
We have been very thankful to have the participation of the city budgets office and the executive team as well as the leadership and deep engagement from central staff.
We passed a statement of legislative intent in 2022 asking for central staff and CBO to come together to identify ways to enhance fiscal transparency, our budgeting process, and improve access to information so that we can work quickly and expeditiously and effectively finalize our budgets as the council, the legislative branch has a responsibility of doing that every year.
As we move towards biennial budgeting and hopefully one day a true biennial budget document, This will be a helpful stepping stone to actually creating a process that is more real time for both members of the central staff and legislative branch team, but also more accessible and transparent to members of the public.
This package of legislation, both the ordinance and the resolution are the building blocks.
I think this is just the foundation for how we hope to improve upon the budget and fiscal transparency process in the future.
As I leave the budget chair position, it is going to be my honor to pass on hopefully this framework to a future council and a future budget chair who will then be able to have a more transparent process, a more expeditious way to get data to the legislative branch from the city's budget office so that we can finalize our budgets.
And that's true for our biennial budget that we want to craft every other year, and it's also true for that mid-biennial budget adjustment that we did just this year in the off years.
Finally, I would say it is, I think, a collaborative effort and a joint goal of ours to be able to have real-time data access to the number of pockets that are not filled, the number of positions that are sitting vacant, to have better understanding of funding that's encumbered or funding that has Is no longer necessary prior to getting into the months of October and November, so that we can collectively identify ways to move dollars into other priority investments on a regular basis and do that in partnership with the city budgets office.
uh and this is just a handful of the recommendations that came from the report that was sent to the finance and housing committee meeting mid-year this year we had a hearing on it in august and from that august hearing i asked central staff to go forth and create legislation that helps to codify many of those recommendations that were included into that report so thanks again to julie dingley from city budgets office ali panucci our deputy director of central staff Esther Handy, our director of central staff for the collaboration, and to Tom Mikesell and Ed and Sissick for the foresight and desire to move forward on structural changes to not only update our code as it relates to our budget process, codes that had not been updated in decades, but to actually move forward on transparency approaches that we've seen from other jurisdictions that we've gleaned from jurisdictions around the state and around the nation.
A tremendous amount of research went into the recommendations in front of you and I would say, this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the type of enhancements that we all, I think, will continue to see as an improvement and improve process as a result of the last 4 years and putting some of those into statute is good governance.
And I hope again, just the 1st step.
So, thank you very much found a president pro 10 and colleagues.
Thanks as well for your ongoing support for these items.
These did move out of the budget committee last week unanimously and appreciate all of your support.
Thank you very, very much.
Will the clerk please, unless anybody has any comments?
Nope.
Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
Great.
The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
And then will the clerk please read the short title of item 20 into the record?
Agenda item 20, council bill 120716. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FISCAL TRANSPARENCY PROGRAM REQUIRING PERIODIC AND CONSISTENT REPORTING AND MONITORING OF CITY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL AND FISCAL POLICY INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL PASS THE COUNCIL BILL.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA, AS SPONSOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ONE AS WELL?
Yes.
Thank you.
And this was the one that I was referring to when I said, I'd love to share the opportunity to comment on this with council member herbal given her, um, long time track record and leadership on this.
And I believe she was the original sponsor of this in the budget process.
So I'm happy to turn it over to her.
And then I'm also happy to add additional comments if that's okay.
Madam president pro temp.
Sure.
Are we on 20 or 21?
I'm sorry.
I've lost track.
That is item 20, no 21.
We're on item 20. We're on 20.
Yeah, it's more of the fiscal transcripts.
So that, again, that one's not the one, Council Member Muscata, that I think you're referring to.
Sorry, I thought we were addressing both of the votes in the last one.
I appreciate it.
I'm so eager to have us share this.
I got those comments out early, though, so that way they're out.
On item 20, Madam President Pro Tem, I do not have any additional comments.
I made comments to those two in my previous comment.
All right, let's go ahead for a vote.
Seeing no other comments, go ahead.
Please call the roll.
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Strauss?
Yes.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Lewis?
Yes.
Council Member Morales?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
aye council president pro tem nelson aye seven in favor none opposed thank you very much the bill passes and the chair will sign it will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf and then finally will the clerk please read the short title of item 21 into the record agenda item 21 council bill 120717
relating to human services contracts that include appropriated money expressly reserved for the purpose of human services provider pay, requiring that such appropriated money be used only for wage increases for human services workers.
The committee recommends that City Council pass the Council Bill.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to say anything, or shall we just pass it over to Council Member Herbold?
Let's pass it over.
Thank you.
I'm going to make it short and sweet.
This legislation requires that appropriated wage equity funding to human services contractors be only used for wage increases for human services workers, and that those funds are in addition to inflationary adjustment.
The legislation also establishes contracting and reporting requirements regarding use of such appropriate money, and again, the intent is, just purely that we want to be able to confirm that when we provide funding for wage equity that those dollars are being used for that purpose.
So simply said, it creates that expectation, and then also asks the Human Services Department to establish contracting reporting requirements so that the department can confirm that the funds were used in a way that is consistent with wage equity goals.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Do you have anything to add to that, Council Member Mosqueda?
Sure.
I just want to again thank the community members who have been working on this over the years and the organizations who have been pushing for this long overdue wage increase for human service providers.
And I want to, as Councilmember Herb will note in our last committee meeting, note that it's really about parity.
It's not necessarily about wage increases.
It's about closing a wage gap.
So thank you so much to DESC, to SEIU Healthcare 1199 Northwest, Youth Care, Affordable Housing Providers, so many of which I will not name right now, Seattle King County Homelessness Coalition, the Human Services Coalition.
Hopefully those two coalitions cover many of our community partners that have been working on this as the frontline human service workers who are providing the care to our most vulnerable community members and who have advocated for this issue to finally be addressed.
I think this in partnership with the work we've done on the inflation adjustment, the colloquy and memo that we discussed in the budget process will signal additional work to come so that we are finally closing gaps in the future.
Thanks again to Council Member Herbold and to Council Member Lewis as well for their past work on this and their continued commitment to addressing pay and making sure we're not leaving workers behind.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your comment.
Thank you very much.
All right.
It doesn't look like we've got any other comments, so would the clerk please call the roll?
Council Member Peterson?
Yes.
Council Member Strauss.
Yes.
Council Member Herbold.
Yes.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Thank you.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Mesquita.
Aye.
Council President Pro Tem Nelson.
Aye.
Seven in favor, none opposed.
The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?
All right, moving on.
There were no items removed from the consent agenda and there are no resolutions for introduction and adoption today.
So is there any other business my colleagues would like to bring up?
All right, nothing else comes before.
I heard something there.
Strauss.
Go ahead, sorry.
Hello, just checking in with Council Member Morales.
about your Friday committee.
I know we talked about it in full in the council briefing the other day.
Just wanted to check in to see if you have quorum for Friday's meeting.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thanks to your presence.
We will be fine.
We will be proceeding.
Fantastic.
Thank you.
Anything else?
Nope.
Okay.
All right.
Colleagues, this concludes the items of business on today's agenda.
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is scheduled for December 12th.
Thank you all.
We are adjourned.