Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 11/23/20

Good morning, everyone.

Today is November 23, 2020, and the Select Budget Committee of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

My name is Theresa Mosqueda.

I'm the chair of the Select Budget Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Morales?

Here.

Peterson?

Swant?

Here.

Strauss.

Present.

Gonzalez.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Juarez.

Here.

Lewis.

Present.

Chair Mosqueda.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

9 present.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, appreciate it.

Thank you all for joining the last and final Select Budget Committee meeting of 2021's deliberations.

Really appreciate all the hard work that has gone into crafting this budget with all of you.

We will also be wrapping up the quarter three discussions and this is a long day.

So I'm going to keep my comments very short this morning just to say we will have 20 minutes of public testimony.

There are about 35 people signed up.

We are going to give folks 45 seconds to testify to try to get through everyone in our last day here.

Today's agenda has been published.

It includes a few items that are technical in nature as we wrap up our discussion today.

We will then roll into full council, where the council president will lead us through the afternoon's final vote on the budget in front of us.

As we have done every day, we are gonna start with public comment, and then we'll get right into it, have central staff walk us through each of the items on the agenda, and then we will take the votes.

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

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

Let's go into public comment.

The first three speakers that we have are Lucas Vargas, Derek Bonifilia, and Alicia Glenwell.

Just as a reminder to folks, you're going to hear a chime that says you have been unmuted.

That is your prompt to then individually push star six.

That unmutes you on your line as well.

We will ask you to speak for 45 seconds.

We'll give you a 10-second reminder so that we can Make sure that you have that little chime to know to wrap up your comments.

This is on the heels of now over almost 15, I believe 15 hours of public testimony.

So a lot of appreciation for everyone who's called in a few times and for anybody calling in for the first time, we really appreciate you dialing in.

After you provide your public testimony though, as a reminder, please do hang up and then call in on any of the listen in options that are provided on today's agenda.

If you don't get a chance to get through all your comments, we are still happy to receive those, as we will be considering many of these items throughout the upcoming months, even though our budget deliberations are coming to a close.

With that, if we can get the timer up on the clock here, we're going to do 45 seconds.

And Lucas, I see you up first.

Just before you start, Lucas, let me confirm with our tech team that we have all of the chimers in place.

One second, one second, it's coming up here.

No problem.

Thank you.

All righty.

Excellent.

Good morning, Lucas.

Thanks for waiting.

Hi there.

Thanks.

My name's Lucas.

I'm a volunteer with 350 Seattle and a member of UAW-YOKO-4121.

I'm calling to support the amendment putting $2 million previously earmarked for the SPD hiring budget towards community safety solutions.

Level of need right now in our city is immense, possibly more than any other time in our city's history.

More police officers on the street is the last thing we need, and the council should make good on its commitment to scale up currently underfunded community solutions for public safety.

As a Capitol Hill resident and a frequent protester, I have seen SPE's behavior over the past few months up close and personal.

They don't deserve any benefit of the doubt from the city council.

Passing this amendment would send the right message that the city is willing and able to fund community solutions that keep us safe without investing in an organization founded on racism that actively harms Seattle residents please pass Council Member Muscade's amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Derek, good morning.

Hi, my name is Derek.

I'm a renter in District 6. Throughout this budget cycle, an unprecedented number of your constituents have called, emailed, and given testimony demanding to defund SPD, not to grow the police force.

In addition to this testimony, I want to ask that Dan Strauss, when you vote on Muscata's amendment to cut SPD's hiring budget today, please keep in mind your own words from earlier this summer when you told us, it is clear to me that we as a city, state, and nation are out of line with our moral compass.

Our children will question our moral aptitude.

They will question why we did not do more to stop the violent response to nonviolent protest.

They will question why we used militarized responses on our own residents.

I will question why we did not meet the basic request of the Black community to stop killing us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Alicia.

After Alicia will be Howard Gale, Elena Perez, and Amy Tower.

Hi, Alicia.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Hi.

Good morning.

I'm Alicia Glenwell with the Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence.

We were disappointed in the council's vote last week to reject deeper cuts to the SPD budget.

And the concerns for the safety of sexual assault survivors were used to oppose measures such as the SPD hiring freeze.

Domestic and sexual victimization has been used to justify the growth of the criminal legal system, but over-reliance on police doesn't make us safer.

What will end gender-based violence is supporting communities, investments in basic human needs, violence prevention, pathways to true healing and accountability are all key components of a city where all can thrive.

We stand with the many in Seattle calling for true significant divestment in our systems of policing, including an SPV hiring freeze.

Please revisit your vote on this key proposal before your final budget votes today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Howard.

You are up next.

Good morning.

Good morning, Howard Gale, District 7. In 2010, you failed us when John T. Williams was killed and independent groups had to call for the USDOJ to investigate Seattle.

In 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, you failed us when 17 more people were killed by the SPD and Black Lives Matter protesters were beaten and jailed.

In 2017, you failed us when you passed police accountability legislation that avoided true civilian oversight.

and then you felt this again week later when in response charlotte a lot of murder you acted walking promptly at this news in two thousand eighteen you felt as if that's a police contract that undercut what little accountability we had and then you've got and by ignoring the sbd murder but i think i'll tell you in two thousand nineteen you felt as though you are the sbd murder of denny rodriguez right and finally this year you felt as though ignoring the sbd murders of charlie perry ever and failed us again by acting woken response or what only one forty

Thank you, Howard.

The next person is Elena.

Good morning, Elena.

Good morning.

My name is Elena Perez with Puget Sound Stage.

As part of the Budget Solidarity Coalition, we urge you to support Budget Action SPD 25 Option B to cut $2 million from SPD salaries and fund community-led public safety investments.

We are an organization that builds power with BIPOC-led organizations and communities that are most directly impacted by our climate crisis, COVID, lack of good jobs and affordable housing, and by police violence.

The solutions to police violence are already known by frontline communities, and it is they who you need to listen to today.

Black youth have led marches in the streets for months demanding that you fulfill your commitment to defund SPD by 50%.

At the very least, the very minimum, SPD should not be expanding on your watch.

Please take action today, support the SPD 25 option B, and fulfill your commitment to community safety.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elena.

Amy, good morning.

Good morning.

This is Amy Tower.

I'm a renter and resident in District 4. I'm also a tenant counselor and organizer with the Tenants Union of Washington State.

We stand in solidarity with the solidarity budget and urge the council to vote yes for Council Member Mosqueda's amendment to cut SPD's hiring budget by $2 million.

This is a step in the right direction.

We're going to be here for the long haul.

to defund SPD by at least 50%.

Divesting, you know, involves three things, shrinking SPD's budget, reinvesting those funds in community, and shrinking the size of the police force.

And this amendment is a great step that we need to be, for sure, taking towards this.

Thanks so much.

Thank you very much.

The next three are Jackson, Petras, Emily Graham, and Brittany Valet.

Good morning, Jackson.

Hi, good morning.

This is Jackson Peach, like the fruit.

I'm a renter in District 4. I'm calling this morning to say I share previous caller's disappointment with last week's vote to not falter with the hiring freeze for 2021 and to expand SPD's budget, and to urge the council, especially my council member Alex Peterson, to vote yes on Council Member Mosqueda's amendment to cut SPD's hiring budget by $2 million as a prelude to further cuts and further shrinking to meet the demands of a 50% cut if we want to make an actually safe city for the first time, especially amid the wreckage that COVID and our housing crises are leaving us in.

We need to invest in community-led solutions and not expand SPD.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

And sorry for the mispronunciation.

You said that last time and the time before.

Peach, I got it.

Emily, good morning.

Hi, uh, my name is Emily Graham and I am a renter in district three.

I am calling to urge the city council to vote.

Yes.

Um, council member mosquitos budget amendment to cut as PDs hiring budget by $2 million and to invest that funding community led alternatives.

It is vital to scale down the size of SPD by preventing the hiring of new cops as reducing the number of police officers on payroll is necessary to eventually defunding SPD.

This budget amendment is an important step in the right direction, but we must recognize that it is just that, a small step on our way to a more equitable community.

This amendment is not enough to fix the harm that SPD causes, but it and further coverage of SPD in the future are necessary.

At this phase in the budget process, cutting SPD's hiring budget is the least that city council can do to protect the community and help us get back on our feet in the wake of the crises we are currently facing.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

And Brittany, good morning.

Good morning, council.

My name is Brittany Bushpole.

I am the chair of the Sierra Club Seattle group.

First off, we'd like to thank council for all their hard work in the budget this far, which is one of the most pro-environment budgets that we've seen in years.

And we'd like to ask for one more thing.

Supporting CM Muscata's amendment today removing an additional $2 million from the SPD budget.

Our mission at its heart is to create a world that is safe and healthy for every living being and to realize this mission is simply impossible without ensuring the safety of Black lives.

Ensuring the safety of Black lives requires ending violent really like racist policing and replacing it with a positive system of community care and support.

Thank you for starting and continuing this work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brittany.

The next three people are Ed Slauson, Daniel Keplew, and Ingrid Archibald.

Daniel, it says you're not present.

If you want to call in, we'll get to you.

Ed, good morning.

Just looking for Ed Slauson.

Okay.

Okay.

Hi, Ed.

Hi, Ed.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Ed Solsing.

I'm a caregiver in district three and a proud member of SEI 775. And I want to tell you why black lives matter to me and why they should matter to you in your final consideration of the 2021 budget.

Pat Batiste, Tyree Scott, Barbara Jarrett, Clarence Acox, Ron Davis.

These are the teachers, coaches, business owners, and mentors that I grew up with.

These are the black lives that challenged me to be an agent of progress in our city.

despite the chronic humiliations they suffered under Seattle's policies and policing, redlining, segregation, and racial profiling.

To this day, I'm humbled by their grace and compassion.

These Black Lives Matter, but you don't have to wait for another tragedy to holler their outrage at their treatment.

You can say their names, you can invoke their spirit, you can honor their values right now if you reverse the current plan to expand SPD by 25 officers and instead put that money back into the community.

Thank you very much.

Daniel, it still says you're not present.

We're going to go on to Ingrid.

Good morning, Ingrid.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Ingrid Archibald.

I'm a renter in District 6. I'm a member of the Local Sunrise Movement, and I'm an organizer at Stand.Earth, which is an environmental organization based in Bellingham.

Stand is signed on in support of the Solidarity Budget because we know that real solutions are rooted in community, that climate justice and racial justice are deeply connected and overlapping.

And then it's long past time to defund our militarized racist police forces and invest in true community safety and care.

I want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda for continuing to push this issue and say that we support the introduction of an amendment today to cut SPD's hiring budget by $2 million and redirect those funds to community-led solutions.

I'm here to urge you all to support this small but important cut.

It represents a fraction of what our community needs.

far from what folks have been organizing around for months, and far from what was promised when council members committed to defunding SPD by 50%.

We must do everything possible in this moment to begin what will surely be a really long process of creating.

Thank you, Ingrid.

Please send in the rest of your comments if we cut you off.

Apologies.

The next three people are Michael Withmar, Ahmaud Hussein, and Anthony Powers.

Michael, it says your list is not present.

Please dial in if you can.

Ahmaud, good morning.

We'll go to you next.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Ahmaud Hussein.

I live in Seattle.

I'm with Bridging Cultural Gaps.

I'm asking you to listen to the community and reduce the size of the Seattle Police Department today.

You must institute a hiring freeze of Seattle Police in 2021, cutting the full $9 million from the SPD.

Each of you promised to defend SPD and reduce the number of officers.

You said we must take action now.

Only council members Morales and Sawant delivered on our promise on November 19th.

Today, you can all make good on your promise to reduce the size of the SPD in 2021. That's the bare minimum you can do and the least you can do for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next person is Anthony.

Good morning, Anthony.

Good morning.

I'm calling from regional cultural gaps in partnership with KC and King County Equity Now.

And we're in complete opposition of any funding going to the Seattle Police Department in addition to what they already get.

They should be getting even more and these money to be invested in the community and organizations that know how to get to the roots of the problems so that you don't need a police response.

We've already been over police.

and we elect City Council and the City of Seattle overall to work with us and do things that we know are in opposition to our people.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The next three people are Adam Burke, Ari Hertz, and Nikita Oliver.

Adam and Ari, it says you're not present, so we will go to Nikita.

Good morning, Nikita.

Good morning, Council Member Mosqueda.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

I'm calling as a part of the solidarity budget.

And wanted to just say to y'all last week, we were deeply disappointed by the council's vote regarding the SPD hiring freeze, but you do still have a chance this morning to do something.

So please take it seriously.

In July, many of you committed to cut the Seattle Police Department budget by 50% and invest in Black communities.

And some of you even committed not to make the same mistakes of the past moving forward.

Sadly, last week's vote did not move us forward with the hiring freeze and was not reflective of that commitment.

In the least, please vote yes on Mosqueda's amendment.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And the next three speakers are David.

Oh, I think we already heard from David.

I'll call him again.

David Hines, Rachel York, and then Fatima Isaac.

Did we hear from David this morning already?

If not, David, please go ahead.

Apologies for that.

If we don't have David, the next person would be Rachel.

David, are you with us?

We'll give it a quick second.

How about Rachel?

Is Rachel available?

David Haynes should be on the line.

Hey, David, can you hear me?

If so, just push star six one more time.

All right, we may have some technical difficulties.

I know, David, you've called them before.

It might just be a connection issue today.

So we'll come back to you if you're still there.

Let's go to Rachel, and we'll come back to David.

Rachel Bjork.

Hi, Rachel.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Rachel Bjork, and I'm calling in not just as a lifelong I'm a resident of Seattle, but also as a representative of a local nonprofit, the Northwest Animal Rights Network.

Numberin advocates for the rights of all sentient beings, the right to choose, to be free from oppression and exploitation.

And we connect Pacific Northwest organizations.

We support the solidarity budget.

I'm calling today to ask the city council to divest from police and invest in BIPOC communities.

We want you to invest in Black-led community organizations that provide healthy food to communities.

that needs support to plant gardens so that people in all communities have the ability to make healthier food choices and can have food sovereignty.

It's vital that the Seattle City Council invest in Black-led organizations that are uplifting BIPOC communities.

Everyone deserves a life to these healthy foods.

There are Black-led community organizations that have wonderful ideas for making the city a more equitable place.

Let's give

Thank you very much.

And if we have David, I'll go back to David real quick.

After David will be Leah Lucid, Kate Nooner, and Neil Anderson, if Fatima is still not present.

Good morning, David.

I see you muted on my end.

Just push star six one more time for me.

Thank you.

Good morning.

You know, David, it's coming on muted here.

Just maybe double check on your end that it's not muted on your phone.

Sometimes that happens.

Hi, can you hear me?

Shoot.

I can see you.

We'll come back to you, David.

Looks like it just started.

Star six muted.

One more time.

You want to try it one more time?

There we go.

How about now?

Sorry, David.

I can see you unmuted.

Oh, let's go to Leah.

Good morning, Leah, and we'll come back to David.

How are you?

Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thanks.

Okay.

Hi, Council.

This is Leah again in Maple Leaf.

I'm calling on you this morning to follow through on your commitments to defund SPD and shift those funds to community services like the ones proposed by Decrim Seattle and King County Equity Now.

I was very disappointed last week when you rejected the amendment to cut SPD's budget for hiring new cops next year.

I'm calling to support the amendment today to cut at least $2 million from SPD's hiring budget as another very tiny down payment on the road to 50% or more.

And as a survivor of lost to homicide, I want to tell you that police do not make me feel any safer, even for violent crime.

That is because police do not prevent, they just respond to it.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you for your time.

And then the next three are Katie Nooner, Neil Anderson, and Aiden Carroll.

Katie, good morning.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Thanks.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Katie Neuner.

I'm a District 2 resident as well as a small business owner here in Seattle.

I'm currently outside of City Hall right now with a march.

Make some noise!

We were disappointed with last week's vote to not fund by the $9 million to hire the 114 new officers and we're hoping that you'll continue the work that you did with the $3 million to funding and do the $17.3 million today and invest that money into black communities and black people and to the houseless communities.

I do want to encourage you to work to get to 100% by the next budget vote, because 17.3% is not enough, as you already know.

We've got to be back here every day.

Every day?

Every day!

Until Black lives are liberated.

Period.

I yield to her.

Thank you.

And Aiden, Carol, before we go to Aiden, I just want to double check.

David, can you hear me?

OK, David.

Still says that you're muted there.

Hi, good morning, Aiden.

I thought it was after Neil.

I don't want to be cutting the line.

Thank you for asking.

Neil is listed as not present, so thank you for the reminder.

OK.

Yeah, thank you.

So my name is Aiden.

I live in Wallingford, D6.

I spend a lot of time in 4, including with the recent trash cleanup effort.

And I was intrigued by what Council Member Peterson was talking about.

I want to emphasize that while it can be difficult to associate yourself with things that seem radical now, it is not radical to have a elected oversight board that has discipline and firing powers over police.

It is not radical to have a hiring freeze entirely during a recession for police.

And it's certainly not radical to have a small progressive tax increase to avoid budget cuts during a recession.

I mean, most city council members are Democrats, and that is, in theory, something Democrats believe in, not cutting.

Thank you very much.

And then, Rebecca, good morning.

Rebecca followed by Brian Clark and Peter Fink.

Good morning.

Are you able to hear me?

I am.

Thank you.

Hi, yes.

My name is Rebecca Smith.

I am a member of District 2 with Tammy Morales.

I'm calling to reiterate my support of increasing the amount that we're defunding Seattle Police to at least 50% and to express my appreciation with a lot of the stuff you guys have been discussing.

I saw the abrogation of 93 police officers on my docket.

I'm encouraged about that.

And I would also like to reiterate We should reconsider a hiring moratorium as we have seen through the Seattle Public Safety Survey and other data that areas with less police presence tend to have less fear of violence and less crime in general.

So I think that's good evidence that the police are perpetrators of violence and they don't protect against it so we can continue to defend them in order to support the community.

Great.

Thank you.

Brian Clark.

Good morning.

Just do a quick time check.

We're going for five more minutes.

We're going to get as many people in as possible.

Brian, can you hear me?

Hi, my name is Brian and I'm a homeowner in Ballard.

There are structures popping up on sidewalks all over the city and it's revealing how differently you treat them.

Restaurants are building structures outside so that the relatively wealthy people can dine and the city encourages it.

House with neighbors are building structures to try and survive through the freezing winter and the city sends in the navigation team to crush them and leave those people out in the cold.

The only difference in my eyes is a matter of money.

And last week, this council voted to spend those millions on police instead of housing.

The vote on Thursday was a betrayal of your commitment.

You didn't even discuss a $7 million item on tiny homes for our house with neighbors.

There are thousands of people living outdoors.

Temperatures are dropping below 40. And yet, instead of funding this housing, you decided to spend $9 million on hiring more cops for our violent police department.

If Black Lives Matter, prove it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter Fink, followed by Rachel Virgil and Melissa Terry.

Good morning, Peter.

Yes, hello.

I'm also extremely disappointed in the decision last Thursday.

I find it incredibly disappointing, but we now have the opportunity with Council Member Mosqueda's amendment to cut SPD's hiring budget by $2 million and invest that funding in community-led alternatives.

And it's vital that we, despite the very disappointing actions on Thursday, I am encouraging, please, all Council Members to vote yes for Council Member Mosqueda's amendment.

Yeah, it's important.

We already know the harmful effects of SPD, and it's vitally important to reinvest in the communities that are most affected and most vulnerable to the damages of the police, the SPD.

Thank you.

Rachel, good morning.

Hi, my name is Rachel.

I'm a resident of District 3 calling in support of the People's Solidarity Budget.

I was disappointed to see the majority of council members vote to hire more police officers next year, despite the community demanding for months to have less of a police presence.

Please listen to everyone calling in who are saying police do not make them feel safe.

What makes people feel safe is having a community that loves and supports them, having a roof over your head and a door that locks, being able to have all your basic needs met so you're not anxious about which bill to pay this month, We need funding to go to address these issues and that funding needs to come from our overly funded police department.

Violent crimes have gone up this year, despite this high funded police department, because police do not prevent violence.

They show up after, or they directly contribute to the violence as seen in conference times in the city.

The people calling in today have been working hard to fill the gaps in care left by our city government.

Thank you.

Melissa, could you unmute yourself along with Julia Buck and BJ Last?

You'll be next.

Melissa, good morning.

Good morning.

I'd like to start out with the thought that the safest communities do not have the most cops.

They have the most resources.

Please do what you can to live into the commitment you made this summer to cut the police budget I would like to know why you did that this summer.

I would like you to be curious about why you committed to that.

Connect back with that moment that you believed in cutting the police budget.

Are you concerned with saving lives or saving money?

Thank you, I yield my time.

Thank you very much.

Julia, good morning.

Julia, it looks like you're still muted.

And then after Julia, the last four people are going to be BJ Last, Maxwell Brook, Montserrat DeCastro, and Coco Weber.

Good morning, Julia.

Good morning.

My name is Julia Buck.

I'm a resident of D6 and a member of 350 Seattle.

I'm calling in to express my disappointment of the lack of adoption of SPD's hiring budget freeze.

last week, but I would encourage the council to please vote yes for Councilmember Mosqueda's amendment.

We do not need more cops in Seattle.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

BJ, good morning.

Hi, BJ.

Hi.

Good morning.

My name is BJ Lass.

I'm a D6 resident and a small business owner.

I support the Solidarity budget and was disappointed in your vote last week to hire more SPD officers.

I support the amendment to transfer $2 million from SPD's hiring budget to community-based public safety.

We shouldn't be hiring more cops while reducing their responsibilities.

It's paying more for less.

I understand that some people are concerned about defunding SPD because they see some of the failings of our current public safety system, but those failings are failings.

There are reasons to defund SPD and build a new public safety system.

Failings in this current system are not reasons to double down on the current failed system and hire more police.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Maxwell.

You are up next.

Hi, Maxwell.

We can see you.

Maxwell Brooke, District 3 activist.

OK, can you hear me?

Yes, thanks.

Maxwell Brooke, District 3 activist with the Owl Every Day I'd like to speak on the hot issue of Seattle Police Department and the 2021 budget and moving forward, going back to something more general.

Let me be clear.

20% is not enough.

The community has made themselves clear, including my protest group, the Seattle Every Day March.

We want, at minimum, a 50% budget reduction.

Why?

Because we know we have people like Sean Fier being victimized by the police, and that's just one name.

The Seattle Police Department are murdering people.

They have too many jobs that do not belong to people with guns.

And as a result, people are dying and will continue to die if we don't do something big and do something now.

I call for, at minimum, a 50% budget reduction to Seattle Police Department.

With that money being used for community projects, it will actually help people to get out from poverty rather than throwing it at people with guns to shoot the problem until it stops.

Because to me, the latter sounds like terrorism.

Funding people who kill people makes you an accomplice to murder.

Thank you.

Then last to our Montserrat de Castro, Coco Weber, and we'll go back to David, see if you're still there.

Hey, Montserrat, good morning.

This is Montree DeCastro of District 7, and I'm calling on the entire City Council to defund SPD by at least 50%, like the majority of you committed to do this summer.

The 17% you're planning to cut feels like a slap in the face when SPD continues to brutalize Seattleites on a daily basis.

Just on November 4th, SPD literally put a protester in serious condition and left their body on the ground for 15 minutes, while the youth forced against concerned citizens who stood by in horror and tried to help.

Andrew Lewis, shame on you for voting for more cops and enabling this behavior.

This morning, please support that $2 million cut from STD salaries, because they don't need those new officers, and give it back to the community programs that will actually help us, your constituents.

And this afternoon, know that 17% is enough.

We demand at least 50, and we'll remember that you ignored us come the next election.

The next person is Coco, and then we're done.

Coco, are you there?

All right, I think that we are done with public comment.

I do not see Coco Weber popping up.

One more second.

Okay.

Thank you very much, everybody, for dialing in today.

That does conclude our public comment.

I want to appreciate everybody for dialing in.

I think we went about five minutes over.

Apologies for that.

Let's go ahead and get into items of business.

We have items one through five.

Madam Clerk, will you please proceed with calling or reading into the record items one through five?

Councilor Mosqueda, I believe central staff is going to be reading each item into the record and then provide that brief remarks on them.

Would you still like me to read each item?

No, that works if it's okay with you, Madam Clerk.

That works.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Um, so Ali, thank you very much.

We see on there.

We appreciate you and all of your, um, team members for all of your hard work.

Thank you so much.

Eso items one through five central stops going to describe each one of them separately.

Um, and then we're going to move each item for individual consideration.

Um, and as a reminder, folks, this is the last vote in committee and then we go to full council.

So this is largely technical changes, items that are just basically clean up here and we're looking forward to working with our central staff to get a better understanding of these and get through this morning's meeting.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Good morning, committee members.

I'm Allie Panucci with your Council Central staff.

We are happy to be here this morning to move you through the final step in the budget process.

As the chair described, there are five council budget actions for the committee's consideration this morning.

In preparation for the final actions you'll take this afternoon to adopt the city's 2021 budget.

The first item on the agenda, FG6B2, sponsored by Chair Mosqueda, would rescind the previous action that adds money to the emergency fund and adopt the amendment to, and included in this, is correcting the transactions line.

So it's just a technical correction to ensure that the way the money is moving out of Finance General and into the emergency fund is correct.

and adds $24,000 to OPCD's budget to fully restore funding for the position that was included in a previous council budget action adopted by this committee that restored funding for positions proposed for a budgetary layoff.

Thank you very much, Ali.

I move approval of CBA FG006B002.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded to approve CBA FG006B002.

Are there any additional comments on this?

Okay.

Thank you very much, Allie, for this work.

I appreciate all of the cleanup you've done here to make sure that this is truly balanced.

Let's do this.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll of approval of CBA FG006B002?

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Scher Mosqueda.

Yes.

9 in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the CBA is approved.

All right, one out of five done.

Let's keep going.

Item number two, please, Allie.

Item two is S.901A3.

This rescinds the previous action to address the $9 million shortfall to the School Safety, Traffic, and Pedestrian Improvement Fund and re-adopts that Addressing that shortfall, the previous version had an error in the transaction lines that needed to be corrected in the budget system.

So again, this amendment is technical in nature and would just re-adopt an action previously approved by this committee.

Thank you very much.

I move approval of CBA SDOT 901A003.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Does anybody have additional comments or questions?

Councilman Peterson, Chair of Transportation, anything else to add?

Seeing none, okay.

Madam Clerk, I think that that is it.

Let's go ahead and call the roll on approval of CBA SDOT 901A-003.

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the CBA is approved.

All right, let's go on to item number three, Alex.

Item number 3, I'll take over for Allie.

This is SPD 025B002 and introduce myself, Greg Doss, central staff and good morning, Madam chair and members of the committee.

This particular item is not a technical item.

This is an item to the.

that would change the funding for SPD's hiring plan.

Shall I go ahead and describe it?

Council Member, Chair Mosqueda, and then also I have some new information that hasn't been discussed during the council budget session that I might add at the chair's pleasure.

Sure.

Thanks so much, Greg.

Okay, so this CBA would reduce $2 million in salary funding for sworn officers and reduce SPD's annual average funded FTE to $1,343.

The CBA assumes that there will be an equal number of hires and separations, 114 hires and 114 separations, in 2021 because recent trends in attrition lead the council to believe that attrition will be higher than was projected in the SPD staffing plan.

As you recall, the SPD staffing plan that was transmitted in October indicated that there would be 114 hires, but there would only be 89 separations.

And so this particular CBA would assume that separations would increase from 89 to 114. And then the cut of $2 million to account for those separations would leave the department with 1343 funded FTE.

The additional information that has come up over the weekend that members have not had the opportunity to hear during the budget process is that in October, there were 16 additional separations from the police department.

With the trends in September and October, that would certainly seem to indicate that SPD's attrition is higher than expected in 2020 and could be higher than expected in 2021. What I would note is that the additional attrition in 2020 is 16 officers and that those 16 officers they won't need to be paid in 2021 because they won't be there.

So because they're not going to be there, that will lower the need for salary for SPD by about $2.3 million and will mean that the SPD will only reach, if their hiring is according to plan, they will only reach $13.41 And so I think it's important to note that this particular action cuts $2 million.

It does not in any way memorialize a hiring plan number that would assume 114 attritions or would assume 114 hires.

It just cuts $2 million in salary funding for the SPD.

As I indicated prior, basically that amount is no longer going to be needed because of the additional attrition in 2020. That said, the executive has provided a response that indicates that they believe that there is a good possibility that they would hire 114 more than 114. And if they hired more than 114, then this funding that would be reduced would be needed for that additional hiring.

I have provided to councilmembers some history about SPD's hiring over the last seven years.

They have not reached 114 In the last seven years and the the highest that I believe they've gone is a hundred and eight another thing that the executive notes that I think is important is that if the funding is taken here that does reduce the executives ability to use overtime to backfill for patrol losses and might mean that they have to transfer into 911 response officers from other units from investigative or specialty units.

And finally, that there would be separation pay that would be needed to be given to additional officers who are leaving and that that amount would not be present in their budget.

So that's a little bit of context for this particular issue.

They do not agree, the executive, with the 114 separation assumption.

They do agree that the separations this year would mean that there would be a need to revise the separation assumption in the 2021 staffing plan.

but that has not happened and cannot happen between now and this afternoon.

But as I know before, the staffing plan is not something that is memorialized in any legislation.

The council only has control over the funding that goes to SPD.

And so with that as context, I would offer to answer any questions that members might have.

Okay, let's put this amendment in front of us.

I move approval of CBA SPD-025B-001.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Excuse me, Councilor Mosqueda.

Yeah.

I believe it's 002. I'm sorry.

SPD-025B-002.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

So thank you very much, Greg, for that.

Just very briefly, I want to reiterate some things that Greg said.

This is a corrective technical amendment in nature.

It's based on the revised SPD attrition rates that we received on Friday.

It is making sure that we are informing our budget here based on the updated attrition numbers and assumptions that we have seen from the experience October numbers.

And this amendment is technical in nature and that it reflects the new assumed rate of attrition.

It is, as Greg says, does not in any way memorialize any sort of hiring commitments and we can always make sure that we address potential need if and when they arrive.

We are simply reflecting that there is no longer going to be seeing the same level of attrition that was anticipated at the very beginning of this budget cycle.

So colleagues, this is an attempt to make sure that our budget is reflective of those numbers that we've received.

Additional comments?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on approval of CBA and PD?

Chair Mosqueda?

Oh, please go ahead, Council Member Peterson.

I'm sorry, I thought there'd be more questions about this.

So may I?

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Greg, for trying to paint the full picture of this.

I heard you say at the beginning, it's not a technical amendment, and I just wanna, I guess that's, I just want to understand the impact of this because if we're hearing, I know last week we had achieved sort of a balance on the funding for SPD and then this is coming in pretty late in the process.

And so I just want to have a better understanding of it because it appears that It's not reflected in the staffing plan.

I know we had relied on that on the staffing plan a bit last week, and whereas SPD is now telling us that they don't agree with this number, they think they maybe could hire more than 114 next year.

Is it true that they also might need the funding for overtime if they were to have to fill in patrol shifts?

It's a question for Greg.

I think the answer to that is yes to all of the things you said.

They believe that they can hire more than 114. And so they would like to retain the funding to leave them the flexibility to do that.

They would like to retain the funding to use it for overtime to backfill patrol losses.

And they would like to retain the funding for separation pay.

I think all those things are true.

It is also true that the staffing plan as it is currently presented to the council in October, they would not reach the funded FTE of 1343. given the newest separations, they would not reach that level unless they were able to hire more.

So those are, I think, all true.

Madam Chair?

Welcome, Interim Director Eder.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

This is all very late-breaking news, as you heard from Greg and from the Budget Chair.

The updated information about Separations in October came to us late on Friday afternoon or even in the evening, I don't recall which, and we've been working to understand and had some back and forth with CBO and the executive generally about the implications of the amendment which you are now discussing.

I think it's important context to understand that the The executive had an opportunity to provide us with feedback that they believed that they could be hiring more than 114 new SPD officers in 2021. They did not avail themselves of that opportunity when we were considering and the council budget committee took action on a separate budget action SPD 009A003, that action cut $6.1 million out of SPD's budget on essentially the same theory that there were more separations than the hiring plan anticipated in 2020, and that SPD, therefore, would not be able to spend $6.1 million on salaries in 2021 for officers who are not with the city any longer.

So I just want to point out that we, while we, Greg is absolutely correct that we have received as recently as early this morning from CBO a response that says that they now believe they can hire more than, at least that it's possible that they could hire more than 114 new officers.

That is not information which we had previously received about another budget action which cut the budget action that you are now considering incorporates.

I provide that context.

Thank you.

This is a question I think for Greg in response to an email that he sent over the weekend, hopefully addressing the concern from Councilmember Peterson about funds to address costs associated with expended overtime.

The email I received says, now that the plan can only reach 1,341 FTEs, the council could expand SPD-009A-3 to include another 2.3 million, very rough estimate, because of the additional attrition in 2020. This could be done irrespective of Chair Mosqueda's new CBA that assumes greater attrition.

Please keep in mind that the additional 2.3 million cut could take away the department's ability to use overtime to backfill for patrol losses and exacerbate the situation where the chief is having to transfer into patrol officers who are working in investigative and specialty units.

So as I understand, Greg, what you wrote is that 2.3 million is still there for that purpose.

I'm having a hard time sort of conceptualizing how we're not double counting with Council Member Mosqueda's amendment, but from my understanding of what you write here, we are not, and there is still that $2.3 million cushion.

Is that correct?

I think that's true if the assumption of Council Member Mosqueda's amendment of 114 separations pans out, then yes, there would be, in addition to the $2 million that is cut by Council Member Mosqueda's amendment, another 2.3 million that is affected by the additional separations that happened in October.

So just as a follow-up.

So one of the reasons why I've been feeling that budget chair Mosqueda's action is not problematic, because it is in keeping with budget actions that we've already taken, which is basically, removing from the budget funds that cannot be spent under the department's hiring plan assumptions.

And that this is in essence doing now what budget, I'm sorry, Council President Gonzalez was saying we would do later with her proviso that basically committed to scooping funds from greater than anticipated attritions in or separations in 2021. We're doing now what we were planning on doing later.

But I think the part that's hanging me up is how I'm counting the 16 additional attritions that we've just learned about over above what was projected for October.

And so if I'm, If I am counting them as part of this budget action, if I'm saying, Chair Mosqueda's assumptions are there will be 25 more attritions than anticipated, but we already have 16 just in October.

So this projection that we're going to have more attrition, yeah, more attritions than anticipated looks, pretty confirmed because we are 16 of 25 already there.

So that means there's only that we only need nine more attritions than anticipated for the for the months of November, December and all of the 12 months of 2021. When I consider that as it relates to this amendment, how do those 16 additional attritions relate to the 2.3 million in the 2020 budget though for, am I double counting them?

That's what I'm trying to figure out here.

So what I would say is this, if the 16 additional attrition, the 16 additional separations in 2020 are annualized in 2021, meaning you don't have to pay those 16 officers in 2021, that reduces the amount of money that the department needs to affect its staffing plan by $2.3 million.

And that happens irrespective of what this amendment does.

This amendment obviously reduces by $2 million, not quite as much as the actual cost alleviation that the department will have because of the 16. So I would say if nothing changes, this amendment takes away money that is actually a little bit less than what the department will have cost savings for the 16 that are not going to be paid in 2021. Separately, over and above, If there are actually 114 attrition in 2021, there will be more money.

There will be $2 million more.

And so if you take those two things together, there's about $4.3 million of savings that the department would have.

Number one, from the 16 that are not going to be paid next year.

And number two, from the greater attrition that would happen.

The council is only taking with this action $2 million.

And so trying not to conflate these two actions, the council is taking $2 million with the assumption of greater separation.

To some extent, the department has already had greater separation and that greater separation will leave about 2.3 million in savings.

So just from a funding perspective, and again, noting that the staffing plan is not adopted, this amendment will not take more money than the department will already be saving because of the 16 more that have left in October.

clear, and I'm going to look to my colleague, Dan, to jump in if there's any context he can provide.

Thank you, Greg.

Nodding head, so that's a good sign.

That makes good sense to me as well.

I have personally been thinking about this as two explanations for how to cover the same roughly $2 million.

It's either the case that you want to count on the separations that happened in October of this year, being annualized in 21, or you want to adjust upwards in 21, the number of separations that the council wants to base its budget upon.

That secondary consideration is a departure, I think, a rational, reasonable response to the actual number of separations that we have seen in 2020, but it is a departure from SPD's staffing plan because it increases from what SPD has otherwise been forecasting the number of separations from 89 to 114. You could think of it as additive, but it would be more conservative, if you will, to think of it as an alternate explanation for how to rationalize cutting about $2 million of additional funds from SPD's budget.

I would also note that SPD has also introduced another potential departure from their staffing plan, as we discussed earlier.

We had heretofore been assuming that 114 was the ceiling for how many new hires could happen in 21. They are now saying that 114 may not be the true ceiling.

They may be able to achieve a higher than that number number of new hires.

If that's the case, then the hiring staffing plan is all up for grabs, if you will.

Thank you.

I do want to lift up the complementary aspects with Council President Gonzalez's earlier amendments.

I know there is a lot of work to be done to capture cost savings from these known vacancies.

I appreciate that has been already discussed and included in the budget.

I appreciate the explanation that there is always the ability to address additional needs if they come up but there is a little bit of a buffer here and there will be an ongoing conversation I know about this issue as we go into next year given the various provisions we put into place so we can get some good

Thank you, a quick quick question, and then I might want to make some.

Comments before we take a final vote here, but want to allow the conversation to continue before before doing so.

Greg and and or Dan can't.

What another?

mechanism that is included in the balanced budget as proposed is, in addition to the $6.1 million reduction to SPD's budget to reflect a modulation, if you will, of their proposed hiring plan, There is also a $5 million proviso based on an expectation that attrition may be higher next year than what is being forecasted by the police department.

Can you explain to me what if any, is the connection between that $5 million proviso and this budget action that's being proposed by Chair Mosqueda?

Yeah, I'll take a shot at that.

I think the most The easiest way to think about them is that they are not related.

The easiest way to think about it is that Chair Mosqueda's amendment assumes 114 additional hires and that that would net savings of $2 million.

And that the 16 that left in October would net another $2.3 million.

Now, talking about the 16 that left in October, that would net 2.3 million in salary savings.

That money would be held by your proviso, Councilmember Gonzalez, and that money would be available to the council to reprogram or to let SPD keep for overtime or for Separation pay or for anything else that might come up.

If it is the case that 114 separations do not occur.

then that money would be available to give back to the police department for any additional costs that they might incur because it would be held by your proviso next year.

The proviso was intended to hold funding from miscalculations with the staffing plan in 2021, but it could certainly grab this $2.3 million from the 16 officers that won't be paid in 2021 because that is salary savings and that is related to the staffing plan.

Greg, just a quick follow-up.

Even if we, if there, so there are these 16 positions, there are potential salary savings already related to that $5 million proviso in 2021. Is it the case that the proviso allows for the council to evaluate those salary savings and either capturing the savings or releasing them back to the department based on real-time operational needs.

Can you just sort of remind us of how restrictive or flexible the $5 million proviso is as it relates to this last-minute issue that the executive is flagging that they may have a need for additional dollars beyond the projected 114 FTEs.

I will, although you've done a pretty good job.

It is designed to be flexible.

It is designed to be evaluated either on a monthly or quarterly basis and adjusted for any real savings that comes from the staffing plan or adjusted a different way if there is no savings coming from the staffing plan.

And so the council would have an opportunity as we move through time next year to take a look at the staffing plan and then adjust that proviso accordingly.

And indeed, if everything went according to the staffing plan, and we reached the end of the year, that proviso would have to be adjusted.

So it has always sort of been a placeholder for the council to be able to hold and potentially ree savings that's coming fr not being able to hire en if it grabs the 2.3 million from the 16 officers that could not be paid next year because they've left this year, then that 2.3 million, the council could reevaluate next year to determine if they need to give it back to SPD for more hiring, if hiring goes in excess of, or it looks like it's gonna go in excess of 114. Hopefully that gets at everything you're asking.

It does, I appreciate that.

And then just really, actually, I'll just end my questions there, but I may wanna make some additional remarks before the role is called, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Council President, we'll make sure to come back to you.

Council Member Peterson, did I see your hand up?

Okay, I did, okay.

And Council Member Juarez, I see you as well.

Council Member Peterson?

Thank you.

Just a quick follow-up.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez, for those questions, because that helps to provide additional context and potential flexibility.

And so I can see the pros and cons of this particular amendment.

I am gonna be voting no on this particular amendment just because it is last minute and still trying to work through the different questions and hearing different things from the executive on it.

Our central staff is doing the best they can to interpret things as quickly as possible.

And so that gray area just gives me trepidation when there's so many changes going on here at once.

I support reinvesting tens of millions of dollars from SPD to other alternatives.

I am hoping that is done also when we revamp the police union contract, like to save money there instead of just reducing the number of officers to save money.

I'd rather save money in sort of how their pay is structured and the overtime, how that's allocated, things like that.

So I really look forward to the contract saving us money instead of just taking money away by lowering the number of officers.

Until we have more information, I understand there's going to be a deeper staffing analysis done early next year.

We'll obviously have a community participatory budgeting process, the mayor's task force on this as well.

So more information in the middle of next year, I think, will be very helpful for me.

So right now, I'll vote no on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Moraes.

Thank you.

I want to follow up on some questions that I had and thank central staff for getting this to us.

And just be just against just straightforward and candid.

So this late amendment in the last 72 hours, this late breaking news that in October, we're going to have 16 additional attritions.

I just want to be clear from what we're hearing and not have a repeat from over the summer where people were taking a pledge without a plan.

Let me ask this just straightforwardly because of the emails that we got and some comments during public comment and honest in our message.

Is this a hiring freeze?

No, this isn't really a hiring freeze.

I would say that This, this is this, this does not impact the department's ability to hire.

I would say that if the department was able to hire more than 114. It would impact their ability to go above their projected numbers.

And so that is something that the council would need to evaluate as to as to what they wanted to do regarding any savings that is available now from the additional attrition.

So, so that's that's important to note, it is not a hiring freeze.

I think also important to notice that the department could use this funding for overtime to pay officers, so they don't have to transfer officers into patrol.

That again is something that the council could take a look at next year as they are working through council member Gonzalez's proviso to adjust or release to the department savings from say the 23 or from the 16 that left in October and that savings gonna be available next year.

Okay, so let me just- No, not a hiring freeze.

Okay, let me just I got two more to follow up.

And again, I, some of this may seem simplistic, but I just don't want people to get the wrong message.

about what we're doing, that we have this information, and then somehow we flip-flopped.

Granted, I'm not happy that it came in late.

I thought we wrapped everything up Thursday.

There's been a lot of messaging back and forth from everywhere about what this means.

So my second question is, if it's not a hiring freeze, and we know that, So is this a statement if we were to vote yes today that the Seattle City Council is voting for no new police officers?

I don't think that that's the case.

Although I do have to note that if the department is in in any kind of trajectory to exceed 114 officers hires that this may need to be re-evaluated um and that that there would potentially be money available from the increased separations to handle that.

Okay and so will we learn more of the impacts of not of of how this affects taking police officers out of particular specialized units and assigning them to patrol?

I'm sorry, say again the question?

Well, we've had this question about that council is control of the funding, but not the staffing.

And Council Member Herbold, please jump in and help me if I'm getting this wrong and Council Member Gonzalez, because you obviously both are subject matter expertises.

What I'm getting at is, the impact of what I'm, it seems like it's kind of backwards.

If you're going to say no more, we're not going to hire, then that puts stress on staffing on the police side of, okay, so if we're not going to be hiring, we're going to be having to use the officers that we have right now.

We're going to have to use them to reassign them to patrol, maybe out of specialty units.

There'll be no overtime.

There's all these other effects that we've been discussing all summer and all fall.

So I'm just wondering, are we going to have more information about that?

Or can you tell me now based on your conversations?

I can tell you on the hiring side, there are funds for the department to achieve its current plan of 114. Okay.

If the department comes early next year and says, we think we can do 130 and here's why, then the council would need to provide more funding for hiring.

And like I said, I did send an email to council members giving you a history of the hiring.

We're in unprecedented times, so they may be able to achieve a greater amount of hires.

It's really hard to say.

But what they have told us prior is that they could do 114, and this does not restrict their ability to do that.

I would say that in terms of using overtime to backfill so that they don't have to use officers from investigative or specialty units, the taking of this money or any money from SPD would reduce their ability to do so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And also noting that additional little cushion you mentioned before as well.

Council President, I don't see any additional hands.

Would you like to make some comments?

I think I just saw Council Member Sawant raise her hand, but I did want to, I think Council Member Juarez's line of questioning was very important.

And on the hiring freeze question, in my conversations with the executive, and I did have an opportunity to directly connect with Mayor Durkan yesterday evening, And I think there is unfortunately a little bit of a perhaps definitional struggle here that there's the question of a hiring freeze, meaning nobody ever gets hired again at SPD, whether it's for backfilling purposes or above and beyond the amount of full-time equivalents that we have budgeted for.

And so I sort of have.

And I hear the concern from the mayor that they are worried that this budget action may limit their ability to backfill for positions that are funded, that have not been abrogated and that are vacated.

And so Greg, I just wanna get an understanding from you and or Dan about whether there is anything in this proposed budget action that prohibits the department from backfilling positions?

In other words, if the positions are funded, if the position has not been abrogated, and it suddenly becomes vacant, does the department still have the ability to fill hire for that position?

I think the answer to that is yes, they do.

It's just a matter of when you say hire, you mean hire new officers or use overtime to backfill?

I mean, replace the body with.

So so in terms of overtime for backfill, replacing the body in the short term, It's entirely dependent on how much funding they have for overtime.

If this funding is removed, they would have less funding for overtime to do this, to backfill for the bodies in patrol.

And they may be forced into a situation where they have to put officers into patrol to backfill.

But I think it's the case that so long as they have the position authority, it doesn't matter if an individual leaves the force.

They have the authority to hire another individual.

Of course, it takes time to get through the academy and all of the training.

It takes a lot of time to get someone into a fully trained sworn officer position, but they have the authority to do so.

Isn't that correct, Greg?

Yeah, I think we have handled both aspects of Councilmember Gonzalez's or Council President Gonzalez's questions.

I could just add to, I think just being really on the nose about it, the budget action itself says that it assumes that there will be an equal number of hires and separations, 114 apiece.

So that is sort of the assumption in that amendment.

As has been discussed today, there are a number of different ways where you could talk about how the department may achieve savings due to current attrition rates, future attrition rates, how successful they are at hiring.

I think the decision today is how much to authorize them to spend in 2021 right now, knowing that the situation may change and you may want to change that authorization in the future, depending on circumstances and that could include capturing some of the savings that would be achieved through Council President Gonzalez's proviso on $5 million, capturing savings through another proviso, if there were out of order.

I mean, there are a lot of different ways this money is about, or excuse me, this action is changing how much the department is authorized to spend at the beginning of the year and may need to be reconsidered in the future.

Thank you all.

I appreciate that.

And then there's sort of the question of, well, if we wanted to hire more than 114, we wouldn't be able to hire more than 114. And to me, that's just, that would be true no matter what we set the number at.

Right, like our job is to get is to in the context of the full revenue of the city, provide us X number of dollars to that's all discretionary funding.

And and they might be able to hire 114 officers.

It could be the case that they wanted to hire 50 next year, and they think that they might be able to do 60. But that doesn't mean sort of the fact that we're funding them for a total number of positions is certainly, I think, can be characterized as a cap, meaning a maximum.

But that's different than saying, we are then characterizing that total appropriation as a hiring freeze.

Is that fair?

Yeah, I think that's fundamentally fair.

That goes back to the comments that I made at the start of the presentation, which is that the council doesn't appropriate a staffing plan and the council doesn't appropriate positions.

Not positions, I'm sorry.

Well, it doesn't appropriate a staffing plan, either separations or hires.

What it appropriates is a dollar amount that is based on what SPD thinks it can do.

in terms of hires and what SPD thinks will happen in terms of separations.

And we had heard from SPD that at the point of time of the budget that they thought that they could only hire 114. And so that is all the mayor funded in her proposed budget was the hiring of 114. So the council is not taking any action that is inconsistent with the proposed budget on the hiring side.

I think it is true that if this recent information from the council or from the executive that they could hire more, that's something that is not contemplated in the proposed budget.

And that's something that the council would have had to take action on next year.

So I think that it is the case that the council should think about not a hiring plan, but does SPD have enough money to do what it is projecting to do under the proposed budget under hiring side?

It is the same as what the council would be adopting with this amendment.

It would not change the funding available for 114.

Got it.

So to sort of summarize that, Mayor Durkan's proposed 2021 budget included funding for 114 new hires at the Seattle Police Department.

The budget we are considering now does not restrict the mayor from pursuing on behalf of SPD that staffing plan of 114 new hires.

What this action does, however, is it modifies the projected amount of attrition that we believe will actually occur in 2021, which is different than what SPD has estimated in a point-in-time proposal in its 2021 proposed budget, meaning that we estimate that there will actually be 114 um, separations in 2021 as opposed to the 89 separations that SPD has forecasted would occur in 2021. And so we're front loading potential savings as a result of, of that modulated estimate is, is my understanding of sort of that essential, uh, is my, is my understanding accurate?

Yes, 100%.

Okay, and so again, we're not touching at all the hiring side of the equation.

We're simply saying we think based on all of the data we now have through the end of October related to separations, that it is reasonable for the council to modify the number of forecasted separations for 2021. and to do that now in order to capture those savings and prioritize those dollars for community safety projects.

That's my understanding of what this amendment does.

Thank you very much.

I believe I saw Council Member Sawant and then if I saw another hand, just remind me, Council Member Herbold.

I'm sorry, sorry, Council Member Mosqueda.

I need just one more second.

No problem.

Yeah, no problem.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to go ahead?

Sure, so I just want to also highlight some information that we've received from the budget office and for folks who haven't had a chance to see it, I want to also give Greg a chance to respond.

I do want to say, though, the fact that we are anticipating 114 attritions, Seems a little cute to me, to be honest, given that...

The number in the staffing plan for the number of hires is 114. And it just feels like it is an attempt to respond to the call for no new net officers.

And it confuses the situation, I think.

And I really appreciate Council President Gonzalez's line of questioning to be very clear what it is that we are actually doing.

We are not doing a hiring freeze.

We are not taking a budget action that will in itself result in no net officers.

But to the point I want to just make as it relates to the sort of next iteration of what we should expect, not on the attrition side, but on the hire side.

We were notified by the executive over the weekend that they have a large number of pre-approved hires that are ready to move into the academy next year.

Apparently the forecast for January is 11, February is 12. And for 14 is, I'm sorry, for March is 11. And then after that, the forecast assumes seven per month.

And this was provided as information from the executive arguing that they think that they can hire more than 114 in 2021, despite the fact that over seven years that Greg provided, they've never been able to hire more than 108. And so two questions, Greg.

One, can you just talk a little bit about about why the staffing plan isn't only a function of dollars, that there are other, the projections of how many people can be hired isn't just about funds that the council provides, it's about some, you know, past year's information about applications, eligibility, spots in the academy, people who graduate, who finish training, et cetera.

And then secondly, can you let us know whether or not those numbers that I just mentioned for the pre-approved hires are included in the 114 hire projection that SPD previously provided?

Thanks, yeah, thanks to your second question.

1st.

The numbers that you just read are numbers from their October staffing plan and those are numbers that that are part of the 114. If there are additional folks waiting in the wings, I have not been notified that there are additional folks waiting in the wings beyond that, at least not formally.

And to my knowledge at this point in time, the numbers that you read are what we know about.

Yes, there to your second or to your first question, there are lots of limitations on SPD's ability to hire new officers.

There is, there is a backgrounding process that is extensive.

And the department has to, with any number of new recruits coming in, spend a lot of time backgrounding officers before they can be hired.

There are oral boards that they need to get through.

And so those are time constraints on the department because officers are our detectives are needed checks and are needed for so, uh, there's some res There is a limitation on the number of folks that can go to the academy.

Right now, Seattle has a contract that allows for seven per month.

If there are additional spots available in the academy because other agencies are not sending their share, then it's a potential that SPD could send more.

I believe that with the additional folks that they have coming in in the first quarter, the 11, 12, and 11 that you mentioned, They are hoping to do a Seattle only Academy, and they are working with the Criminal Justice Training Commission to do that.

That's not something that I know anything more than what I just said, but I guess I'm giving you a lot of information to say, yes, there are other limitations for their ability to hire.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold for that as well.

Council Member Sawant, I believe you're next.

And then I think we're ready to wrap it up here.

I don't see any additional hands.

Thank you.

I had two final comments on this amendment.

I don't have questions.

So if Council Members have questions, I should come after that.

Okay.

I don't see any additional questions, Council Member Sawant.

Okay.

Thank you.

As the council member who brought the amendments for a 50% defund of the police and the $9 million reduction in the police budget for no new cops, I am, of course, needless to say, voting yes on this budget amendment to cut $2 million from the bloated police budget to instead put those funds in community led safety initiatives.

I think $2 million for community programs and for the needs of marginalized people in our city is extremely important.

Obviously, this is not the 50% defund, which was a key demand of the justice for George Floyd movement nationwide.

That would require the city Council at this point, given all the changes to reduce the police budget by $150 million.

And when I moved that budget amendment for a vote last week, no other council member would even second the motion.

And this $2 million is not even the SPD officer hiring freeze.

that thousands of community members wrote to the city council to demand over the last two weeks.

That would require cutting 9.05 million dollars from the police budget and when I moved that proposal last Thursday only council member Morales joined me in voting yes.

But as I mentioned last week, every reduction in the bloated police budget reflects a real tangible victory for the movement that is actually very rare.

Police spending is almost never reduced under capitalism and this year it has happened in small ways several times and it is entirely because of the strength of the Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle, with tens of thousands of ordinary people joining in multiracial unity against police violence and repression.

And additionally, in Seattle, it has been because of the movement having its own unwavering and consistent voice through my Socialist Council office and through the People's Budget Movement, which has stood steadfast with the Solidarity Budget on the police-related demands.

First, the mayor proposed reducing the police budget by $18.4 million in real terms, not including the accounting tricks that do not make any substantive change.

Then last week the city council reduced the police budget by a further $10.7 million.

Finally, because of the outrage and disappointment late last week over the refusal of most of the Democrats to support even the SPD hiring freeze amendment from my office, which would have cut $9 million, there is now an additional $2 million being redirected to community needs from repressive policing.

Including this amendment, this budget will have a total of $31.1 million cut from the police budget.

In other words, 8.2% of the police budget.

Some community organizers and also the democratic council members have used the figure of 17% or nearly 20%.

as the reductions in police budget.

But we have to note that figure includes things like transferring parking enforcement costs out of the police budget, which is not any substantive change in practice of policing.

So I think 8.2% is the most accurate measure of what has been achieved.

And that 8.2% reduction in the police budget is a real achievement of the movement.

And we need to celebrate that while we also have to continue to fight for what is needed, which is defunding the police by 50% because it is public revenues going to repressive policing, and instead putting those funds to community programs for affordable housing, for social services, which is something that we have broad agreement on in Seattle, and for an elected community oversight board with real powers over the police, which is another thing not a single Democrat on the council was willing to support my office and the people's budget on.

Not only will all of that reduce repressive policing, but it will also allow expansion of the community programs and statistics will tell you have a far greater impact even on reducing crime.

Our movement should not be naive and believe that this budget amendment for $2 million came this morning because the police just coincidentally happened over the last weekend to change the forecast of how many officers will quit or hire next year or because new data about attrition has been acquired.

And even though there may, in real terms, be new data on attrition, our movement has to be clear that these are all still based on assumptions about SPD staffing in 2021. And fundamentally, we need to understand that some new newly unearthed data is simply not the reason for this $2 million reduction in police budget.

Only reason this is happening today is because my office brought in every demand from the movement from 50%.

to a $9 million new new cops.

Democrats opposed every such proposal except for one council member supporting the $9 million proposal.

And because of that, there has been justifiable anger and disgust at the establishment over the weekend from thousands of ordinary people who have been committed to Black Lives Matter.

And this anger is what has meant that the Democratic council members needed to save face with the movement over betraying their promises to defund and even refusing to support No New Cops.

And the hope on the Democrats' part is that this additional $2 million will placate the movement.

My message to the movement is we absolutely should celebrate winning this $2 million and understand that it was because of our mobilizing and organizing that we are winning anything.

but also refuse to be placated until we win the demands that we have been calling for this year and continue the fight into next year and combine the fight for the end to police violence and for police accountability to the need to cancel rent and mortgage and utility payments in COVID for massive COVID relief and for a guaranteed jobs program with a Green New Deal.

Thank you.

Okay, Council President Gonzalez is next.

And I do wanna also note that quite literally the data did come on Friday.

So that's important for us to make sure that we are reflecting that data.

Council President Gonzalez.

No problem.

Work from home.

Yeah, it's the realities of working from home.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda for an opportunity to make some closing remarks.

You know, I have struggled with this amendment all weekend and have, you know, worked hard to get as much information as I possibly can from both the sponsor, but also from Council Central staff and also from engagement directly with Mayor Durkin and with her senior staff as well.

Ultimately, I am going to support this particular proposal, but I do want to explain why I'm supporting this proposal.

I also want to acknowledge that I am disappointed that this proposal was made in the 11th hour and that it was given to us after there was an indication that no additional substantive policy amendments would be suggested.

I want to dissuade us from engaging in this behavior in the future.

I think we are better served in our constituents are better served when we can have meaningful policy conversations during the allocated process to have strong debate around these really important policy issues.

I personally have had enough, I've personally dedicated a significant amount of time over the weekend to really dig into this to make sure that I understand what their proposal is and what the impact is, but that doesn't mitigate my concerns around how this proposal came to be.

And so I just wanna express my concerns related to that particular aspect.

This proposal, in my mind, captures the savings that we expect to be achieved from a revised SPD staffing plan in 2021. This revised staffing model anticipates about 114 officers leaving the Seattle Police Department in 2021 coupled with the plan to hire 114 new recruits.

But this plan is just a forecast.

It is constantly evolving, and reality often departs from these predictions.

Nonetheless, based on current trends, I fully suspect that this update to the forecast is likely fair and appropriate.

I believe it will bear out that in 2021, departures from the force will continue at an increased rate above what was forecasted by SPD in this proposed budget.

As a result, we will need to revisit my $5 million proviso that is included in this budget in 2021 to determine whether or not it would be more appropriate based on real-time information to provide those dollars back to SPD or to continue to capture those labor savings for community investments.

I view this amendment as transactional in nature, similar to other budget actions I sponsored to redirect savings from SPD staffing plan towards building an alternative community safety system that truly ensures all Seattleites' safety will be protected.

Like my previously adopted budget proposals, this council budget action would capture and reinvest the anticipated savings from SPD's 2021 staffing plan.

While this revised staffing plan anticipates a net zero change to the size of the force with 114 departures and 114 hires, it does not restrict SPD's ability and authority to bring in the new recruits they anticipate hiring next year.

That number is 114, as proposed by the mayor.

Today, this morning, is the first time we've heard that the mayor and SPD believe that they may be able to hire more than 114 new recruits.

However, her budget did not propose 114, more than 114 new hires to begin with.

So to be clear, this is not a hiring freeze.

If the executive wants to hire beyond their current plan, even as proposed by her in the 2021 proposed budget, she will need to come to this council and explain and justify that position to the city council.

A lot has been made about a majority of the Council voting against a proposed hiring freeze last week.

And I want to share how and why I believe we are still on a course to right size the force without adopting a hiring freeze strategy.

To start here in Seattle, we are still meaningfully advancing this work sparked in cities across the country in response to the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests stemming from the murder of George Floyd.

Many cities have discussed divesting from punitive law enforcement and carceral systems, and many of these efforts have collapsed under the weight of that effort.

These institutions have created, by design, roadblocks, barriers, and hurdles to any efforts to reform or dismantle the problems with policing we can all see that creates harm and trauma in BIPOC communities.

Cities and communities across the nation have been sidelined and stymied by the defenses built into the institution of policing.

We, here in Seattle, are one of the few cities in America that is still in active pursuit of reforming our public safety model, achieving divestment from our militarized police department, and reinvesting those dollars in BIPOC communities and a civilian-led public safety system.

As I articulated last Thursday, my concerns about a proposed hiring freeze are related to the fact that sworn officer departures are widely outpacing both projected departures and the actual hiring figures we've witnessed in recent years.

New data shared with the council on Friday reinforces how this trend is accelerating for the second month in a row, where separations are, again, way above projections, with 23 actual departures versus the seven departures that SPD forecasted.

Indeed, in the first 10 months of 2020, SPD forecasted 80 departures, but we've seen 134 departures to date.

This is an increase of 54 separations above SPD's forecast, and there are still two months left in this year.

I am and remain concerned that any kind of hiring freeze would result in an unsustainable reduction of the force that would prevent the city from responding to critical public safety needs before alternative systems are in place.

The unfortunate reality is that undoing the systems, even though they are rooted in deeply oppressive origins, cannot be achieved overnight.

And we need the time and runway to drastically expand alternative emergency response systems that can adequately protect the life and safety of those that currently rely on those public safety systems as a response to the crisis that they may currently be witnessing or experiencing.

So I believe that we have much work left to do, that this is the beginning.

And again, I view this proposal as consistent with the council budget actions that I have sponsored that are part of this rebalancing of this rebalanced package, namely the $6.1 million reduction to the staffing plan.

Given the additional information we just received related to departures and hires in October, I think it's reasonable at this point to bake those into this particular proposal.

But again, colleagues, I want to remind us that that $5 million proviso that is included here may not produce the savings that we had intended if the attrition numbers continue in the direction that they are trending.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Madam President.

Is there anybody else who would like to make any comments?

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you, everyone.

I appreciate this discussion and do want to say that I think the amendment acknowledges that we should be decreasing funding for the number of sworn officers next year.

You know, as Greg mentioned, we appropriate a dollar amount for the department.

We don't get to decide staffing.

I want to make clear that I fully understand that.

And the questions, these kinds of questions have been on the table all summer because we are concerned at how the staffing plan is put together.

and what it means for how our neighbors are impacted.

And I think the fact that just this morning we got yet another version of what the staffing plan may be is an indication that we need to stay on top of how these how these plans are created.

According to SPD's own data, they spend 97% of their time responding to 911 calls, but over half of those calls are for non-criminal events.

In fact, of priority one calls SPD responded to in 2019, only about 11% were for criminal events.

2% for assault, 4% for trespassing, 3% for shoplifting.

another 2% for some other kind of theft.

These are the kinds of things that are considered criminal that they're responding to.

And this analysis is provided by SPD.

And so it begs the question for me, why are we moving so many officers off of their assignments in detective units, for example, where they might be doing important investigative work into patrol and 911 response and protest suppression?

But for me, the real question is, when will we as a society reject the premise that more officers equals more safety?

We can debate staffing models and training reforms and weapon selection, but the truth of the matter is that there is no technocratic fix to aggressive policing.

Instead of investing in new police staffing, we need to use our precious government resources to reduce inequality.

That's what leads to the kind of community conditions that are troubling society.

That's the kind of thing that causes people to call 911. And resources for 25 net new officers should go instead to improving those community conditions.

I want to just end by quoting Alex Vidal's book, End of Policing.

I've been reading a lot lately, I will admit.

The current system subsidizes inequality and criminalizes those it leaves behind, especially when they demand something better.

Yes, communities deserve protection from crime and even from disorder.

We must always demand those without reliance on the coercion, violence, and humiliation that undergird our criminal justice system.

I'm going to support this amendment.

And I want to say that we have a lot more work to do.

I'm committed to doing that work in collaboration with my colleagues and with the stakeholders who have been pushing us to deliver on the commitments that we made.

And I look forward to continuing this work with all of you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Morales.

Okay, folks, I want to, Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Just partially in response to some of the comments that have come before, I want to just say a couple more things here.

Sorry.

So not only is this not a hiring freeze because the projections that we're looking at include hiring, right?

There's also been a call for this concept of no new net hires as distinct from the hiring freeze.

Hiring freeze, in my mind, means we would not recruit, take applications, send people to the academy, have them go through training.

This budget assumes that there is going to be hiring happening, but I don't think it is either a budget action that in itself will result in no new net hires, as some have called for.

Instead, it is a budget action that reflects the reality that given the police department staffing plan, it would not likely be possible for SPD to make new hires in 2021. So the budget action is based on, is an adjustment based on the staffing plan given the most recent numbers for attrition.

From central staff, the quote in the description of this amendment is that the staffing plan can no longer reach a total of 1,357 full-time equivalents.

And we're using the term, I think, staffing plan a little bit interchangeably with how it's been traditionally used.

I first want to say this council has embraced the understanding that more officers do not equal more safety.

Our staffing plan is based on not on a number of high officers that we have done a workload analysis to determine how much work we want SPD officers to be doing and how many hours it takes to do.

Our staffing plan right now is merely based on the number of hires SPD believes it can do next year, which is a significant reduction.

from the previous year's staffing plan.

So the previous year's staffing plan was based not just on hiring to fill for attritions, but it was based on this concept of growing the size of the police department.

We are not on that trajectory anymore.

And we haven't done the analysis necessary for what, over my years of working at the city council, to determine what our staffing plan should be.

And the staffing plan, as it should be, is not based on the number of officers that it is possible to hire.

It's based on the number of officers that we want to hire.

And we cannot do that work.

without new inputs for the workload of officers.

And those new inputs for the workload of officers, if we want that to look differently, if we want that to be a smaller number of officers, it has to be based on officers doing less work.

And officers aren't going to be doing less work unless we have other people doing that work.

And so I think that that is an exercise that we need to engage in next year so that we can build off of what we've done this year.

But again, our ability to do so is really linked to our ability to both not only find the dollars from the SPD budget and other budget adjustments we make to support these new public safety response systems, but that those systems have to not only be contracted to do the work, but they actually have to be supported by the city in creating that new infrastructure to replace some of the work that police are doing.

And then we have to do an analysis of how many numbers of hours of what is traditionally police department work these new response efforts are doing.

And we haven't done that yet.

And so I just really want to emphasize that that is work to be done, but we have laid a foundation to do it with this budget.

And then lastly, and I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but I know that we've talked a lot and not enough about the harm that many, many people have experienced at the hands of police for centuries across the nation and here in Seattle.

And our work to shift the public safety response away from the police is to begin to address our nation's shame in that history of policing.

Harm at the hands of police has been most experienced by black men, women, and children.

But I just want to share a little bit with the listening public in response to some of the testimony that I've heard today and in the past that police don't stop crime, they only arrive after.

Last Monday in my district in South Park, police officers responded to an assault between people who live unsheltered, live in their RVs in South Park.

The victim had kerosene poured on him and the suspect tried to stab that victim with a large fixed blade knife.

Officers arrived at the scene and took the suspect into custody.

And that is one example.

I heard another a couple weeks ago about in Pioneer Square, police arrived at a time when a woman was being assaulted and interrupted the assault.

And I wanna say that police do stop crime, but they also have have done a lot of harm to our communities.

And we are trying to wrestle with, I think, something that is in some ways a calculation that we can't make on paper.

How do we shift an investment in a system that has done harm but that has also stopped crime.

And how do you make that calculation within the context of this criminal justice reckoning that we're in the midst of?

And I think to that, I say, we just have to commit to doing the work and continuing to do the work.

We are not at the end, we are at the beginning.

And our goal is not, I don't think it's about what the gold number of police officers is in this moment.

It's about, again, it's about shifting our vision of what public safety is into the hands of community-based responses.

in those instances where those kinds of responses not only reduce harm, but can deliver community safety in a way that police officers sometimes cannot.

And so I just wanted to share that example of something that happened in South Park last Monday.

And again, it's a hard thing to, to weigh this question of help in some instances and harm in others, but that I am committed to continuing to weighing those realities as well as the investments and policy changes within that matrix.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I think that this is a small but important part of that much larger conversation, colleagues, that you've been engaged in over the last six to eight months.

So we know that this conversation continues.

I wanted to just wrap this up and get us to a vote and also recognize the lateness of the amendment.

I do hope that folks know as soon as we were able to get the data, we worked with central staff to make sure that this was available as soon as possible.

I know that There's a lot of folks who spent a lot of time over the weekend on this so thanks to all my colleagues for your deliberative questions today and the process that you put into place to analyze the amendment in front of us and a special thanks to my staff and to central staff for helping to make sure that we had all the information available to reflect in our budget.

If we hadn't reflected this, it would be out of alignment with what we've really tried to accomplish through many of the council members' existing proposals, especially Council President Gonzalez's, and extending those statements into the budget to make sure that we were reflecting all of the known vacancies so that we could really continue to invest in community-led solutions.

Council Member Juarez, did you have something else before we go to a vote?

Yes, I'm going to be very, very brief.

I first want to thank you, Madam Chair, for Well, at first it was annoying, but the last 72 hours and trying to get up to speed.

But thank you, central staff for the late night memos.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold and Councilor Gonzalez for helping me out and filling in a lot of information.

But I want to end on a kind of a different note.

I'm going to put on the elder hat here for just a moment.

And I think I want to say this and hopefully this is we can start healing and moving forward in the city as we are in this country.

Oh no, Councilmember Juarez, can you start again?

We lost you just as you were about to start.

Oh, I'm set.

Did you hear me say that I'm turning into the auntie here?

Yes.

Okay.

I just want to say this because I was going through my notes last night from June up until now and everything that we've dealt with.

And I think we've all grown a lot as a city to understand how we reimagine the police force, but also make sure that we have public safety in place.

And what I was saying is, again, Black Lives Matter is powerful and profound, and it's not a slogan.

And it does speak to the truth and the history and our lack of humanity, not only to African Americans, but people of color.

And I just want to say to those folks out there that when you stand up and do your territorial pledge to the indigenous people, that it isn't just words.

It's actions.

It's how you behave.

It's how you respect people.

It's how you see the humanity in other people.

And when you say, I want to acknowledge that I'm on indigenous land, that means that you behave as a guest and you listen.

And I want to say this, and I'm going to kind of follow the footsteps of Councilor Herbold when she said I may take some slack for this.

And I'm beyond taking slack for it because I've gotten other stuff as well.

Defund the police by 50% was a slogan.

And it was an empty and misleading slogan.

It caused damage, it caused pain, it caused trauma, it caused anger.

But I understand the aspirational, emotional feeling of why some of my colleagues felt the need to do that.

And I've done that before.

And so I'm saying, moving forward, can we start using the words about how we change, not how we fight?

Can we start using the language that we see each other, that it isn't about calling out people, about saving face?

Can we start to see the humanity in each other, in our city, in our country, and start healing?

So when we talk about the police, It is about redirecting funds.

And I wanna thank all of you, in particular you, Council Member Mosqueda, which you and I have talked about offline.

And I believe Council Member Herbold brought this up this morning, and Council Member Gonzalez, that we have reduced, I believe, about 20% of the police budget in under six months.

And I don't think any other city has done that.

And so we should step back for a moment and say, okay, We've done that, now how do we go forward?

And I like what Council Member Gonzales said.

When you undo these type of racist institutions, take it from me that's been around for a long time, it doesn't happen overnight.

It doesn't happen because you have a chant in a t-shirt.

It's being in the trenches and some of us have been there a long time in the trenches, moving forward, marching towards a plan to do right by everybody.

So when Council Member Gonzalez talked about we need to address the systemic layers of institutional racism, the barriers, the processes and everything that has kept us from having the kind of community policing that we need for equity.

That's what our charge is right now going forward.

So when we talk about dismantling, we have to dismantle and replace with process and procedures.

that promote equity in humanity and a recognition that true community safety belongs to all of us.

The us and them has got to stop.

We know that a lot of the hard work that's in front of us is still in front of us.

And a lot of those changes have to be bargained.

I don't want another lecture.

about white privilege, about BIPOC, about centering.

I'm tired of those slogans.

What I really want is the city council to listen, and we have been, to community, but also listen to the whole city about how we make our city safer, how we have a police department that reflects our values, our humanity, without tearing each other down.

And in my lifetime, I've seen those institutional changes that have happened.

and I know I'm gonna stop my lecture in just a moment.

I just wanna tell people that this entitlement of, I want it now, that's not how the world works.

The privilege or the entitlement of, or a privilege of entitlement, that's what I call it, the privilege of entitlement.

We are going to slowly and systematically as much as we can, redirect funds from the Seattle Police Department to upstream programs to meet the needs of what a police department we believe should look like within the confines of the consent decree, our bargaining responsibilities, and everything else.

So when you hear people say and scream at you that you're not doing enough, we are doing.

And we're going to continue doing.

And we're going to continue working with the executive.

And I'm going to continue working with the communities.

I'm going to continue listening and working with my colleagues.

And I don't want to be the one.

I don't want to call my colleagues out.

I don't want to call them names.

I don't want to shame them.

I don't want to humiliate them.

I want to work with them.

And so I want to thank you all for all the hard work and for letting me have this moment to share my thoughts.

Thank you.

Council members, I appreciate all the comments folks have made.

I am going to call the question though.

We will have a chance to talk about this later today.

I know this is part of the macro questions that we are all stepping back to analyze here.

I know I'm getting messages from our essential staff that we need to move forward to get through this so that we can get to our 2 p.m.

meeting.

I want to just say thank you for all of the comments.

There will be more discussion this afternoon.

My staff has spent a lot of time working with each of your offices to make sure that we are including as much as we possibly can in this budget to right historic wrongs and to make investment in historic ways that have never been done, to recognize that there is a lot of harm that needs to be undone.

I appreciate that folks are considering this amendment, I thank you for doing that.

I know again that this new data was important for me to reflect because I thought that it was helpful to make sure that we didn't show that imbalance when we knew that the data on attrition was going to actually show that there was not going to be the same level of attrition as we anticipated.

And to make sure that that was reflected was really important to me that we had an accurate document to reflect where we are at in this really historic time.

So thank you for your consideration of this amendment to make sure that we are accurately reflecting what that latest attrition number is.

And we have a lot more work to do, as folks have said, but let's vote on this amendment.

It's been moved and seconded to vote on Council Budget Action SBD 025B002.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

No.

Salant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

This clerk files where all of the city council changes to the 2021 plus budget will be memorialized as well as changes to the 2021 to 2026 proposed capital improvement.

Chair, you're here.

Okay, here we go.

Let's try that again.

Thank you, Allie.

I move approval of council budget action BLG039A002.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any additional comments or questions?

All right, I'm hearing none.

Council members, thank you so much for your consideration of this.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the approval of BLG039A002?

Morales.

Yes.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Schramm-Mosqueda.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the CBA is approved.

We are on our final item, Allie.

Let's go on to item number five, please.

Item five, the final council budget action, BLG 36A1.

This amends and passes as amended Council Bill 11993, the 2021 budget ordinance.

This is it.

Thank you so much.

I move approval of Council Budget Action BLG 036A001.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve BLG 036A001.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Swatt, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I am absolutely thrilled for all the victories that the movement has achieved, the People's Budget Movement especially, and also the progress that has been made on the question of the bloated police budget.

I am going to be voting no on this budget because fundamentally it is a deeply austerity budget with almost $200 million in cuts from various needs of the community from housing to services.

But I will be reserving my full comments for the city council vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Swan.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

I will just make one comment.

As we've talked about before, I fundamentally disagree with that analysis, but we will have that conversation later.

Thank you for the heads up.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on Council Budget Action, BLG 036-A-001.

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

No.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yeah.

Chair Mosqueda.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

All right, the motion carries and the council budget action is approved.

Allie, is there anything else on your list for things that we need to discuss this morning?

I have nothing else on my list.

Okay.

I'm going to save my long list of thank yous for this afternoon.

Lord, thank you.

You're welcome, Council Member Juarez.

And with that, Council President Gonzalez, our meeting starts at 2 p.m.

today, is that correct?

Great.

We will start promptly at 2 p.m.

and we will have at least 20 minutes of public comment.

Okay, sounds good.

Colleagues, we have reached the end of our Select Budget Committee agenda, not just for today, but for this year as it relates to the 2021 budget deliberations and quarter three deliberations.

Appreciate all the work you've done.

Let's carry this over until the afternoon.

If there's no further comments or questions, we will be adjourned.

Hearing no additional further comments or questions, we are adjourned, and thank you very much for this robust dialogue.

We'll see you at two.