Seattle City Council Public Assets & Homelessness Committee 7/6/22

I call this meeting to order.

The July 6th, 2022 meeting of the Seattle City Council's Public Assets and Homelessness Committee will come to order.

It is 2.01 PM.

I'm Andrew Lewis, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Vice Chair Mosqueda, I see you signed in.

Are you present?

Chair Lewis?

Present.

Chair, there are four members present.

And Mr. Clerk, I didn't hear Council Member Morales affirmatively answer that she was present.

Could you maybe ask just one more?

Council Member Morales, can you confirm that you're present?

I'm here.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we will now move on to approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Chair's report.

So we have a couple of matters of business that we're gonna be pursuing today.

We are considering an appointment, appointment 02265. of Yasmin Fatmeh Ahmedi as a member of the Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees.

We are also going to be hearing a presentation from our partners at King County, and I see Council Member Colwells from King County in the audience.

It's great.

Welcome to Chambers, Council Member Colwells, and some folks from the executive side of the King County government to talk about our ongoing conversation regarding the future of City Hall Park.

We're also going to hear a presentation from Seattle Parks and Recreation about the ongoing situation of the Seattle Parks aquatics facilities, and particularly personnel challenges and particularly lifeguarding.

That's something that we're continuing.

Will folks in the gallery please refrain from talking during the meeting?

Thank you.

With those items of business, we will now proceed to our public comment period.

I will moderate the public comment period.

Speakers will have one minute to speak.

We will alternate between speakers present in the gallery and speakers online.

I'm going to prioritize gallery speakers first and then online speakers.

Mr. Clerk, can you remind the committee how many people we have signed up for public comment?

There are three speakers signed up in person and there are seven signed up online.

Okay, Mr. Clerk, will you please moderate the public comment session beginning with speakers in the gallery?

We will then proceed to our virtual speakers.

Our first in-person public commenter is Joyce Modi.

Joyce, you have two minutes.

Hi, I'm Joyce Modi.

25 years ago, I collected signatures for the citizens initiative called Protect Our Parks.

And I'm here today to ask that City Hall Park remain City Parks Department, a bunch of little tiny pieces of land do not equate to an intact park in a very critical location in a dense neighborhood.

And we need to stop punishing our parks for society's behaviors.

So please keep City Hall Park in the Seattle Park Department, activate it and open it up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joyce.

Our next public commenter is Marguerite Richard.

Yes, my name is Marguerite Bichard.

I see two minutes up there, but is that what we have or no?

Two minutes is fine, Ms.

Bichard, go ahead.

But anyway, the subject matter is always gonna be the same because Seattle has a history of not producing what's right.

I mean, everything is so chaotic.

No wonder there's a committee on homelessness and you see it's expanding.

For whatever reason, it expanded.

They had like a 10-year plan, then it went from 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, I don't understand it.

And this is supposed to be open government where the people are supposed to be able to engage.

in government so that we can have a change.

And that's really sad.

With all the years that I've been living here, we have some of the worst people ever, ever serving us.

And I just don't know.

Hey, I learned a whole lot from my mother, but she happened to be indigenous black.

So we we just suffered through the fray, you know, because of the color of our skin.

And yes, I've known people that have had to be right there out there on those streets.

I've seen some of the worst.

Do you ever take your camera and see those people, how they get along?

It's really sad.

Yeah, you can call that a pandemic too, and an epidemic too of some sort, because nobody should be treated like that.

With all this land, what about all those empty condos?

Let them go sleep up in there.

Huh?

I mean, what's going on with this stuff?

And folk getting thrown out because the rent is too high for them to even pay to live in a place, huh?

That's what's going on.

It's called organized crime.

And Mr. Clerk, before going on to the next speaker, it looks like Council Member Mosqueda is indicating she is present.

Council Member Mosqueda, can you confirm that you are now present?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

My audio wasn't working, appreciate it.

All right, the record will reflect Council Member Miscada is now present.

Okay, Mr. Clerk, you can proceed with the in-person public comment session.

Our final in-person public commenter is Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you.

All right.

Sieg Heil, my lovely consul.

My name Alex Zimmerman, you know what it means, and I want to speak about park.

I live 35 years in this city.

We have too many beautiful park.

You're doing very good job with us, Mayor Harrell.

You know what it means?

You clean your park.

from all people who are not American, you know what it means, bring this park only for aristocrats.

Thank you very much for your job.

Because when I come to America 35 years ago, I think this America country, when constitutional law exists for everybody.

You know what I mean?

But this not happen right now in Seattle because we have a fascist government.

People who sit in this branch, you know what this mean?

It's a mentally sick, I call you many time, Nazi, Gestapo, fascist psychopath.

Because I try understand how this possible.

One class people who not American, and another class people who's American, one class people who poor, and another very rich.

And I don't understand.

Is this America or Seattle something different?

750,000 idiot who use park.

You know what this mean?

Supposed to be aristocrat.

And this 12,000 homeless, what is not aristocrat.

Cannot go to park.

You know what this mean?

Cannot sleep to park.

I can.

I old man, sometimes I got to park, nice sun, nice smell, I start falling asleep.

So policemen can come to me and talk, don't sleep in park, go sleep in home.

That's exactly what has happened with homeless right now.

Why you freaking idiot doing this, huh?

Is constitution not for everybody?

Injustice not for all?

Where is the problem?

Why are you acting like a psychopath?

Nazi psychopath, huh?

Why?

Why park right now only for aristocrats?

Where?

We're all American.

You remember?

We exist for 250,000 years.

America.

Thank you.

We will now proceed to the virtual public comment.

Mr. Clerk, will you please proceed with moderating the virtual public comments session?

Our first virtual public commenter is Chris Woodward.

Chris, if you press star six nine, unmute yourself, you can begin when you're ready.

Hello, my name is Chris Woodward, Community Development Director with the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

I am providing comment as a member of a dedicated coalition of park and public space advocates that is requesting the city not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county properties under the current legislation.

While we have heard and understand the good intentions of the county in proposing to acquire this property.

Mr. Woodward, could you speak into the mic a little more?

We're having a hard time hearing you in council chambers.

We can take your time.

Okay, I'm gonna restart.

My name is Chris Woodward, Community Development Director with the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

I'm providing comment as a member of a dedicated coalition of park and public space advocates that is requesting the city not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county properties under this current legislation.

But we have heard and understand the good intentions of the county in proposing this property without specific language codified in legislations, those intentions will change based on the outcomes of future elections and future realities.

Have you heard and seen a financial commitment to follow through with these short and long-term intentions?

We strongly believe the city and the county should include a surrounding community in conversations about how this land should be protected or maintained before any transfer of properties occur.

City Hall Park is an irreplaceable community and historical asset that served over 800 low-income residents with a two-block weakness prior to being temporarily closed after an encampment was cleared.

Simple transfer of jurisdiction without proper community engagement and planning reduces the protection these residents have over what happens to their only green space within Washington.

We further believe that the far-flung parcels the county is offering in trade for City Hall Park do not meet the message of Seattle voters and intent of NIFA 42, which is to ensure a land swap benefits the same community.

None of these parcels are within Pioneer Square or serve the same population.

We fail to see this as an in-kind trade for the Pioneer Square community.

In conclusion, City Hall Park should not be transferred from the city to the county as the current proposal bypasses important conversations and does not address impacts such a dramatic measure.

We believe the only solution for the community partner with County and the city to make a successful space and all these discussions carry on.

Thank you, Chris.

Our next public commenter is Jacob Shear.

Jacob, whenever you're ready.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Jacob Scheer.

I'm calling in today on behalf of Real Change, Seattle's street paper, to state firm opposition to the transfer of City Hall Park from the city of Seattle to the county.

City Hall Park is truly one of the last green spaces in the downtown corridor, and it's in a neighborhood with a high concentration of low-income housing.

And these neighbors, as well as folks living outdoors, deserve access to parks and green spaces too.

And we've already seen the city sell off valuable land, including directly across from City Hall, where land will be used for luxury apartments We need public housing and public parks on city land, not luxury apartments with a few and gated in accessible areas.

So please keep City Hall Park in city hands and reopen and activate the park.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to come back to Beth Purcell.

Beth, you'll have an opportunity.

Oh, thanks Beth, go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

I wasn't prompted, so I didn't catch on to that.

Thank you.

My name is Beth Purcell, and I've worked on public park space in the county and the city for the past 30 years.

In previous years, City Hall Park, Occidental Park, and Pioneer Park have had their challenges.

In each case, it took city resources and partnerships with adjacent property owners and affected communities to produce positive park experiences there.

I believe we can partner with the county and the city to make this a successful space and a transfer of property is not necessary to accomplish our collective goals.

I urge you to consider the following concerns I have about the proposed transfer.

The county's proposed transfer language is broad and subjective.

The county has no urban parks in its portfolio and has provided no information about how they will fund, manage, or operate the park in the future.

An example is that the fence could remain in place with no access to the park.

Additionally, the proposed transfer of county properties includes fragments of properties adjacent to existing city green spaces.

There's only one new park, which is in South Park, which borders the Duwamish River and likely contains contaminants.

The transfer language states that environmental cleanup will be the city's responsibility, and there are no funds included for that work.

I understand that principles of equity are important to the city and the county.

However, this transfer takes advantage of two underserved communities in South Park and Pioneer Square by transferring critical public space and taking it away from another community.

City Hall Park is an irreplaceable park designed by the famous Olmstead firm and provides the only green space in an area of South downtown that serves the lowest income and most needy population in all of King County.

The city should maintain ownership, commit to resourcing the park, activating and stewarding it for the public's use.

Thank you.

Thank you, Beth.

Our next public commenter is Rebecca Baer.

Rebecca, press star six nine, and then begin speaking whenever you're ready.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

This is Rebecca Baer.

I'm the CEO of the Seattle Parks Foundation, and I'm here to represent the The role of the Parks Foundation is to ensure that parks, that City Hall Park remains in perpetuity a park for the community through the preservation of, through the preservation as a park codified in legislation.

And it needs to ensure regardless of whether or not Seattle or King County owns the park, we need to ensure that the park remains a park.

In addition we really want to ensure that the community is engaged as you heard a few community members speak today in the process of design to ensure that they they are taken into account in the long-term care and usage of the park.

Funding for the park is also very significant.

We want to ensure that there is funding for the park long-term focused on ensuring activation of the space for the entire community.

And to that end there has been a lot of work done by the city around funding as was referred to earlier in this area, Occidental Park, Pioneer Square, et cetera, both public and private interests have funded activation and community building in those spaces and they have transformed significantly.

And then finally, management of the park is complex and requires inclusion of the community as a part of that process.

We are concerned, again, that I-42 is not being fulfilled here because the current parcels are not within the community and would like to see the council continue to do work on ensuring that they have all the questions answered around funding, maintenance, operations, and ensuring that this piece of property remains a park in perpetuity before any land transfers or if land transfers were to happen.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Oishi.

Good afternoon.

My name is Patrick Oishi.

I'm speaking today as both the presiding judge of King County Superior Court as well as a long-time citizen of the city of Seattle.

First of all, I'd like to thank committee chair Lewis and the other council members for allowing me to give public comment today on the item two, which is the City Hall Park land transfer.

I'd ask this committee to please support the land transfer for three important reasons.

One, City Hall Park is quite literally the front yard of the King County Courthouse, which is the seat of King County government and it should be part of the county's downtown civic campus.

Second, the land transfer would preserve access to justice and the access to the courthouse for all litigants, jurors, and employees who vitally need access to the courthouse.

And third, the land transfer would support public safety for all.

So for those reasons, again, I would ask respectfully that this committee support the land transfer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is David Haynes.

David, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, David Haynes, District 7. The Central Library is a warehouse echo, a noise-polluted, distracting irritation with inconsiderate, disrespectful people dumping their drama onto you.

When you're minding your own business, reading or on a computer, there's all these people that are constantly like making noise and distracting you.

It's outrageous.

Yet the library leadership has never done anything over the last two years to give patrons a reprieve from the ridiculous spit spraying and lack of personal quiet space.

It needs to be addressed.

Secondly, and separately, the fact City Council is transferring a city park to the county is proof City Hall is an utter failure at public safety that's rooted in the Democratic Party's policies of exempting crack, meth, heroin, and fentanyl pushers from jail.

escalating most of the violence, imploding society, victimizing, and making the homeless crisis more difficult as unqualified wraparound services profit off failed efforts.

All while the county continues to exempt drug pushers from jail too.

It doesn't matter which government controls the park if they both are exempting drug pushers from jail, especially King County judges.

Now, the fact the homeless crisis continues with nothing for the homeless this week on the council agenda is proof city council doesn't care and never should have redirected a lot of the American rescue plan dollars to buy off George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protesters with two separate lump sum payments of $30 million each for $60 million stolen from the homeless crisis so council could buy off allies and partners in reelection support, quelling protests, using organizers paid as if experts on public safety, alternative policing and equity, creating and running interference for evil criminals who have been prioritized

Thank you.

Our final public commenter today is Dustin Frederick.

Dustin, whenever you're ready.

Oh, this is Dustin Frederick and I'm speaking on item two.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.

I represent the King County coalition of labor unions.

We represent about 6,000 King County employees through 62 different bargaining units.

And I'm speaking today on our interest and support for the land transfer.

There must be some miscommunication out there because everything I've heard is that the county has provided amended covenant language that will ensure that the property remains a park, open to all who live and work and play even around the Pioneer Square and County Downtown Campus.

Given that as the basis I see tremendous benefit for the land transfer.

And I would say to those people who are concerned about homeless, aren't homeless people entitled to a beautiful park just like everyone else?

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, that concludes our public comment signups.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We will now move on to our items of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

Item one, appointment 02265, appointment of Yasmeen Fatmia Maday as member of Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for a term to April 1st, 2027 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and I see that we have Chief Librarian Tom Fay joining us.

Librarian Fay is the nominee for the board present virtually or in council chambers?

Yes, Chair Lewis, the appointee is present, as well as our president of the board of trustees.

Excellent, well, Librarian Fay, I will hand it over to you to introduce the nominee, and I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

followed by some time with the library's foundation as the director of community programs and events.

Most recently, she's been both deputy and interim district director for Congresswoman Jayapal.

Yasmin has also served on many nonprofit boards over the years, and she's well positioned to add significant skills and expertise to her board of trustees, as we now see a 10-year board member, Christy E. England, leaving us.

We're thankful to Mayor Harrell for his review and expeditious appointment of Yasmin Mehdi.

Yasmin.

Well, hello.

Thank you for having me today.

It would be an incredible honor to serve on the library board.

I'm honored that the mayor's put my name forward.

Having most recently served on the library search committee, I was given the chance and opportunity to help bring Tom Faye forward as our chief librarian.

And also to reacquaint myself with the issues facing the Seattle Public Library today, which are not insignificant, but definitely issues that need to be addressed.

And I look forward to the opportunity.

I hope that if you have questions for me, and I'd be glad to answer them.

Thank you very much.

Does the board chair also wanna make remarks before we get questions from council members?

Nope, I just, I agree with the appointment and I'm looking forward to working with Yasmin if her appointment is confirmed.

Thank you so much.

For the record, that was Carmen Bendixson from the library board.

Are there any questions from council members for the nominee?

Council President Barras.

Thank you.

If I may, is it okay to call you Yasmin?

I don't know if I should call you Miss.

First of all, welcome back.

I had a chance to look at your appointment packet and the work that you've done professionally and personally to our city and education.

It's incredibly amazing and stellar.

And I see that you served on the Library Foundation and the Park Commission as well.

and work for one of our mayors as well and some other folks.

And I just want to say, you know, people like you that come forward to want to serve again for the city of Seattle, because you care about our great city.

I just want to thank you for stepping up and doing that.

And thank you, Tom, for bringing Yasmin back into the fold again.

I know you worked closely, Yasmin, with MT when he was head of the library and with Mayor Schell.

And I was kind of laughing when I, not laughing, but I was kind of wondering when I was looking at your resume, I was like, what did she do with the Harvard football manager?

What was that about?

Was it important enough to put on your resume?

I thought that was funny.

Anyway, thank you.

I'm glad you're here.

Any other questions for our panel?

I'm seeing now, looking at our virtually present council members and not seeing any questions.

This is a great opportunity to appoint a new board member and, you know, reviewing in advance nominee Medi's credentials was just a great experience.

And being in this position now of chairing the committee that oversees Seattle Public Library, in addition to Seattle Parks, it's been a great opportunity too, to get to know the Library Foundation, Commissioner nominee Medi has served on.

And I wonder if I might just ask as a question before we proceed to a vote, the opportunities to further increase the collaboration between the board and the foundation.

It's been a great opportunity transitioning in at the same time Tom has been transitioning in as chief librarian to be able to really network with and collaborate with the foundation as a resource.

which a lot of our departments don't have the luxury of having such an involved and active foundation.

Uh, and I just wonder what, uh, some of your vision having done, um, extensively involved in that programming and now taking on this role, what some of the opportunities are to, to increase that level of, um, uh, partnership.

Um, well, I actually think it's absolutely fundamental that the library foundation and the library and the friends of the library work together in both providing a vision for the city and then actually garnering the necessary support for that.

Back when I was working at the library and then the library foundation, there was that sort of synchronicity, if you will, and it allowed for the library to actually create programs and move them forward.

in pretty quick and earnest fashion.

And I absolutely believe that that is necessary.

If there are organizations that are supposed to be serving the library public and they're at odds, it's just a wasted opportunity.

And I'm not sure that I could say right now what what those, how that needs to happen.

But I do think that working with John Award at the foundation, working with the foundation board, and I know that the existing board has been doing that, but doing more around that will allow us to bring forth a vision and actually bring it to fruition.

Well, we look forward to that continued partnership and it's really exciting to be able to fill this vacancy on an expedient timeline as Chief Librarian Fay made it earlier.

So with that, I am going to move appointment 02265, the appointment of Yasmin Mehdi as member of the Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for a term to April 1st, 2027. Is there a second?

Second.

Having been moved and seconded, can the clerk please call the roll on the vote recommending the nomination to full council?

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair, there are five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

So, Yasmin, this is going to go forward to the next posted full council meeting, which I believe will be next Tuesday.

You do not need to be present for that final vote, but you're, of course, more than welcome to attend.

and really looking forward on confirming your nomination at full council and appreciate the opportunity to talk to you a little bit this afternoon.

So thank you so much and congratulations.

And we look forward to continuing to work with you in the event your nomination is successful next Tuesday, which I fully expect it will be.

So thank you so much.

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

Item two, City Hall Park Intergovernmental Land Transfer for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

So we have a panel from King County that will be both virtual and in-person, and County Council Member Colwells is in the audience.

Can Council Member Colwells join us at the committee table?

Is it set up for that, Mr. Clerk?

Yes.

Okay, great.

And then I believe we also have, I see Karen Gill, Who else is part of the County presentation who's coming in online?

Thomas Coney is here.

Thomas Coney, Karen Gill.

So who is going to be coordinating the presentation?

I believe there's a slide deck that's been sent along in advance.

So Mr. Clerk, do we have that available for?

Tom Coney from the council should be sharing the presentation.

Okay, so Mr. Coney, if you wanna work with the clerk here on getting the slide deck up, I'll turn it over to you guys to determine how you wanna coordinate the presentation, but welcome, it's good to see everybody here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members committee for the record.

My name is current Gail deputy chief of staff in the county executive's office from the county.

I'm also joined by King County Council member Cole Wells, who's in chambers and.

who introduced the transfer ordinance at the County Council.

We also have Tom Coney, Deputy Director in the King County Department of Executive Services, who will get more into the weeds when we begin the PowerPoint presentation.

Apologies to Tony Wright, Director of our Facilities Department is unable to attend today, so we'll do our best and answering any technical questions you have.

And if we can't, we absolutely will follow up once he gets back.

And I believe I've met with each of you individually or someone in our office has with the more detailed briefing and answer questions.

So apologies in advance for some of the repetitiveness and you'll hear in our brief presentation.

I'll start with the covenant language since in the last committee briefing it was discussed in detail as the updated covenant language explicitly states that the City Hall Park property shall in perpetuity continue to be substantially used for public open space.

We also had some changes proposed by Chair Lewis and community partners and have incorporated those into the language.

And as we've said and envisioned, this space will be a safe, healthy environment for everyone to use this open space.

The county's campus surrounds the space and having the park will allow us to have continuity with the properties in partnership with the community as we continue to have those civic campus conversations.

The county also has this day center right across the street as a resource for those that need it.

This will indeed be a safe and neighborly space for everyone in our community and our work with the community will ensure that we're all aligned in that.

We've also had productive conversations with community partners prior to and after the last committee hearing and ensuring that the park will remain as open space and the language reflects that.

We've also transmitted the county's plan to our county council in response to Council Member Cole-Wells' motion that was passed back in January.

That includes language that requires engagement with all our community partners before any activation of the park is done.

So the activation plan for the park will be done hand-in-hand with the community if and once that transfer is complete with the city.

With that, before I pass it over to Tom to begin the short PowerPoint and then answer any questions you may have, I'll hand it over to Council Member Cole-Wells for some remarks.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you very much, Karen.

And thank you, Chair Lewis and the members of the committee for including us on your agenda today.

I'm Jean Cole-Wells.

I'm King County Council Member for District 4, which is the only council district all within the city of Seattle.

And I live in Belltown.

And thank you to all the people at the city and the county who have put in an extraordinary amount of time and effort on this project, not just over the past year, but for many, many years before, Council Members Sally Bagshaw, Dan Strauss, Rod Dombowski, our current presiding Superior Court Judge Patrick Oishi, and former ones, Judges Laura Nveen and Jim Rogers, and Judge Sean O'Donnell and Director Caroline Whalen of the County's Department of Executive Services and Chair of the very important Courthouse Vicinity Improvement Project Group that work with the city, with Seattle Parks, community organizations, many others.

on what to do about the vicinity of the courthouse, and that is until COVID struck.

I also give a lot of thanks to Mayors Harrell and Durkin and Council President Deborah Juarez as the chair of the Parks Committee last year.

As having chaired our budget committee over the last two years, now I chair the committee of the whole, I became acutely aware of the pandemic's effects on our county operations, but also on the once beautiful City Hall Park adjacent to the courthouse.

However, when COVID struck, Employees in the neighborhood of Pioneer Square, many of them stopped coming to their workplaces.

Businesses closed, including restaurants.

And the park's once-beautiful presence began to be used for unintended purposes, reversing what improvements had been made, which were stellar.

Again, a lot of that because of Council Members Bagshaw, Strauss, and Lebowski.

And of course, we all became aware of the hardships for so many people who were displaced and becoming, experiencing homelessness, meaning for the first time.

A lot of thought and collaboration because of all these factors went into the legislation that I introduced a year ago and that is now before you.

A couple of weeks ago, I walked past this beautiful plaza right out here adjoining City Hall.

to the rest, and a celebration was going on.

I heard music and laughter as city and county employees enjoyed a free lunch put on by the city as they were returning to their workplaces.

It was really a wonderful event.

All I could think about though was how fortunate this city is and city employees are to have this facility adjoining City Hall.

And I kept thinking about the envy that I was feeling that we did not have a similar place.

and how wonderful it would be if we could actually acquire City Hall Park so that we could have such a joyous, wonderful, welcoming place for not only our employees, but for jurors, visitors to the courthouse, people living in the neighborhood, businesses in the community.

Unfortunately, that is not now the case.

but I hope that we are close to realizing that vision that I have had.

And I think it is a good deal for all, a real win-win situation for the city and its residents, its workers, its businesses, but also for the county and all in Pioneer Square.

This agreement that could occur with this transaction will help both the county government and the city government and the parks throughout our region.

Seattle will gain even more green space in its parks throughout the city, and King County will have a park of its own in the heart of the county seat, a park that will remain a park for all.

The stewardship of this space will not be taken lightly.

It's also an opportunity for us to consider reopening the original Jefferson Street entrance, and I think you will see a slide on what it looked like at one point in time.

When the King County Courthouse was built, the front courtyard of the building flowed into the park.

They complemented each other for nearly 80 years.

Just think of that.

However, in 1967, this entrance was converted into a loading dock, which is currently full of supplies and dumpsters.

The original extravagant Alaskan marble inside the building is still preserved.

while the marble on the original entrance has been damaged or covered in a layer of concrete.

A lot of studies have been done.

We could restore that original entrance, the historic entryway, which would also provide a very functional purpose that would lead to more foot traffic in the park and off of Third Avenue, where there unfortunately have been a number of violent high profile instances of violence.

Adding natural flow to this area would result in a safer space without having to rely on heavy law enforcement or punitive architectural design.

Our parks department in the county refers to King County as your big backyard.

And if that's the case, then we will treat City Hall Park like our little French porch, or what was referred to as the courthouse's front yard decades ago.

A welcoming space for all to enjoy, just like the plaza that you have right out here.

But consider this, and I don't know if anybody's really thought about this, if your plaza, which is so wonderful, right here, were owned by another jurisdiction, if it were owned by King County or something else, and you did not have a say over what were to happen in it and what kind of celebrations that you could host, I'll tell you, it's really frustrating for us that we don't have the park in our name.

We've heard arguments from some that this transition will somehow lead to the county having a heavy hand over what happens in and around the park, and that we will somehow lose sight of our values and policies weighted in equity, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

We as a county have a proven history of working with service providers and communities to deliver services and programs to those most in need, and in a way that includes robust engagement and collaboration.

And we do so, very importantly, by centering equity as our government's true worth.

Let's not forget too, When the encampment began to grow in City Hall Park two years ago, we didn't sweep it.

We didn't ask the city of Seattle to sweep it either, but instead, we partnered with community organizations, the PDA's Just Care Program, the city, Chief Seattle Club, and others to work with the occupants of the park to meet their unique needs and humanely transition them to supportive or transitional housing, and that did happen.

What also happened there was a murder, a two-year-old little girl wandering around the park without any adult with her, stabbings, and unfortunately, a lot of very, very challenging situations, which we worked with the city to have a resolution there.

But there's a fence up around the park now.

We wanna bring that down.

We want to make sure that the park remains in perpetuity as a beautiful, welcoming park.

We've had to weigh all of this in a global pandemic.

Very difficult.

We've heard that this process has been rushed, but it's been over a year now with just countless meetings, collaboration, very hard work on it, very thoughtful work.

And we are here now, as you know, and Curran mentioned, willing.

to negotiate and bring about the best possible resolution for all concerned.

We as a body, the King County Council approved motion 2021-0318 last fall, after multiple hearings, calling on the executive to transmit this deal to make the park our park.

We have a very lengthy report from the executive transmitted last January that really spells out the details of what would happen.

In closing, I'd like to say that prior to any activation of the park, we will be going through an enormous amount of community engagement.

It was specified in an amendment to our ordinance, sending over this transmitting this agreement to you.

And I look forward to this park, and I know this will happen, to remain a park.

I wanna say that again, to remain a park.

But it will be a more beautiful, inviting, welcoming park than it's ever been.

It will be functional.

It will be the pride of Pioneer Square.

It will stay in the city, but we will be able to have it serve many purposes that will provide for public safety, for people being able to walk through the park with their dogs and be able to have an enjoyable time.

We will be working with the city to accomplish that, and I ask for your support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Colwells.

Council Member Herbold, did you have a question earlier?

I apologize.

No, that's quite all right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Colwells.

We appreciate your compelling argument.

Certainly resonated with me, the comparison to our own open space here.

I'm having a hard time hearing you, I'm sorry.

Your argument resonated with me that you were making related to the fact that we have our own plaza that we can program and you would like the same.

So just want to, at the start, say that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Deputy Chief of Staff Gill, you had mentioned the covenant language when the county was here last year, I think in April.

we had talked about this, and it sounded like from your remarks that that language is available.

Is that the case?

And is it available for public review?

That is correct, Councilmember.

I believe it's with city central staff as well.

Yes, if we wanna delve into that, we do have Lish Woodson from central staff available and we could do an overview of.

It's up to you, Chair.

I just wanted to just confirm what I thought I heard that it has been drafted, it is available, whether or not you wanna go into that.

I have my question answered for the time being.

I did have one other question though about the SEPA process, which I think probably is something that Lish would have to answer as well.

So I'm happy to get into all of that in terms of additional process, like where the covenant languages and the SEPA analysis and central staff.

And I believe Superintendent Williams would be helpful for parsing through that.

I do think there's a little bit more County information or County presentation.

So I wanna make sure we don't cut that short.

So why don't we finish that up, and then I'm happy to, and that might be a component of the presentation as well.

So should we turn it over to, back to you, Kern?

Yeah, that sounds good.

Thanks, Council Member Brown.

I'll let Tom pull up the PowerPoint.

Great.

This is Tom.

I'm just checking.

Can you see the PowerPoint?

No.

Okay, hang on one sec.

Mr. Chair, if I might fill the airspace here for a quick second.

Yes, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

Just as the PowerPoint's being brought up, please feel free to interrupt me when it gets up there.

I just wanted to say a quick thank you to Councilmember Cole-Wells, who's in the chambers today.

I really appreciate her leadership in stepping up on this much-needed action plan and getting the gears in motion.

She mentioned our colleagues, Councilmember Bagshaw and Councilmember Strauss, but I just want to thank her as well for the inaction that was shown in the previous administration.

she really stepped up and really made a call to action.

I appreciate that and the shared interest in using the space in perpetuity for open public use and for making sure that we're codifying that in statute.

I know that there's a lot of shared interest in making sure that this remains public space for the future.

I just want to say thank you while I'm not in chambers and extend my appreciation for her work.

Thank you.

All right, while it loads up, can you see it now?

Yes.

Great.

OK.

For introductions, my name is Tom Coney.

I'm the deputy director for King County's Department of Executive Services.

I work with Caroline Whalen.

And prior to my current position, which I've been in for 13 years, I was Assistant Director of King County Parks for seven years.

With that being said, this PowerPoint is in your legislative packages, except for the last photo, which has been updated.

Hey, Tom?

Yes?

We're not looking at anything, Tom.

Yeah, we're just seeing your desktop right now.

Can you pull up the PowerPoint?

Which is interesting.

It's very pretty.

Do you like it?

I thought it was a PowerPoint presentation.

My little complicated world.

Yeah, boy, we need to get us one of those DESs in the middle of everything.

Yes, indeed.

That is everything that's within our department.

Wow, OK.

Now we can see it.

Great.

Thank you.

You may want to hit presentation mode in the bottom corner.

Team effort, Mr. Chair.

Yes, it takes a village.

There you go.

Yeah, Vice Chair Mosqueda is our slide deck troubleshooter.

How's that?

Beautiful.

Perfect.

Awesome.

Thanks.

Again, this is going to be a recap of the points brought up by current and council member Cole-Wells.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but just in summary, in concert with direction from the council, Executive Constantine worked with then Mayor Durkin to propose a transfer to the county of City Hall Park in exchange for county-owned property in the city limits.

This is almost a year ago, as memory serves, and the council adopted the proposed transfer through an ordinance in December of 2021. So just for reference, what you're seeing here is a photo of the property to be received by King County, and this is a general box around the area of City Hall Park.

And following it, I've also included a photo of the parcels to be received by the city of Seattle.

Tom, can we slow down a little on this?

Can we go back?

Sure.

Okay, just to clarify, just because it's sort of, awkwardly shaped, and I just want to make sure we clarify the exact contours of the parcel.

Yeah, and there's more detail in what you have in the legislative package.

This is just a general box around the area.

It is not specific to the point.

So don't use the red boxes, the property lines.

This is not the property description like the legal description you'll see of the property transferred.

It's basically the green space.

including Dillingway and Jefferson Street here and this property across the street, this green area here as well.

Thank you, I just wanted to clarify in case members of the public were confused by the box.

Yeah, thank you.

And the scope of the acquisition, like I didn't want to start to worry we were giving that right away.

We've had plenty of conversations with them.

And there's another slide later that shows more specificity.

And again, in the actual legislation that's before you, there are property descriptions like, you know, down very specific just like an enterprisal or a surveyor do.

Great, thank you.

You can proceed.

Okay, thanks.

And the following three or four pages are the properties to be received by the City of Seattle.

There are properties, roads property, wastewater property, and metro property on this sheet.

And you'll notice like particularly the wastewater property is already noted as a park.

And some facilities management division properties and tax title properties, again, adjacent to the park property, viewpoint park, a ravine open space area, green belts, green space, and properties adjacent to the Burke-Gilman Trail.

Now on this slide, what I'm trying to depict here is the county property and city property.

In green are city properties.

So this is kind of the City Hall Park and then Dillingway right away, Jefferson Street right here along at the courthouse.

And then this, if you're familiar, is the fire station and the emergency operations center for the city.

That's what that green square is.

But these blue spaces here are county buildings.

And we own and operate several facilities in downtown Seattle, most of which are on what we refer to as our civic campus centered on 4th Avenue between James and Yesler.

These include the County Courthouse, the Administration Building, the Correctional Facility, the Schneck Building, and the Yesler Building.

And as you're all aware, we also own the King Street Center located in Pioneer Square.

And again, upon transfer, our first priority is the safe reopening of City Hall Park.

And the county, you've heard numerous times today and you'll see in the documentation, the county is committed to a public process prior to activation of the park and it will remain green space.

What I'd like to reiterate here is that we are in the middle of a very intensive civic campus planning effort.

It's expected to look at our future facility needs.

And our county civic campus has served customers and employees for more than 100 years.

And you'll see in some of the pictures what it looked like previously.

And a number of years ago, The County Council, when evaluating the budget for the Facilities Management Division, they wanted to get some as-built drawings done of the courthouse to help us figure out what to prioritize in terms of repair.

The County Council asked the question, we need a long-term plan because we have a number of facilities that are functionally outdated, no longer meet current workforce needs, and this was even pre-COVID, and we're facing obvious costly maintenance repairs, and that might prove to be financially unsustainable.

We need to take a long-term view.

That effort is going on as well as City Hall Park conversation.

In any scenario that we are looking at for the future of King County, We're not going anywhere.

This is our home.

This is our space.

We care about the space and we will care for the park.

If you will, let's see, let me just leave you with this.

The photo on the left is the new one that was added to what you have in your legislative packet.

That's from 1917. And as Council Member Cole-Wells indicated, this shows kind of the entrance, what we call the south entrance, the county courthouse.

The big lovely trees aren't there quite yet, but this is the open space, the gathering area.

you know, for the courthouse, the Grand South entrance.

Now you see when you move up the sheet to the right, you'll see in 1949, the addition to the courthouse, and we still have the entrance on the south side.

The next photo just to the right of that is what it currently looks like.

So that is currently Jefferson Alley, where the car is parked, and the fence between Jefferson Alley and City Hall Park.

This is what it currently looks like.

And on the bottom right is a depiction, a vision of what it might look like in the future.

If we have, again, we're working with the city, we're hoping to work with the city on the vacation of Jefferson Alley and Dilling, which would open up a little more space for access and open space for people to enjoy.

The idea is potentially reopening that south entrance.

and activating, helping to activate that park.

Because what we have all tried before and was successful pre-COVID was activation of the park.

We actually saw that park turning around.

I've been working in and around this area for over 30 years.

I've seen the ebbs and flows of this park and it was definitely on the upswing in the time before COVID.

So with all of that being said, this is an integral part of the future that we're envisioning for our civic campus.

We are just about ready to begin a vigorous public engagement program, both on the civic campus master plan, and we're hoping City Hall Park as well.

And with that, I will close.

And thank you for your assistance in getting this up before you.

Todd, thank you for that presentation.

Can we stay on that slide for just a moment?

Or can we go back to that?

Sorry, I unshared too quickly.

Unless it's a burden to put that back up there.

Well, we'll see.

How's that?

Hey, perfect.

Awesome.

This is the first time I've kind of seen concept art like this, or rather when the slide deck was shared pre-committee, it was the first time I had seen a concept like that, that I think is very compelling and goes to the core of what I think there's unanimous agreement we would like the ongoing use of that space to be.

Can I just confirm that the concept image we're looking at, that is Jefferson, That is an angle looking down Jefferson from 4th Avenue towards 5th.

You're looking from 5th towards 4th.

Wait, 4th to 3rd, 4th to 3rd.

Yeah, 4th to 3rd, sorry, 4th to 3rd, yes.

So just to confirm, that's what we're looking at?

Correct.

So in the way I envision it, see in the upper right-hand corner of the fence along the line there?

That would be kind of the edge of the sidewalk.

Think of it that way.

So it looks like from this concept, the county is proposing bringing down fences rather than adding any.

That's right.

Just for sake of argument.

For the sake of this.

Yeah.

Yes.

I know there had been some discourse from people unfamiliar with the plans in the public record, indicating that the opposite might be the case in this.

It's good to see this design proof that opening up the open space is more of the goal, but sorry, Council Member Colwell, you were about to say something.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, absolutely.

And this just shows the part next to what is currently the Jefferson Alley.

But we have other slides too, but I don't think they're present here, but showing design for the park overall.

It's really exquisite.

But this really demonstrates in a narrow way how it would change dramatically with the fence down and the alley, a pedestrian walkway.

Yeah, no, it's a very compelling image.

And it is like for us, sorry, Andrew, but it's really, we are really trying to thoughtfully plan for a reimagined campus that embraces, you know, like low carbon development, renewal of kind of the urban ecologies, which you see in this depiction of City Hall Park.

a sustainable design, and we want something that can sustain and support the region for the next 100 years.

And the facilities we have right now just don't do that.

And again, this is going to be an extensive public engagement and outreach program that we're about to embark on.

Yeah.

Can more of those concept images be made available to the public, or are they available to the public?

It is part of what what is planned for the engagement process, and we're really trying to be, you know, thoughtful about how we engage the public and be equitable in our planning outcomes for the, you know, the heart of the civic campus so that works for everybody.

Because this is what the county provides is critical for public service in the region.

And we have an area that's welcoming for people, an area that the neighbors can feel comfortable, employees can feel comfortable, visitors, jurors, you know, everybody that uses both the space and county facilities should be able to feel safe and enjoy the space.

Mr. Chair, I would like to say I have seen many images, really a whole lot of them.

The University of Washington, I think land architectural students developing plans.

There've been many, many studies for many, many years, so we could provide some of the images that have been created.

I think that'd be helpful.

I don't understand what the reticence for, for sharing them is.

I mean, I guess what I would, it sounds like there isn't any reticence about sharing them, but I mean, you know, I mean, our panelists listened through public comment today and there is a lot of consternation and concern in the community about what might happen to the space.

And I would think that the surest argument to build momentum from people in the community would be sharing images like this.

So I don't, I guess, I don't know why we would hang on to them until a future, like the community seems to be forcing an engagement process now.

So it seems like this would be a good time to make these more public.

there's absolutely no reticence.

And when I say we're about to embark on a robust engagement process on this whole plan, we're locked and loaded and ready to go like in the next couple of weeks.

So it's just a matter of, we're trying to understand what was going to happen with City Hall Park, because frankly, there's like a different kind of planning that happens when you're working with another jurisdiction than if the county has control of the property.

Frankly, it's a different conversation.

It's more parties involved.

We're hoping to get some resolution to this question and then proceeding forth.

But there is no option in any of our plans that show this being anything other than cherished parkland.

That's really good to see and to hear.

Do colleagues have questions of the County panel before we pivot to more process oriented questions about like covenant language, SIPA, things of that nature?

Council Member Herbold.

I do, thank you so much.

I think Council Member Mosqueda might've been ahead of me though.

Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Mosqueda, are you?

I only noticed it except I put my hand up.

Do you have a hand up?

Yeah, there you go.

Council Member Mosqueda.

I do, and I'm sure that Council Member Herbold's questions as well that she started with will nicely align with the questions that I had as well about the covenant later on, but I wanted to just, on this picture, get a question in briefly about that last image.

I also understand from the chair and the county's presentation, it's more likely that, as you've noted, you have a number of various scenarios that it sounds like you're getting ready to share at a charrette or a forum or a series of forums with community partners.

So while they might not be here today, you have those ready to go to try to get feedback from folks.

And there's not a baked plan, but these are some of the ideas that you're looking forward to sharing.

So I think that's what I'm interpreting from what you're saying, so feel free to opine on that.

And as you do get feedback from community, one of the things that I have been hearing about is the interest in continuing to make sure that there's a bike corridor there.

I understand that folks use the 4th Avenue bike lane that runs along Dilling Way, and that as you have conversations with community members, it'd be really important to make sure that we're looking at the impact of a street vacation.

on a bike lane.

I'm a huge, huge supporter of more street vacations everywhere we can, but also want to make sure that we have bike lanes that are accessible and that don't cause pedestrian and cyclist interactions.

And I want to thank central staff for including a nod to what that could potentially look like on page five of the central staff memo.

But since this picture was up, do you have any thoughts that you initially had about how you're going to engage with community about the preservation of bike lanes or along forth there?

One, totally understand and we have been working like in real time, current time with SDOT on bike lanes and kind of the Dillingway piece.

So I know that's a part of the equation moving forward.

If there's any reticence that you sent for me about sharing images about our future vision, It's that we're trying to do community engagement in a different way for this version of the Civic Campus Plan.

We don't want to just show the community options A, B, C, D, E, and say, hey, which one do you like better?

Put dots on the map or whatever.

We really want to engage and hear what people are interested in, what's important to them, what the values they have are, and how that shows up in civic spaces, and kind of work from that instead of just having pre-canned options.

So that's why we haven't tried to lock in specific kind of, you know, options A through F kind of thing.

But obviously in the community engagement, you're right, we are embarking on it.

It has already happened where people are voicing their interest and concerns about this remaining park space.

and bike lanes as well, and transportation, and we're looking for ways to connect transit.

There may be options sometime in the future thinking about an entrance off the park that might help activate that even more so people can come directly into that space.

Who knows?

So that's what we expect to be listening to the community, even more than we've heard on the specific of City Hall Park about the entire campus.

I'd like to add something, Mr. Chair.

Another important consideration for our council was that there be improved pedestrian walkways.

Obviously in the park now there are, if it weren't fenced, but that's very important.

The bicycling, but not just bicycling, all wheels.

We see a person there, looks like a sitting in a wheelchair.

So we want to make sure that there's access for all wheeled.

vehicles.

Council Member Herbold.

Thanks so much.

I wanna put my question within the context of the language contained in I-42.

I-42 requires that the city, in exchange for park property, such as City Hall Park, must receive land or a facility of equivalent or better size, value, location, and usefulness in the vicinity, serving the same community in the same park purposes.

So one of the things I've, asked for us to consider as we discuss this, is for the council as a deliberative body to consider of the elements of I-42, which parts of that initiative are important to us.

I think we are demonstrating by our willingness to hear the, the proposal for a transfer.

I think we are demonstrating that we are willing to forego the requirement in I-42 that the land that we are receiving serve the same community and the same purposes.

with the covenant that we would hopefully receive from King County that the park itself will continue to serve the community.

But as it relates to the swap element contained in I-42, which requires equivalent or better size and value, I think we need more information to evaluate, one, how important that component is in I-42 and whether or not we want to consider diverting from the spirit of I-42 in those particular components of the initiative.

And so this is just me going a long way around saying that I would still very much like to have the assessments for the other parcels that we would receive so that we can do that analysis and that evaluation whether or not we can say at the end of this process, should it be successful, that we just, we threw out all of I-42 or we maintained some part of I-42 because we know for a fact that what we're getting in exchange for what we're giving up is of equal value.

So I'm just wondering where we're at on the status of that.

I know back in April, that was a topic of discussion.

It's the appraisals for the park properties that King County proposes to give to the city of Seattle.

I'm just wondering whether or not we have that information.

I can comment briefly on that.

Yes, Council Member Colwells.

But I don't know much more than what I'm going to say.

Our council did not participate in all the discussions on which properties, which parcels belonging to the county would be offered to the city.

My understanding is that both the Durkin administration and the city the Constantine administration at the county had negotiated on that.

And that those parcels that were identified were agreed to by both.

I don't know if the county came up with them all and offered them or if there was a combined effort to determine which parcels would work for the city.

And maybe Curran or Tom would have more information.

Sure, I'm just flat out just asking for the value.

I don't expect the county to have done that and I appreciate understanding that process, but I'm trying to explain why it's important to me as part of the deliberative process to have that information.

So just to jump in on this too, we do have Superintendent Williams and Lischwitz and from Council Central staff who might be able to weigh on that as well.

And I know that, Tom Coney has his hand raised.

So maybe there is an update from Tom.

So why don't we go to you first, Tom, since you have your hand raised.

Yes, Council President Warren.

Yeah, sorry, you didn't, I know I was trying to wave at you.

Sorry, sorry.

Just before we do, before we talk to Parks, I just wanna kinda go back in the time machine here, because I was involved with the discussions with the executive and Mayor Durkan at the time, before December 2021, when we, and Jeannie Colwell's here, and had long discussions and worked closely with Superintendent Agare about these 13 pieces of the parcel.

And if we compared them, you know, apple to apple, here's 13 pieces of property, what is City Park, is it comparable?

My understanding back then, and of course, we don't have Jesus now, but we have Christopher, was that, yeah, it's a good deal in that if you're just looking at money and dirt and soil and location and what the city would get, I was an early proponent for this exchange because of my conversations with legal over in Parks, Jesus, and how if we did the swap, what that would mean.

So I think what I'm hearing and what I actually heard a year, 18 months ago, too, which thank you, Jeannie Cowell, you've always been an incredible legislator and leader, is that your intent is still the same, that the property remain a park.

that we made sure that the city walked away with a good deal, if not a better deal, not just comparing dirt for dirt, but also the intrinsic value of 13 pieces of property all over the city, but also something that you articulated that I didn't quite understand, but now I understand it better.

And thank you is that, and from the executive back then and you, is that the county wanted to have the kind of same access and privilege and green space that the city of Seattle has with our park to activate it.

And because we are landlords over there, we're really not paying attention to what's going over there to activate it, to have events.

Now, as someone who's much older, and I've been working downtown since 1986, I have never seen that park in a good condition ever.

in all the years that I've been coming here and working downtown.

And it's unfortunate.

I think there was a couple of years we tried to activate it with lights and we tried to have music down there.

And I know Council Member Bagshaw, former chair of parks did the same thing.

We had been struggling with it.

At least I have for the last six years as former chair of parks.

So I was very happy when Council Member Colwells came to me and said, hey, what do you think about this?

And I appreciated the humane position the county took with people living, experiencing homeless on the city park grounds.

that you made the decision not to remove those people and to provide services.

And we talked about that as well.

So there's a lot of history here, but I wanna follow up on what Council Member Herbold asked and turn it over to the actual Mr. Williams, who's now the acting superintendent for parks.

But these discussions have been going on quite a while.

There was never this quote unquote land grab for the city to hand over their park to the county and the county wasn't gonna use it as a park.

and build all kinds of things on there that would be in violation of initiative 42. Those have never been in part of the conversations, if I can just share that.

So thank you, council member.

And thank you, Council President, for giving us that overview as well.

It's important context for these deliberations.

And now we have a whole bunch of technical answers on these things.

We're dancing around from our central staff.

So why don't we let Lish go first, and then Tom, I know you had your hand raised, and if Superintendent Williams has anything to add on this question too, and then we'll proceed to Council Member Mosqueda, who has a question.

So Lish, why don't you go first?

Yeah, thank you very much.

I wanted to provide an update on the two questions Councilmember Herbold asked about the SEPA determination before the presentation started and then appraisals and they're very related.

Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation hasn't yet issued a determination of determination under the State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA.

They want to make sure that the SEPA determination clearly reflects the actions required to transfer the park to King County and are working through a number of issues that have arisen around the complicated property status of different parts of the park.

These issues will impact this transfer and will require modifications to the legislation authorizing the transfer.

At the beginning of looking at this legislation, the belief was that in addition to transferring the park, future actions would vacate Jefferson Street and Dillingway.

We have since determined that Dillingway is actually not a public street.

Instead, it was designated as a private way by the City Council 85 years ago.

The private way designation will need to be repealed in order for Dillingway to be included in the transfer as part of City Hall Park, but will not require a street vacation as formally assumed.

As Council Member Mosqueda noted, there's a request to incorporate language in the legislation to ensure that there's a new bike path that runs along Dillingway and that that bike path be maintained by the county if the transfer is approved.

And while Dillingway is not a public street, it has been determined that there are alleys running through the City Hall Park that would need to be vacated.

and would need to be excluded from the property transfer to King County under this agreement.

So we need to still revise the covenant language to reflect the current understanding of the property that would be transferred.

and we'll need to come to agreement with the county on that new covenant language still.

Once the covenant language is finalized, it would be analyzed as part of the SEPA review and would be provided to an appraiser who will conduct the requested appraisals on all of the properties involved in the property transfer.

And we, central staff, particularly Tracy Ratzliff, who is traveling today, is working with Parks and Recreation and City Attorney's Office to sort of complete these steps.

Thank you, Lish.

And Tom, do you have something to add to that or is that a good summary that we can rest on?

If that's fine, what I was going to say is like, this is this is part of your conversation, but and I'm not the expert on I-42, but my understanding is the spirit of it is no loss of park use, no net loss of park use.

And with with the language, that you have before you, and that continues to be refined as we go along.

I think what you're finding is that there's no loss of park use in the area of City Hall Park, and there's additional parcels that are added to the city's inventory in other areas.

With that, I'll leave it to you.

Yeah, and Superintendent Williams, did you want to weigh in on this question before we hear Council Member Mosqueda's question?

And then I think it might be helpful to hear an overview of where the covenant language is from LISH and maybe just have a discussion about that.

But I wanted to make sure we heard from you on this question before we moved forward.

You bet.

I think council member Herbal captured my thoughts pretty well when she indicated that you could waive or adopt all of the components of I-42, and making a decision about if you're gonna meet the spirit and intent of I-42, recognizing that some of the language is maybe not exactly applicable in terms of where the replacement properties are.

There's that question.

And then I think the other question that was raised was about SEPA.

It's our goal to do a SEPA process after we've concluded kind of these conversations.

We want to do the SEPA checklist based on the final covenant language.

And that's also roughly the same amount of time when we'd be working on appraisals and the whole nine yards.

We certainly think that you've got some latitude in how you interpret I-42 and how you want to move forward.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Herbold, do you have a follow-up now that we've heard from everybody here on the panel?

I appreciate the answers about the question around the SEPA process and the content of the covenant.

I'm really glad to know that we're finalizing the language of the covenant before the SEPA process.

I don't think that was...

that was decided when we met last in April.

And I think that's really important.

If we want to make this argument that the impacts are minimized because of the commitments in the covenant, I don't think we could make that argument if we had changed the sequencing of the process.

So really appreciate that, from what I understand is a shift from when we discussed back in April.

Not so much as a follow-up, but a restatement of my other question, though.

I do want to know whether or not the other properties have received an appraisal.

And I think per Lish's comments, maybe Lish can jump in again, that'll happen as part of the SEPA process, is that right?

I'm sorry, Lish, if you said that, I didn't hear that.

Yeah, yeah.

So once we determine exactly what parts of City Hall Park actually are parkland that would be transferred, then that will be appraised alongside all of the other properties.

Fantastic, thank you.

My apologies, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Council President Morris.

Hey, Lish, can you correct me if I'm wrong?

Christopher, are you still on?

Yeah.

Okay, good.

I seem to remember I asked for an analysis and I got a number about how much those 13 parcels were worth.

Did we not get a comparison?

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I have not seen that, but it's possible that that may have existed under the previous administration and wasn't transmitted.

Were you working with us on this, or was Tracy?

Tracy was, I got pulled over at the end of the year.

Yeah, I think that's, Mr. Williams, Christopher, didn't we get a number?

Because I remember asking, and I just wanted a number, I wasn't going to wed anyone to it.

I just wanted to go, okay, how much is the park worth, it's City Hall Park, and then here's 13 properties.

Just a number, just your basic line, and I could have swore, And I don't have my old files with me if we actually had a number.

Did we, Christopher?

So I don't recall a number, at least not from the Seattle Park and Recreation Department.

I think what we provided was an acreage comparison number, right?

So I think we were, at least as far as I can recollect, the best number we had was a comparison of acreage to City Hall Park.

Okay, so we had a comparison of acreage.

For some reason, I thought we had fair market value, but okay, I may be confusing it.

I apologize, I don't have my former analysis from when I was working on this with Tracy.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Mosqueda, you had a question before we move on to the next topic?

Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Um, actually, maybe it's just a lead into the next topic, and then I'll put myself back on mute.

I appreciate really appreciate that we're going to get into the covenant discussion now.

And on page four of the central staff memo, it clearly says, for the city hall park, the county commits that the city hall park will continue to be used for public open public space, a park a recreation and community facility, the expansion of the existing county facilities or public benefit purpose providing any such purpose shall be used by the general public and primarily non-commercial in nature.

So I think that that's very much along the lines of what I and others had expressed earlier and I heard it again from Council Member Colwell's, the county I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on that.

if you central staff or Mr. Chair it sounds like you've been working on this as well.

If there's anything else we need to add to this language because I think I take away from that open public space and perpetuity that there will be activation that in order to activate there will be resources from the county and that we are relying on the county partners to continue upkeep and maintenance of this public space and to your point, Mr. Chair, the fences that are currently there will be taken down and will truly be activated.

So I'm just wondering what more we might need to add, if anything, as a recommendation from the central staff or Chair or others that really helps codify this because, yes, these seats will change over the future, but we want this to remain in perpetuity and open public space that is activated.

I think the language looks good, but look forward to getting to that next section, Mr. Chair.

maybe it might be most fruitful to answer those questions by putting the language up and doing an overview.

I'm getting the sense from committee members, that's the direction they wanna go in.

So, Liz, is it possible for us to put that up on the screen?

It's not a very long set of language.

So I think we could just share screen and take a look at it.

I am not sure that I have what Council Member Mosqueda is referring to.

It's the covenant language that's currently undergoing SIPA.

My understanding is that that still isn't finalized.

I'm looking at page four of your memo, Lish, from the committee discussion on April 4th.

Yeah, so that is under development.

And if council members have input they'd like to provide on whether their future should be part of this covenant, please let Tracy know and we will work with King County to make sure that it is incorporated and I'm selling for time as I try to pull that up for you.

Let's see if I can share my screen.

I hope this is the right document.

Yeah.

Can you see that?

Yes.

So, This is the existing language.

Let me zoom in a little bit more.

The county commits that City Hall Park will continue to be used for public open space, a park, a recreation and community facility.

In discussions after the last committee, this language has been narrowed to public open space or parks use.

Rather than another community facility or the expansion of county facilities.

So that's one change that you will see in the next draft of the Covenant.

And there are additional changes related to the vacation of Jefferson Street and the alleys that would need to be vacated.

And we still need to update the language based on the new information about the status of Dillingway as a private, Dilling Street as a private way rather than a city street.

So, Rich, I have a slightly more expansive set of language that was shared with us and that's been deliberative covenant language that's been shared with stakeholders.

That is, I mean, this looks like a summary of that language, but I don't know if the clerk could maybe figure out a way to share what I'm referring to.

I'm looking at it right now on my computer.

Yes, Council Member Leisch, if you would stop sharing your screen, I think I have a copy of what the chair is referring to.

Thank you.

Knowing Council Member Herbold, I think she wants to really get into the guts of the full covenant language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Council Member.

I hate to say this, but I have to leave.

Well, it was really good to have you here.

Sorry about that, but I know my staff is watching this on Seattle TV and I will be filled in by current as well.

Great, Council Member, thank you so much for joining us today.

And it was really helpful for our deliberations on this, and we will be in touch on the next steps.

Thank you, I enjoyed it a lot, and I'm feeling very optimistic that we're gonna come up with something better than our King County Council envisioned.

So I appreciate all that you're doing.

Well, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, there we go.

So Council Members, members of the committee, the deliberative covenant language.

Um, and everyone can see this now, right?

It's up on the screen.

Okay.

So as mentioned, uh, this narrows the future use of the, um, park to just public open space.

Um, we need to update the language related to dealing way.

Um, but otherwise this is sort of where we are.

And we need to add in the alleys as well as a future street vacation action.

Enlish, if you could make sure this is distributed to committee members.

I was actually under the impression it had been.

distributed, but I guess I was mistaken in thinking that it doesn't sound like all committee members have access to this.

Yeah.

And it should be posted as well to your agenda as material that was shared.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

I just wanna underscore the point that Council Member Mosqueda was making around reference to the resources necessary to operate and maintain the park in a manner consistent with its current use as a public park.

I think that should be reflected in the covenant as well, if that seems appropriate.

like a defined resource commitment?

I don't have strong feelings that the actual number needs to be reflected in the covenant, but I think some reference to the fact that there is an expectation for an activation budget that goes along with the covenant.

I had shared with, and maybe our county partners who are still on the line here, Tom and Karen, I had proffered the possibility of language to the effect of, you know, a publicly available activation plan.

for the space, like there could be a requirement that the county maintain a publicly available plan for activation programming, something to that effect.

But yes, I understand the point of what you're trying to get at Council Member Herbold, and I think there could be multiple ways to get there.

But I don't know if Tom or Karen wanna, weigh in on that.

It doesn't appear that they do at this time.

I don't have any other questions for now.

Maybe we could just pivot to talking about some process looking forward on where we might go on this.

So the current plan would be to have a public hearing on this matter for August 3rd, later this summer, to give an opportunity for folks to weigh in as part of a public process on this topic.

And that is the tentative date we have scheduled for that, which would be Wednesday, August 3rd.

And the SEPA timeline, Lish already kind of covered that, but I don't know, maybe Lish, if you could remind the committee when we would anticipate a response on the determination for the policy act checklist.

I do not know how long it will take parks to draft that determination.

Once it's published, then there is a public comment period and a possibility of appeal.

We are looking at a minimum of a couple of months and probably longer for that process to play itself out.

Superintendent Williams, do you have any update on that?

I think that's right.

I think it's gonna take us a little while to get appraisals and a final SEPA checklist completed.

I would maybe hazard through the end of the year on appraisals and SEPA with the requirement for a hearing.

Okay, well, if, I mean, if that's the timeline, that's the timeline, but we'll continue to coordinate with parks and with central staff.

We did work on our end at the council to come up with some tenant of covenant language, which is that language that was just on the screen so that we could get that machinery in motion to start that SEPA process.

So we'll continue to work with our executive side partners on getting that hurdle taken care of.

Are there any other questions from committee members before we move on to our final agenda item of the afternoon?

Okay, seeing none, I appreciate.

Is that Council Member Mosqueda?

So sorry, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say thank you to central staff and the folks who have put this together because it's been going for so long.

So thank you for all the work.

I'm looking forward to working with the county and getting this transferred.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda for thanking us.

Okay, thank you so much.

We will, it doesn't look like there's any additional comments.

I think that's a good one to end it on.

So thank you everybody for joining us from the County.

Appreciate your partnership on this and being so generous with your time this afternoon.

And we look forward to continuing this discussion on August 3rd when we will have a public hearing.

So look forward also to hearing from the community on August 3rd on this topic.

Moving on, Mr. Chair, will you please read our final agenda item into the record?

Item three, Seattle Parks Aquatics Update.

We are now joined by Michelle Finnegan and Superintendent Williams from Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Just to queue this up and do a little bit of table setting.

It was in the news last month that Seattle is experiencing a very acute shortage of lifeguards just at the time when we need lifeguards most in the summer.

I believe that the average number that we've expected in the past of 420 lifeguards is down to something like 200 lifeguards.

And it is starting to become a COVID era consistent labor shortage issue.

So I felt given the coverage and the, that it would warrant a public hearing for us to talk a little bit more with Parks and Recreation about steps forward and how to adjust our strategy on this issue, given that it's likely next summer we'll continue to have similar challenges around lifeguarding.

I did also just want to start by way of a little bit more table setting.

I had someone on my staff, Malik on my staff, go and find the second floor's edition of The Economist this week.

There's an article in the issue for July 2nd, 2022, titled Where Have All the Lifeguards Gone?

about the national United States shortage of lifeguarding.

And it cites in the body of that article that A poll in May by the National Recreation and Park Association found that only 12% of park and recreation leaders were fully staffed on lifeguards for the summer.

So we're no exception in this national trend.

We are part of that 88% that is experiencing a staffing issue with lifeguards that is impacting our ability to fully staff the aquatic offerings of parks and recreation.

And with that table setting, I'm excited to introduce our Parks and Rec panel and talk about ways we might work together as a legislative branch and a parks department to reverse that trend and make sure all of our aquatic recreation centers can remain open and fully staffed.

So with that, I will turn it over to Superintendent Williams.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

And thank you for calling out that economist article.

You actually saved maybe the first two minutes of my presentation.

So I really appreciate that.

You're right.

This is a national trend.

And part of it has to do with what young people view as kind of acceptable employment, you know, post pandemic.

Lifeguarding requires a lot of in-depth training.

It is actually saving lives during a water-related situation.

And, you know, these are not plug-and-play staff.

By way of example, the majority of our aquatics staff are temp staff.

And this is a classification of employees who maybe receive the most training more so than any group of temporary employees across the city.

It's a very specialized body of work.

So thank you for the opportunity to discuss the whole lifeguard situation.

Why don't we go to the next slide there?

I don't see the presentation.

We've got a PowerPoint presentation, but I'm not seeing it on the screen here.

Michelle, are you sharing the screen or someone sharing our PowerPoint presentation?

I can't.

I had thought that the clerk's office was going to, but I can.

OK, that would be great if you could share the screen.

So while Michelle is bringing up the screen, a little bit more about our aquatics programs, we operate a huge inventory of aquatic opportunities across the department.

Let's go to that next slide, Michelle.

Thanks.

Slide two.

So here you can see we have a $9.3 million budget.

About 65% of that budget is revenue generated fee for access to public pools.

We have about 50 FTE.

We have a huge indoor pool system with eight pools.

We have two outdoor pools, one located on Queen Anne and the other at Coleman Park.

In fact, the pool at Coleman Park is a saltwater pool.

We're operating six out of nine lifeguarded beaches across the city this year.

They include Madison Beach, Madrona Beach, Magnuson Beach, Mount Baker Beach, Pritchard Beach, and West Green Lake Beach.

And our goal here was to try to create some geographic equity across the city so that no matter where you live, you've got access within a reasonable distance to a public a publicly guarded swimming beach.

We're also operating 20 out of 22 wading pools.

Ironically, the same challenge exists with hiring enough temp staff to work at our wading pools, even though they require a different skillset than lifeguarding a beach.

We've got boat launches, spray parks across the system.

So with that, I'd also like to recognize our aquatics staff for their creative solution making and finding solutions to work around what has clearly been a staff shortage.

They've come up with some creative solutions and have managed to provide all of this access during a time when we are significantly constrained with staffing.

So in some ways, this team has made lemonade out of lemons and But we're wanting to share with you, we believe, is a good news story.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Mike Plimpton, who is our aquatics manager.

Thank you, Christopher.

Michelle, if we could bring it to the next slide.

So What we're, what I'm going to kind of walk you through here and what this slide shows is really from March 2020 with the COVID shutdown of our services, where we, what kind of the steps we've gone to and the things that have happened between now, or between then and now, so between this summer.

So in March 2020, all of our public pools closed, the city put a hiring freeze in place, And staff were pivoted to what were referred to as essential services so pivoted out of aquatics to serve elsewhere in the recreation division and SPR.

In summer of 2020 we were able to reopen five beaches, we were able to rehire a few staff despite the hiring freeze to maintain a level of leadership at our outdoor beaches.

So again, it was a very short summer for us, but it was with COVID protocols in place to limit crowding, to keep staff safe, and to just increase the safety for both the lifeguard staff and for folks who wanted to cool off in the summer.

In fall of 2020, we moved into Taking an important step of recertifying our lifeguard staff so at this point running lifeguard classes was not an option, based on restrictions.

We did have safety plans that were put in place and approved to be able to recertify our current team, so our recertification is about an eight hour class has to happen every two years.

as opposed to a new lifeguard certification that's a 30-hour training program with a lot of hands-on.

So with COVID restrictions, that was a challenge for a little while.

Fast forwarding, we opened two pools in the winter of 2021 with Medgar Evers and Rainier Beach opening up, and then took that into summer where we were able to reopen six of our beaches, as well as 11 wading pools and two of the outdoor pools, our two outdoor pools, Coleman and Monger Pool.

So that was summer 2021. We were able to expand on the amenities that were available.

And with that came some additional staffing.

And then we moved forward into fall.

We closed our outdoor facilities and we opened up our four additional indoor pools with modified schedules and began offering lifeguard certification classes to the public with COVID protocols in place.

So a safe version of these lifeguard training programs with COVID present.

From there, we move forward into winter 2020. We opened our seventh of our eight indoor pools on a modified schedule and maintain that until the end of spring.

When we transitioned to summer, we had to close a couple of the pools due to staffing shortage, but have maintained five of our indoor sites open, spread out around the city, as well as our two outdoor pools, Coleman and Monger, six beaches, and as Christopher Williams mentioned, 20 of our 22 wading pools.

So with this, it's really a gradual ramping up of service and basically a focus on trying to help us grow our team into the future.

So we're growing through the summer, we are growing into the fall, and with that is gonna come an increased service as we continue to move forward.

We can take it to the next slide.

So our staffing level.

With our summer aquatic programs we're going to talk just about our ramp up going into summer so we run about, we have about 200 temporary staff that operate throughout the year with about just under 50 FTE of regular staffing.

When we go into summer, we grow our team by about 200 staff so that process starts typically under a pre COVID normal year in about February, where we start taking applications for people looking for summer work.

So with that you know we've got our beach program that is predominantly temporary staff there's one benefited staff person that acts as a supervisor.

We have 18 temporary young leaders that lead these sites and supervise these sites, the nine different beaches that we have.

And we have a cadre of about 80 beach lifeguards that are there, that are spread out through these nine sites when we're in full operation.

So the safety training that these folks go through, so on top of the certification, the 30-hour certification, in order to work at the beach, they have about 20 additional hours of training.

As well as the folks that we have that work at the pool have additional training and teaching swimming lessons so it's not they're not all interchangeable.

You know folks are able to work supporting certain aspects of our operation and they're all meeting a critical need, you know, so those indoor pools are teaching swimming lessons they're providing water access to seniors to very young people to the disabled.

And we're providing that access and we're providing that education and those swimming skills to help feed our future employees and to help keep keep folks safe as a part of a drowning prevention strategy.

With that, it was mentioned we do have a reduced site selection, so we were only able to open six of our nine beaches this summer.

Part of the decision-making that went into that was we looked at past attendance to look at how many folks use those sites, looked at geographic distribution, as Superintendent Williams mentioned, considered equity as well as site characteristics like the presence of diving boards, the presence of peers that come out from the shore, The slope of the beach and things that create a that make risk harder to man harder to manage without having lifeguards there.

So, you know, as a part of that really what we're looking at is.

There are a number of concerns with how we were able to make those decisions for what sites to open.

And we mentioned, or I mentioned the amenities, you know, attraction of teens is a big risk management point with drowning prevention because teens are risk takers.

And if we have amenities at our sites to bring them in, that serves as keeping them swimming at a safer place in the summer.

So that's a bit about our, decision-making process.

I guess we can take it to the next slide, Michelle.

So, this slide speaks to both the national lifeguard shortage as well as the national labor shortage in front-facing workers.

So, as a part of that, you know, we are facing a critical staffing shortage along with many industries.

With lifeguarding what we're up against or one of the challenges that we've had is on top of the labor shortage on top of all the jobs that are available to frontline workers.

The national shortage of lifeguards is there because of the lack of training for several years, the lack of our own staff development.

You know we've got some level of permanent staff of benefited staff that are available and leadership staff that have worked in our system and have the skills to take the lead.

But we've lost a couple years of development in that time, so we are we're short kind of in that in that experience level, and that is what is making it challenging for us to safely open all of our sites so.

We are growing our team and we're training people all the time and we're looking forward to continuing to grow into the fall and grow into next summer.

One of the challenges that was touched on earlier, you know, we have a lower wage than many unskilled service jobs, than many entry level service jobs.

So for the same, for not much different of a wage than one might make at working at a fast food restaurant or starting at a grocery store, You could end up, to work as a lifeguard, you end up having to go and take this certification class, commit your own time, have the swimming skills to get there, and then to be able to step in and the willingness to step into that role with that responsibility.

So that is, you know, the wage is a barrier.

Our lifeguard rate of pay moved over the last 10 years from about 67% above minimum wage to about 13% above minimum wage.

So that's how it's gone in the last 10 years in relation to this.

And that speaks to the need for training.

And it speaks to the challenge of finding folks that are willing to step into that role.

With that is also that we've lost folks throughout the pandemic who have moved to other other positions and we haven't been able to recoup the staff we've lost at the same rate.

That I guess as a frame of reference and our benefited positions we've moved from 16 of 26 indoor pools senior lifeguards last September to 12 of 26 spots that are filled in May.

So despite hiring we've actually moved in the The wrong direction in terms of total numbers so it's just a just a frame of reference, so we are continuing to work on it, the rate of pay has been a barrier I'll take it to the next slide please Michelle.

So lifeguard requirements, as we mentioned, recruitment.

So lifeguards to work for SPR have to be 16 years of age.

They have to pass a pre-employment physical and background check, American Red Cross lifeguard training course, which is a 30-hour course, as well as passing a Northwest lifeguard skills test, which is an additional test and certification.

Additional training for beach lifeguards is about another 20 hours of on-site training to be able to step into that role.

Additional training for pool lifeguards involves about a comparable number of hours to teach swimming lessons effectively and to be able to step into the roles in those jobs.

So all of those things and then moving into a leadership position requires familiarity with the system and the experience to make good decisions in those roles.

We've had a large recruitment effort.

We worked on advertising on social media, the city website, Washington Recreation and Parks Association, as well as drowning prevention groups like the Washington State Drowning Prevention Network.

We've done outreach through high school swim teams and through swim team groups due to the swimming skills that come inherent with those groups.

We have advertised and conducted 14 lifeguard classes since the beginning of the year and are still at that deficit point despite this.

So, you know, those recruitment efforts are our next step.

You know, we're running teen programs and we're looking to connect with young people, but with that, you know, it has been a challenge.

However, we are continuing to grow as was mentioned.

So let's take it to our next slide, please.

So strategies that we've had.

We are looking toward both the short-term and the long-term solutions for the wage issue.

We're looking for a longer-term wage review by partnering with us, with Seattle Department of Human Resources, as well as a near-term solution of hiring staff at a higher step rate.

So at a higher rate of pay based on the current steps that exist within the series.

And then considering other ideas.

And maybe I'll jump in here and council member Councilmember Lewis, I want to recognize your idea of a lifeguard auxiliary and really appreciate the energy in which you have leaned into this problem.

We did take a look at that.

And one of the hurdles we run into is that while police and fire both have water safety classifications, the employees in those roles earned considerably more dollars per hour than our $22 an hour lifeguard, maybe, right?

And I think just thinking about from a labor standpoint, having a person who is making $150 in overtime hours, next to a person who's making $22 an hour doing the same job, seem like a huge wage disparity, labor issue that we want to delve more deeply into.

But I did want to acknowledge and thank you for leaning into this problem and for providing some suggestions.

So we wanted you to know that we did explore the idea.

Superintendent, I appreciate that.

My colleagues might be confused because I don't think I've publicly talked about this idea.

So what I would just say is I did send an email, given that we have a lot of city employees that have EMT certifications or other such certifications.

And what I had proffered as a possible idea is offering, you know, optional overtime slots if there are, that have appropriate certification and would be interested in accepting cross-departmental floated opportunities to take OT.

But I mean, I understand why that would potentially not be practicable, but if going forward, we are looking for ways to sort of incentivize and encourage people to keep up their certifications, or if there's people within the city family who used to be lifeguards and have out of date certifications that they could renew.

The fact that lifeguards are not organized, to my understanding, there isn't a union for lifeguards.

That's potentially an opportunity for someone to organize that workforce.

But at the moment, they're not organized.

I would think we would have flexibility to offer other city employees if they do have certification to potentially take that opportunity to take an OT slot if it's during a time they wouldn't otherwise be working.

But I just wanted to daylight that was an idea I sent in an email to Superintendent Williams if council colleagues are confused.

But appreciate that answer in the session today.

And just to clarify, Council Member Lewis, Local 242 does represent our permanent part-time lifeguards and our senior lifeguards, and therefore the temporary lifeguards fall with under the bargaining kind of agreements related to temporary staff.

And so there would also be just, they are represented, just to clarify.

Oh, they are represented.

Sorry, I was not aware of that.

Okay, that's good to know.

Yeah, nevermind.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm sorry, I cut off the presentation, Superintendent Williams.

Turn it back over to you.

Right, I'll just turn it back over to Mike Plimpton.

Yeah, we're almost done.

So the main thing I think next steps other than looking at wage related issues is we're looking toward just what we can do to get our feeding programs back in play.

As you know, for this, we're talking about we have a summer program called the lifeguard training team that operates out of our beach program.

that serves as a feeder that's a free teen program, as well as one that we have going on at Rainier Beach Community Center and Pool through late night, through partnership with our late night program.

These are, you know, they're feeder programs to help both get teens in for swimming and into swimming lessons, but also to generate potential future staff and to help get folks into the pipeline, into that pipeline we referred to.

Beyond that, we're bringing back our lesson program that has been expanding, and with that comes the opportunity to be a swim aid and to learn those swimming lesson skills for folks at our pools.

Can I ask, if someone wanted to sign up to serve in this capacity with all of the certifications you need to go through in the training, Are there ways to, the way it's currently constituted, does the city pay for that or do you have to pay for that out of your own pocket and then you get the job?

So we are offering currently, we have a special program this year that we are hopefully will be continuing to offer free lifeguard training.

The time isn't paid.

So staff, you know, people are trained on their own time and then are continue with a hiring process after they complete the course.

But the city does pay for those, the fees associated with certification?

Yes.

Okay.

Are there other questions from council colleagues?

You have a question, Council Member Herlovich?

Thank you.

Okay.

A couple of questions.

One, going back to the reference to COVID precautions, just curious whether or not you have capacity restrictions at any of the pools in place that are driven by COVID safety concerns for patients and staff?

So any of our capacity restrictions right now are based on staffing level, not on COVID restrictions.

Okay, thank you.

And then my other question relates to the staffing ramp-up strategy.

Understand that the long-term strategy is this wage study work that you're doing, but you reference also a near-term strategy, and that near-term strategy, I guess, would be allowing hiring at a higher starting rate.

I'm wondering, would that also require retroactive increases for lifeguards who are currently employees?

So let me see here the best way to answer this.

So for short term, we are hiring new employees at And they're also gonna be looking at previously hired employees to get them to the same step, to a higher pay step, to start as temporary lifeguards.

Say that one more time, I'm sorry.

So both new and current employees.

Are going to be receiving an increase.

The higher rate of pay.

Got it, got it, yeah.

Because we have a few different departments in the city that are struggling with filling vacancies.

I wanna just make sure that when we're trying to address that, creating strategies to bring more people in to fill these vacancies, that we're not inadvertently creating morale issues for the current city workforce.

I think that's an important element of our recruitment strategies in all of our departments, so thank you.

Absolutely, thank you, Council Member.

One thing I might throw out there too, I had the privilege this morning of meeting with some representatives from AMR, the folks that run our EMT program.

And one of the things they indicated is they have a program where folks that are seeking their certification to be EMTs, they do pay them during that time that they're learning while pursuing their certification.

and maybe that might be an area for us to pursue if that is currently not compensated time, given the length, the extensive length to get certified.

From the earlier slide, it looked like 35 hours of work and training to get the certification.

And maybe that would be an area to consider if that time not being compensated for is a barrier for entry for some people who might otherwise be interested in pursuing this opportunity.

Yeah, Council Member Lewis, that's a great, excuse me, that's a great point.

And yes, the time, paid training, and that is something that's a barrier for folks.

I mean, that is always gonna be a barrier.

the ability to pay staff to take the training or pay prospective staff to take the training would be a great step forward.

Can I ask about the recruitment in high schools, like with high school swim teams?

Has the momentum for that been knocked down during COVID?

How is the tempo of that recruitment gone relative to how it's been in previous years?

And does that represent a big percentage of the seasonal people that do this work?

The connection with those groups when they're in there for swim season, I mean, I think the big push for us is always that there is a connection before the end of their swim season to, you know, to make contact with the team, to potentially set up a class with many members of that team.

So it hasn't changed as much during COVID as the, you know, the interest in pursuing a job or pursuing a training where you are having to get in close personal space of other people, that has probably been the biggest impact.

So not as much on the teams themselves or the swimmers themselves, because they're already doing that sort of thing, but in the general public to say, I'm really interested in doing this, knowing that I'm going to have to be right in someone's space.

And because of COVID, I'm not comfortable with that right now.

So that's kind of the bigger impact, if that makes sense.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Well, I'm gonna open it up again if colleagues have any questions for our panel on this.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this does also seem like a ripe area for exploration.

If there are ongoing strategies that might require supplemental resource as part of our Metropolitan Park District discussions, I think it would fall within the scope of figuring out how we can program equip our aquatics personnel strategies to adapt to the changing labor market and changing circumstances that are limiting the public's access to these facilities.

So, my door's open to continue to have that conversation.

I'll also just add that I really do appreciate the triage work of Seattle Parks and of the aquatics division um, really making sure that we're keeping as many facilities open as we are during these summer months.

I mean, you shared that story from Phoenix, Arizona, which is closing half of their aquatic facilities due to their, their shortage.

So the adaptability and ability to mitigate under intense pressure, uh, is very admirable.

And I really appreciate the leadership of this team and making that happen.

So, you know, my door continues to be open on this.

We will continue to send leads for potential lifeguards as they become available.

And I'll certainly continue to use my platform to advertise this opportunity to serve the people of the city throughout my ability to communicate with potential applicants.

And with that, are there any final words from the panel before we close today's committee session?

Just wanted to say thank you, Council Member Lewis, for the kind words.

Thank you so much.

Okay, guys, thank you, and we will be in touch on this and other issues relating to our parks.

Okay, well, council colleagues, that was our final agenda item.

Is there any other business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing and seeing none, this committee is hereby adjourned.

It is 4.18 PM.

Thank you.