Housing and Human Services Committee 2/26/25

All right, good morning everyone.

The time is 9.33 in the February 26th meeting of the Housing and Human Services Committee will now come to order.

I'm Kathy Moore, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Council Member Saka?

Here.

Vice Chair Sullivan?

Chair Moore.

Present.

For present.

All right, and just for the record reflects that Council Member Solomon is excused from today's hearing.

I believe Council Member Rivera will be joining us at some point during this proceeding today.

All right, so thank you everyone for being here today for the February 26 meeting, the Housing and Human Services Committee.

On today's agenda, first we have four appointments to the Seattle Human Rights Commission, then we will have five appointments to the LGBTQ Commission, and after that we have three appointments to the Disability Commission.

Agenda Item 13 is an extension of the sunset date for the MFTE Program 6, moving the deadline from March 31, 2025 to September 10, 2025 for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Finally, our last agenda item is an update from HSD regarding the results of their homelessness outreach, RFQ, for briefing and discussion only.

If there are no questions about today's agenda, we will move into public comment.

And I am not seeing any questions, so we'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or be within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have four in-person speakers signed up and there are zero remote speakers.

Okay, so each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with our in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called on in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Okay, so we'll call the first speaker, please.

Yep, the first speaker is Andrea Suarez followed by Patrick Burnite.

One moment, let me make sure.

Wait till we get the clock up and running.

There we go.

Okay, ready.

Okay, good morning, Council.

My name is Andrea Suarez, the founder of We Heart Seattle.

We're going into our fifth year.

We are a private-funded boots-on-the-ground outreach organization that provides waste management in active encampments as a form of harm reduction for the community and those actively using drugs.

Can you hear me?

I don't think the microphone's on.

There we go.

Restart or?

Yeah, let's start over.

Okay, hello, good morning.

My name is Andrea Suarez, the founder of WeHeart Seattle.

We are going into our fifth year as a private funded organization that provides waste management as a form of harm reduction for the community and active drug users.

We are here today because on your agenda is an announcement for the results of the homeless outreach RFQ, which we did apply for, and we scored a 65 out of 100. We've removed two million pounds of trash, reversed dozens of overdoses, sent dozens of people to detox and gotten them into long-term recovery housing, including removing 50,000 needles and 2 million pounds of trash.

So we have some work to do in filling out a grant.

Now, we did write an appeal to the grant before we know how we scored.

So I'd ask the council to look at reforming how that grant process rolls out.

We were forced to write an appeal before we knew how we scored.

So by the time we ended up having a conversation, the ship had sailed and the nine finalists were already selected.

We have applied for another grant.

It's due tomorrow, and it's for how to reduce harm for drug users.

And this pot of money...

historically came from the Opioid Prescription Task Force in 2017 when Brad Feingood and his team wanted to move towards safe consumption and safe supply.

When that got shut down, money is available, and that's the pot of money that WeHeart Seattle is applying for.

Again, that RFP is due tomorrow.

and city council and the mayor's office make that final approval.

I would ask that we have a chance to be heard at length who we are and how we differentiate ourselves as an organization that reduces harm by providing access to treatment and recovery housing.

We've utilized a $300,000 slush fund and have made three referrals to Lakeside Milam, and we're really proud of that as a key and vital organization in helping reduce drug overdose deaths.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Patrick Burnite, followed by Tim Emerson.

Hi, my name is Patrick Burnett.

I'm a case manager with WeHeart Seattle.

I'm going to piggyback on what Andrea Suarez says is, we are able to reduce harm by actively going into camps every single day.

I work with people that are struggling, that are just staying inside these camps, and they have no options.

I mean, we do some things as simple as bringing them ourselves physically to go get an ID, sitting at the DMV or the Department of Licensing.

We take them to Social Security.

We open all the doors that have been closed to them for so long.

And that's part of our harm reduction model too.

If someone that just believes in you and trusts you, you earn their trust by doing that.

Another form of harm reduction that we also do is by listening to people.

People will sit down, and I'll just sit and have coffee with them, learn their story, find out what's been going on in their lives, and trying to reconnect them to family or a sense of hope.

Sometimes people just need hope or someone to just talk to them.

We'll sit out in the rain.

We'll sit by their tent.

When you build that trust, I have a group of guys that are working with us currently that come out to every one of our litter picks.

They're still technically homeless.

They're living in sanctioned camping, but they come out every weekend and work with us.

We're building this trust.

A couple of these guys are getting jobs.

They're going to go fishing soon.

They're taking charge of their lives just because we believed in them.

And I think that's the biggest harm reduction right there is talking to somebody and helping them give them informed information on what their choices are in life.

And that could be going into treatment.

That could be going into some kind of housing program.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next is Tim Emerson, followed by David Haynes.

Hello, Tim Emerson, Program Director, We Heart Seattle.

I just want to kind of go a little bit on what the other We Heart Seattle folks were saying, my coworkers and partners.

Our form of harm reduction is very important.

Oftentimes, we're tent side, asking people about their issues, and they're openly talking with us because nobody else is asking.

Nobody else is asking if you need detox, if you have a drug problem, and we are, and oftentimes, The tipping point is us offering to give them a ride anywhere across the state, not just the county, not just a couple counties over.

We're going to Oak Harbor and Spokane.

We're going over to Long Beach.

Whatever it takes to get an individual stabilized and back on their feet, we don't hold back.

And I think that's the greatest form of harm reduction that a person could offer is a good conversation, friendship, and sometimes a ride over.

And that's kind of all I had.

They took a lot of what I had to say.

Thank you guys.

Thank you very much.

And our final speaker is David Haynes.

It could be said that Council Chair of Housing has introduced the toughest laws on crime and public safety, and yet the police chiefs have proven ill-trained and unwilling to mobilize resources to properly shut down and combat the wicked apex predatory criminals.

And then they're destroying lives daily enlisted nonviolent misdemeanor.

That said, we still need to purge the racist policies coming out of the Office of Housing.

squandering millions of dollars prioritizing skin color and repeat offenders who get to jump in the front of the line for housing and services before innocent poor and white houseless citizens, subhuman mistreated, still discriminated against, and wrongly misjudged by scorned lived experienced executives put in charge to dump their racist trauma onto innocent poor, while social engineering a race war, justifying a Department of Justice investigation into Seattle city government and the NGOs, whose policies and priorities cause a racist, race, and antisocial injustice lens created by a bottom-of-the-barrel progressive who had to quit due to mental health problems doing the racist, woke, devil's advocate's bidding connected to dishonest nonprofits, politically connected.

We need to stop wanting to gouge Medicaid to provide big pharma alternative drool drugs for repeat offending criminals.

and junkie self-destructives who get to voluntarily decide how much effort they're gonna make to end their addiction.

And we still need independent oversight of the service providers who subhuman mistreat innocent homeless and who can't even get a shower and laundry without being messed with by razy, laces, unsanitary, perverted employees at the urban rest stop who think that they can get away with messing with people's lives simply needing a shower and the laundry in a timely fashion, tripping them up with minimal hours for service at Ballard and elsewhere.

Yet there is absolutely no real effort from the six-figure salaries at King County Regional Homeless Authority to keep nonprofits honest, forthright.

May I have 10 more seconds, please?

Yes, go ahead, wrap up.

They're not being held honest about their efforts.

Where is the legislation to finally take down and tear and rebuild the new motel emergency housing, excuse me, to counter the scourge that's plagued Aurora Avenue with evil landlords who think that they're entitled to artificially inflated property values that were used to undermine the human rights value?

We need legislation and leadership to convince the federal government to help pay for a redevelopment of Aurora Avenue using regional partners within the state government.

Mr. Haynes.

Alright, thank you very much.

That concludes our public comment.

Okay, thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers and we'll now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to either submit written public comment on the sign-up cards available on the podium or email council at council at seattle.gov.

So thank you everyone who is here today.

We will now move on to the first items on our agenda and I'll note that Councilmember Saka has now joined us in person.

Madam Clerk, will you please read agenda items 1 through 4 into the record?

Agenda items 1 through 4, appointments 3081 through 3084, appointments of Trevor Dunstan, Gwen McCullough, Kyle Tibbs, and Diane Ortega-Chance to the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

For terms.

Oh, my apologies.

For terms to January 22nd, 2026, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

The Human Rights Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, the City Council, the City Office for Civil Rights, and other city departments.

Trevor has an educational background in sociology, equity, and social justice.

Gwen has over 14 years of public service, and Kyle has a background in government and nonprofit management.

Diana's professional background is in advocating for public health programming and BIPOC communities.

These four commissioners have been selected as outstanding Seattle residents who are dedicated to serving this city to advise on human rights and social justice issues, and I want to thank each one of them for their willingness to serve on the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

Are there any comments or questions from committee members before we move for a vote?

Not seeing any, thank you.

I now move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 3081 through 3084. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointments to the Human Rights Commission.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to confirm the appointments?

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Sacca?

Aye.

Chair Moore?

Aye.

Four in favor?

Thank you, the motion carries and the committee recommendation to confirm the appointment will be sent to the March 4th Seattle City Council meeting.

Will the clerk please read agenda items five through nine into the record.

Agenda items five through nine, appointments 3085 through 3089, appointments of Chris Curia, Jessa Gavriel Davis, Maha Roy and Theresa Smith as members of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to April 30th, 2025. Oh, and appointment.

Sorry, I spoke twice on Chris Curia.

Appointment of Chris Curia and Landon Labosky as members of the Seattle LBGTQ Commission for terms to October 31st, 2026 for briefing, discussion, and possible votes.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear.

I had thought that Chris Curia's name was missing from the original one, but it was down lower.

So I accidentally said his name twice.

Who are we nominating for a term to April 30th, 2025?

That is going to be...

I'm sorry, I'll reread that.

Okay, thank you.

My apologies.

That's okay.

Agenda items five through nine, appointments 3085 through 3089. Appointments of Jessa Gavrielle Davis, Maha Roy and Teresa Smith as members of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to April 30th, 2025, and appointments of Chris Curia and Landon Lebowski as members of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to October 31st, 2026. For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Okay, again, just a clarification, we are confirming them for a term of a month, two months?

That's what it looks like.

Please give me one moment.

Okay.

Let me just clarify that that's only two months away.

While you...

confirmed they are two months away and they'll reapply and they will apply to be reappointed.

Hannah said it's in the script.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for confirming that two of those appointments are just through April 30th, 2025 of this year.

I've notified that they will be seeking reappointment once that brief term that we're...

confirming today, expires.

So the Seattle LGBTQ Commission serves in advisory capacity to the mayor, the city council, the city office for civil rights, and other Seattle city departments.

Chris is a Seattle-based mental health counselor.

Jessica continues to volunteer in her local community to advocate for LGBTQ plus issues.

Landon holds a master's degree in public administration with an emphasis in state and local policy.

Maha grew up advocating for justice and equity in South Asia.

And Theresa is a queer philanthropy professional.

These five commissioners are all committed to advancing support and protections for the LGBT community LGBTQ plus community and I am so grateful for their willingness to dedicate their time and talents to this cause.

Are there any questions or comments from committee members before we move for a vote?

Seeing no further questions or comments, I now move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 3085 through 3089. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointments to the LGBTQ plus commission.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to confirm the appointments.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Sacca?

Aye.

Chair Moore?

Aye.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries in the committee recommendation to confirm the appointments will be sent to the March 4th City Council meeting.

Will the clerk please read the title of agenda items 10 through 12 into the record.

Agenda items 10 through 12, appointments 3091 through 3093, appointments of Bianca Gallegos Jessica Jensen and Caitlin Skilton as members of the Disability Commission for Terms to October 31st, 2026 for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

The Seattle Disability Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, the City Council, the City Office for Civil Rights, and other Seattle City departments.

Biana is a labor organizer with a focus on inclusivity of people with disabilities.

Jessica has a Master's in Educational and Developmental Psychology with a focus on invisible disabilities.

And Caitlin is a former Ms. Wheelchair of Washington America.

These three highly qualified individuals have been selected to serve on the Disabilities Commission, and I am so grateful that they are committing their time and talents to support the disability community in Seattle.

Colleagues, are there any questions or comments before I move for a vote?

All right, seeing none, I now move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 3091 through 3093 to the Disability Commission.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointment.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Sacca?

Aye.

Chair Moore?

Aye.

It's four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries and the committee recommendation to confirm the appointments will be sent to the March 4th City Council meeting.

Will the clerk please read the short title of agenda item 13 into the record.

Agenda Item 13, Council Bill 120943, an ordinance relating to the multifamily housing property tax exemption program, allowing partial property tax exemption for commercial to multifamily housing conversion projects, allowing the property tax exemption period to be extended 24 years.

for properties with multifamily housing property tax exemption, expiring the end of 2025, changing the MFT program sunset date to September 10th, 2025, and amending sections to the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

All right, thank you.

So today we have with us Director Michael Winkler-Chin and Kelly Larson from the Office of Housing and our wonderful Tracy Ratliff.

And I don't see Jen, but from Seattle Central, oh God, Council Central staff to walk us through Council Bill 120943. Is Jen on remote?

Oh, there's Jen, but not at the table.

Okay, thank you.

So today's presentation touches on the history of MFTE and the multifamily tax exemption credit, the previous extensions, and the administrative changes made to simplify income verification.

So with that, I will turn it over to our seasoned and esteemed presenters.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair Moore and members of the committee.

We're here today, as you mentioned, to discuss proposed legislation to update the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, also shorthandedly known as MFTE.

We're presenting these changes, and it's titled P6.7, Program 6.7, which indicates that this is the sixth time that Program 6 has been legislatively changed.

So I'm gonna start by providing an overview of the multi-family tax exemption program.

So just a cliff notes reminder, the MFTE program provides a 12-year property tax exemption in exchange for setting aside 20 to 25% of the apartments for income qualified renters.

Since 1998...

The Seattle City Council has reauthorized MFTE programs six times.

There's a lot of sixes in this presentation, I apologize.

The current program, P6, is set to expire March 31st, 2025. Seattle currently has over 7,400 MFTE apartments in service in about 300 different buildings.

gonna do a overview of the proposed MFTE P 6.7 legislation.

So there are three primary components of this legislation.

First, we work with Chair Moore to propose extending the MFTE sunset date to September 10th, 2025. Second, this legislation allows properties with MFTE expiring in 2025 to extend their tax exemption for another 12 years.

This will be offered to 18 buildings with 405 restricted MFTE apartments in return for the 12-year tax exemption.

Building owners agree to reduced rent and income limits.

And the third is that this legislation aligns with state law that was passed in 2024 with Senate Bill 6175 to streamline and support office to residential conversion projects.

This chart here displays the different rent limits for MFTE program six by unit type from two bedrooms at the top to small efficiency dwelling units at the bottom of the chart.

The middle column shows the AMI and rent limits for program six new construction for new applications that are coming through.

The right column shows the AMI and rent limits for projects that are seeking a second 12-year exemption under Program 6. So this far right column shows the rent limits that will apply to any properties that have MFTE expiring in 2025, which are interested in extending for another 12 years, for a total of 24 years.

It's important for these extension properties to have lower rent limits than new construction projects because these buildings are about 12 years old at this point.

Sharing a bit more about these MFTE 12-year extensions, in 2021, state law was changed to allow jurisdictions to extend the tax exemption to a total of 24 years.

City Council has authorized these 12-year extension options for properties with MFTE expiring 2021 through 2024. So over the last four years that this extension option has been made available, 13 of 29 properties opted to extend.

This legislation would provide an extension option for 18 buildings with a total of 405 restricted MFTE units to receive an additional 12 years of property tax exemption.

There are eight buildings in Council District 3 and the other 10 are scattered around the city.

This chart displays the different rent limits for the 18 properties with MFTE expiring in 2025. 14 of the buildings were established under program four, which is that middle column.

Four of the properties were established under program three.

You can see how the rent limits vary from program three to program four to the new program six extension rent limits.

The current average rents in these projects actually range from $874 a month to $1,700 a month.

And they generally fall below the P3 and P4 rent limits, particularly for the smallest unit types.

The Office of Housing seeks to support the stability of residents and renters throughout the city.

Starting January 1st, 2026, owners who decide to re-up and extend will be required to reduce rents to the P6.7 extension rent limits.

This gets confusing.

So if the tenant's income is 1.5 times greater than the new income limit, their rent will remain unchanged.

So I'm going to give you an example.

The P6.7 extension rent limit for a two-bedroom apartment will be 75% AMI.

If the tenant's income is 1.5 times greater than 75% AMI, they'll maintain their existing rent limit, which for P4 is at 85% AMI.

For those apartments that maintain existing rents, they will need to update to the new P6.7 extension rent limits at the point of unit turnover when there's a new tenant moving in.

OH is also working to simplify administrative requirements for the MFTE program.

Some changes have already been made to the administrative requirements, and the team is working on additional changes.

To date, we've reduced the requirements for income verification by allowing third-party verification or pay stubs or third-party software.

We've discontinued use of cash app data.

There's some proprietary ones like Venmo whenever possible.

So we're not asking people for their Venmo records whenever possible.

And graduate students have been made eligible for the program.

We also now allow digital signatures on forms.

The executive will continue to work on MFTE reauthorization for Program 7. And the University of Washington report has been posted on our website and is one of the major components of analysis that'll be considered for Program 7 proposals.

And we aim to transmit legislation for P7 this summer.

And we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Any of my colleagues have any questions?

Councilmember Sokka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Director Winkler-Chin for this presentation here.

Just so I'm clear, are we, we were, well, the Seattle City Council recently authorized a short-term temporary extension to expire on March 31st, right?

We recently authorized that, correct?

Probably last fall.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

OK.

And as I understand it, that was from reading your memo and talking with our central staff experts.

the whole purpose of that extension.

And now this new extension, new proposed extension, was to allow adequate time to consider the P7 iteration of the program.

So this is the second time that we're being asked to extend the program.

Can I ask, what's the major holdup?

What are some of the major blockers impacting getting this done?

I would not necessarily, Council Member, call them blockers.

I think we have extended this program several times, partly due to the volatility of the housing market in general.

So when we are setting the legislation, we like to look back to see what We'd like to look back to see what has been some of the impacts as we sent the RETS as we're looking forward.

Good morning, council member.

And I would say some of the initial reactions have been really to the increased interest rates over the past few years and a belief that interest rates were gonna drop and they have not.

Some of the newer, cost fluctuations that are happening in construction related to perceived or actual impacts of tariffs coming up.

We actually did have cost increases over the past few years.

And the large number of units that were coming online over the past few years, which has impacted from our perspective positively, the rents that are set.

And those are covered in the University of Washington report if you were to look at that.

So as we're looking at what happens in P7, one of the things that does have to happen in P7 is there has to be some new land use maps laid out that are somewhat tied to the comprehensive plan because our plan has to reflect a little bit of what's in that.

So that's one of the reasons why.

I'd say the other thing is there's just a lot of data to analyze with a lot of the changes in the market.

And so we want to do this somewhat well.

We have to measure the impacts going forward and this program gets analyzed every few years and we tweak.

And I bet you Tracy has some idea.

I feel this feeling of her over me as I'm talking.

I can kind of see your head kind of moving a little bit Tracy, so yeah.

Validating everything that Director Winkler-Chin just said.

We understand why they want this delay.

We're happy that they agreed to shorten that delay.

And I think it will be a good amount of time for us all, them and us, to help you make some good decisions this summer.

Sure, sure.

So thank you for that.

And fair enough on the framing of blocker, I know that's a triggering word for some.

I think the mayor's office, your department, certainly myself and probably the majority of, I'd hazard to guess the majority of my council colleagues, we all have a shared goal of getting this done sooner rather than later.

We are already past two, going to run past two of our shared goal of getting this finalized.

And so blocker or impediment to achieving our shared goal, however you want to call it, however you want to frame it, there is clearly an opportunity here.

Totally understand that said that this is a complex endeavor.

There's always going to be rapidly evolving market conditions.

I also understand something you didn't necessarily speak to directly, I know there's a lot of complex stakeholder involved too, and we want to get that right.

That said, you know, we also need to move beyond analysis paralysis, and we could have this go on potentially indefinitely.

At some point we need to to make sure it's good enough and then we can consider some policy options at our level.

So in any event, thank you for sharing that.

I note that September, the proposed date here of September whatever it is, 10th is a week or two before our budget season, before the mayor drops the proposed budget.

So we're unlikely to be able to take meaningful action or thoughtfully consider that if that's assuming it drops right shortly before that.

So my hope is that in the spring, early summer sometime, we would be able to have something finalized and baked for us to consider.

Thank you.

We've made that very clear to the mayor's office and to the Office of Housing that we need to have the legislation in early summer for you all to have the time that you need before the extension deadline is actually the 10th of September.

So we have to take action before that, at least 30 days before that deadline so that the program can continue, otherwise it expires.

Thank you so much.

I would add that our intent is to keep a continuing program and not have these breaks because we like some stability in the program.

We don't want to continue to treat MFTE like the floodplain legislation.

But just wanted, Council Member Socket, thank you for those comments.

Wanted to let you know that originally the legislation came down with the extension date to March 31st, 2026. So we pushed back on that.

And we are looking at working with Office of Housing for them to bring legislation in, say, June, and for that to come before committee in July.

So we will have substantive...

serious time to talk about substantive changes, so thank you for that.

I'm not sure who was, you were next?

Okay, Council President.

When you, I appreciate that this is before us today.

I was, when we approved the extension last time, I was a little bit, I was, I was of mixed feelings because this is a program that I very much look forward to approving the renewal of.

And that is because, and I'll say it again, I see the MFTE program as enabling us to meet two very important goals.

Number one, incentivizing the construction of more affordable housing, but also what we're getting is mixed income housing in the same building because the developers or the building owners are required to allocate a certain number of the units to be affordable for a certain number of years.

And so that is exactly what we want.

It's onsite performance.

And so this is an extremely important program.

At the same time, it has to be done right.

And in order to get developers, building owners, et cetera, to participate in the program, it really does have to make financial sense for them.

And so I'm happy to give the extra time to make sure that it does because I understand that when the draft program, the P7 program was shopped around, the reaction to it was surprise and come on, folks, we can do better from the community that will actually be building these units.

And so I see here that you had two...

Kelly, I'm reading your email.

There were two meetings on May 17th and October 23rd of this past year to share information about the reauthorization for owners, developers, etc.

And that's two meetings probably.

I would say let's make sure that we talk to everybody and make sure that we're getting really good input for how this can work for maximum participation going forward.

So happy to provide the extra time for this to go to get it right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I don't know that we covered this.

The last slide does have the link to the University of Washington report, and I would just direct all committee members' attention to that report.

I think, correct me if I'm wrong, came out sort of after the work had been done by OH and now there's a need to go back and kind of revisit the issues given some of the things that have been raised by the University of Washington report.

So that's part of why we're here now.

So anyway, thank you.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you all for being here to present today, and I certainly will be supporting this extension to do this critical work to make sure we get it right.

Actually, Chair, a number of my questions were related to the UW report, and I don't know if this session is the appropriate time, but we're just in our office.

We're really excited to talk about some of the findings in that report and ask a few questions about the MFT program.

Chair, would that be okay to ask one of those?

Sure, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So this program is intended to promote the development of affordable units within market rate developments.

And knowing this, could you identify what is maybe the singular most important change we could be making to MFT right now to promote new affordable units while not creating too much of a disincentive towards new market rate development?

I would think the biggest change before you would be really about setting the income levels.

And what is that?

And if you read into Dr. Coburn's report, there's a lot of data there.

And I thought that the report was very, very helpful.

it should be a practice of the Office of Housing to talk with the people who are doing the research.

And I think it is the income levels because I think if you read into the report, if we set the income percentages too low, you will disincentivize people from developing.

And then if you set them too high, or what is perceived to be too high, you then would have a reaction from others believing that the public benefit is not what it should be.

So the challenge is setting it for the appropriate public benefit.

Those issues may be at conflict with each other.

But there's a lot of other interesting ideas that could be done as we're looking at information about just the general housing in Seattle.

The MFTE program is established at the state level as an incentive.

So what is it that we would want to incent and where?

And this is one of the hows, right?

This is one of the tools.

So that is my little sidebar comment about that.

So what is it that we're really using this incentive for?

You want it as stated as a creation.

I hear Council President Nelson wanting the mix of incomes.

I hear a number of units, but are there other things for us to consider at this time as to what is it that we want as we look to the future of the city?

Is that, does that answer your question?

Yes, it certainly does.

And kind of building off that the UW report, um, the UW report noted that MFT units in low cost neighborhoods often exceeded market rate rents.

And so could you all elaborate on this on what we could potentially do about it as we're considering taking up a new version of MFT?

Well, there's a lot of different considerations that you could choose to do.

and I might be stepping myself over my skis here, but in the past, the MFTE program has not been distributed throughout the city.

It's been about targeted neighborhoods.

So I'm old, and I remember back when it was in select neighborhoods, such as, for example, the Chinatown International District.

That's how Awajimaya Village, which was, I think, the first market rate project there in a long time had been built.

They used that program.

So it was used very much from that perspective.

As the needs of the city has changed over time, that's when it became more of a housing affordability tool as well as expanding.

And I'm looking at Tracy because she's maybe as old as I am, as we're talking about our remembrances of that time program.

So you could look at what it is that you want to incent, where and how.

It's the same thing.

If the market rates in a neighborhood are lower than the MFTE rents, I think you would want to go back and look at the product.

What is the quality of that product?

Because certain neighborhoods do not necessarily have a bunch of new units coming on.

So the housing quality throughout the city is not exactly the same.

So perhaps there's a nuancing of that as you get deeper into the work of thinking about that, right?

We also did learn from the University of Washington team as they spoke with developers that there is some retraction from some of these low-cost neighborhoods anyway.

So there are some market corrections that will be happening with real estate development generally.

So potentially, you don't need to do anything in the program.

It just is generally decided by market forces.

Thank you for that, and certainly a lot of considerations, and thank you for fielding these questions.

These are certainly the questions that I hope we'll be asking and in conversation about as we're considering reformulation.

And I guess my final question more has to do with process.

If you could draw the curtain back and give us some insight into what you'll be up to in terms of your conversations with the developer community over these next six months, would love to hear a little bit more about what the process in your side will look like.

So council member, I'd say besides the engagement that we did, sometimes people don't really want to tell us their thoughts and their opinions.

And that's why having Professor Coburn there has been helpful.

He's been very confidential, has not divulged any names about anybody or anything.

but he has been quite honest and frank with us sometimes about this is what people think you're doing this is what people uh would like this and that is extremely helpful and dr coburn if you're listening i hope i didn't divulge any confidences but it is the truth when you are the regulator when you are the person that's doing things to people sometimes people don't necessarily want to tell you certain things um what we've heard from the development community though is quite consistent that it is math.

So if it does not work for them to provide the rents at this level, it does not work for their performa, they're not going to participate.

That's one thing that they've said.

The other thing is, please make your paperwork simpler.

And we can work on that.

So I'm sure that we continue to hear from MFTE developers in particular because people are waiting around for some sort of extension.

So our staff are getting calls like, hey, what's happening?

We need some information.

And we do have formal and informal engagements.

Yeah.

But you will be going out, and once you all decide kind of the next proposal for P6, you will be going out and doing specific stakeholders.

For P7?

For P7, sorry.

You will be going out.

I'm losing my numbers here.

You will be going and doing some stakeholder engagement just as you did with the earlier proposal, correct?

I think we have to.

I don't think it's possible or wise for us to try to pass something without some sort of this is what we're talking about and to receive feedback.

Fabulous.

Thank you.

And I know we've talked a lot about engaging with developers.

I want to also take a moment in my final remarks to just commend Office of Housing for your engagement as well with renters within MFT units.

I saw the survey and the results of that survey.

So I want to thank you for also engaging and hearing the renter perspective of those who live in MFT units.

They're an important component of the program.

Thank you.

Thank you, just for the record, Councilmember Rivera has joined us.

That said, any other questions?

No?

Okay, yeah, so to that point about dealing with the administrative requirements of MFTE.

I think I've heard that from both sides, both from developers as well as from renters, and that sometimes they're willing to pay just the extra $100 to not have to go through the incredible hoops that is required to qualify for the MFTE and to continue to validate that eligibility.

So I'm wondering if you can be a little bit more specific about, I know in your presentation you talked about some of the general things you're doing around income verification, but Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

And are there sort of additional tweaks to the administrative processing that are in the works or that you're contemplating?

So I would say that my goal in making administrative tweaks is to try to simplify the program as much as possible for income verification.

We at the Office of Housing oversee multiple programs, and people that live in our housing oftentimes have to meet multiple different income regulations, et cetera, et cetera.

For us, Creating our own program means that we do have flexibility that, for example, the IRS does not allow in the low-income housing tax credit program.

We are hoping to hear back from the state about the most recent audit that they did of our office for the MFTE program, just to see what their recommendations are.

But the question that I have, the curiosity I have is, Why do we do certain things?

And I think in this program, I think the most simplistic we make it for the developers and for the residents of the housing in many ways helps us make our work a little bit simpler.

So maybe we can focus on something other than the compliance level.

We can look at the overall health of the building, the general neighborhoods that they're in and understand the market conditions better.

I don't think that was necessarily a great answer for what that is, but that's kind of the orientation that we are going towards.

And so, I mean, I've certainly had a number of...

developers and our utilizers of MFTE and District 5 who've offered to meet with OH to talk about how, from their perspective, the administrative process could be streamlined.

So happy to help facilitate those conversations, maybe even bring together a small work group to include tenants as well.

So we're getting that input directly.

And then the other question that continues to sort of lurk out there is vacancy rates and getting updated information about vacancy rates and particularly, are there particular AMI points that you're noticing that are having higher vacancy rates compared to the other AMI levels and any ideas if that's the case, why that may be the case?

For the MFTE market, that I'm not quite sure.

I do understand that there is a large number of the smaller units that have come on in the past maybe a year or two, Kelly's way deeper in the data than I am.

So with that flood on the market, all within a very condensed amount of time, the goal of the housing provider is to rent those units up.

And so they are making concessions.

And I think in the University of Washington report, it does mention that what's been great about having so many units come online is that the rents have actually, stabilized, if not, I don't want to say dropped, but you know, just kind of not gone like this.

It's been like this.

But at a certain point, those units will be absorbed and those rents will go up.

So in talking with the University of Washington, they believe that this period of time that we're in with these high vacancies will probably drop as the more constricted.

I would say that when we're talking about vacancy rates, 5% has seen it as being an optimal point.

And I don't know why it was 5%, but in talking with Dr. Coburn, he was like, no, 5% is the point at which there's a little bit of movement in the market, which you wanna be able to see because people should have options.

There should be enough options for people.

But when supply is up, rents drop and people, there's higher vacancies as people have the opportunity to shift and move around.

But he also said he doesn't expect this to last for more than three or four years.

Okay well again if you could continue to update us with your most recent data on vacancy rates we would appreciate that and I guess just in terms of the thought it's I understand that things are opening up and that's a good thing but I I think that we want to as council president was noting like this isn't a very very powerful tool and so as things become vacant we want to make sure that they're getting filled and rapidly that we're not seeing long periods of vacancy.

It's great to have those options, but we have got a lot of people, as you well know, and part of the reason I know you're adjusting the AMI levels is to try to get more people to utilize this very powerful tool.

So that's something to think about, how we keep moving them through and moving people up.

So did you have a question?

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, chair.

Um, I just want to echo what you're saying in terms of the, then we need at the city to make sure that we have vacancy rates so that we really, when we're making these decisions about how much housing we need and at what AMI levels, et cetera, we're doing this not blindly, but with actual, um, data.

so that we really are making well-informed decisions and policy choices.

And so I just want to reiterate what, Chair, you've said about the need to really have the vacancy rates for the MFTE program and for all the other programs and other housing investments that we make.

This is really critical.

It's something that in the budget process we put in some reporting asks around the vacancy rates and it's one that I will continue to push on because it is really important.

It's hard to talk about what the need is when we don't actually know what our vacancy rates are and we know there are some and that is really important.

Thank you for raising that, and I just really wanted to plus one with an exclamation point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President?

No need for a plus two, then.

Okay.

All right, are there any further questions of our colleagues, our presenters?

All right, I'm not seeing any, so thank you very much for your presentation.

That was very helpful.

So given the conversation that we've had today, I just do wanna do a general check to see if people are comfortable with voting on the extension legislation that's before us today, extending this to September 10th of 2025. Okay.

I'm seeing nods, so I see general nods that there are, oh, Council Member Salka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, I am comfortable with voting on this today with the caveat that my hope is that we won't be in this position extending yet again.

And that said, my impatience, seeming impatience and urgency behind this is not, does not reflect a lack of my appreciation for the underlying work that has to go into this.

And I know there's so many people in the department working hard on this on the city's behalf, which I greatly appreciate.

And I appreciate their efforts to get this right.

And that said, again, let's hope we don't have to be doing this again.

But yes, Madam Chair, I am comfortable voting today.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for those comments, Council Member Saka.

All right, seeing no further questions or comments, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120943. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Moore?

Aye.

Four in favor, none opposed.

All right, thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass a council bill will be sent to the March 4th City Council meeting.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate the presentation.

Okay, and yeah, we look forward to seeing everybody back here in the summer.

All right, will the clerk please read the final agenda into the record?

Agenda item 14, results of homelessness outreach request for qualifications for briefing and discussion.

All right, thank you.

Today we have with us Director Tonya Kim, Chris Clayson, and Christina Corpy from our Human Services Department to walk us through the results of last summer's RFQ for the homelessness outreach providers.

And I'll turn it over to our HSD team when you have everything up and running.

All right.

I will get us started while we pull up the deck.

Thank you for having us here, Chair Moore.

I realize that Vice Chair Solomon isn't here, but also it would be our first time at committee with his presence.

And so...

Assuming he watches this later on, welcome and congratulations.

We are here today to give a presentation.

And as soon as we get this up, we'll make sure that we enter our names into the record.

And we're very close.

Well, we'll go ahead and enter our names.

You can multitask.

So Tonya Kim, HSD director.

Hi, everybody.

Chris Clayson.

Hello, Chris Clayson.

I am the HSD Homelessness Division Director.

Hello, everybody.

Christina Corpy, the Unified Care Team Outreach Manager with the Human Services Department.

Okay, so thank you for having us here.

We're going to present on the overview of the outreach model that the Human Services Department is implementing this year.

And we're going to provide some details regarding the agencies that will deliver these services.

Looks like we may have a technical difficulty, but I can continue to frame up the presentation.

What I will share is that we are not able to represent UCT in its entirety because it is a larger multidisciplinary with across departments in the mayor's office effort, but we'll certainly speak to items pertaining to the work that Human Services Department is doing.

and of course, the results of this request for qualifications.

Yeah, we're waiting just to grab the deck up here.

I'm gonna join the Zoom link in a moment.

And I can share from, I will pull it up and share from my- Oh, great.

I'll continue on with just kind of narrating what's ahead.

So for today's agenda, we're going to provide some context.

We will give an overview of the neighborhood outreach model itself.

We're gonna talk about the outreach request for qualification awards that were announced.

and that includes the agencies that we selected.

We'll talk about the performance measures.

I know that that's always top of mind for council.

And of course, we will field your questions.

And one thing I do also want to acknowledge, I know that there was public comment One thing that comes about any time we have a request for qualifications is that there are organizations who apply who perhaps didn't get awarded or agencies that applied who got less than what they wanted.

And we were able to bring in some new agencies.

And so we'll be able to share with you not the details of the process, but the set of awardees.

And so I think you'll have a really good picture of that.

I will say for the record that WeHeart Seattle has been in contact with us and I've been out there to do a site visit.

We've also been able to fold them into some of our other programming and so there's ways in which we continue to work with organizations.

because we know that there is a spectrum of services out there, whether they're funded or not.

There is room for a lot of organizations to do this good work, so I just wanted to note that for the record, too.

And it looks like we're in business.

We are ready to go.

Thanks, everybody, for your patience.

We're going to go to slide three, and I'm going to pass it over to Chris Clayson.

Yes, so thanks for having us today.

We really appreciate it.

As Director Kim mentioned, we are going to spend the bulk of the presentation getting into what outreach services will look like in 2025 with the contracted providers.

Before getting into those details, we do want to spend a moment and just talk about the overall concept of outreach and what unsheltered outreach is.

Really kind of plain and simple, the overall goal of outreach is to connect people living unsheltered with the opportunity to come inside and receive resources that will connect them to a sustained path of housing stability.

And we do see this as really having three critical components.

The first is that outreach focuses on building relationships with individuals to foster trust and increase their likelihood to accept resources and go indoors.

The second is that building off this focused engagement, outreach agencies are going to be working intensely with clients to identify their unique needs and barriers to make effective resource connections.

And then finally, while those first two components are critical, there's not a one-size-fits-all approach to outreach, and there's a need for specialized services for individuals residing in vehicles with behavioral and mental health challenges and also to meet population-specific needs.

Next slide.

So the last slide provided a background on the overall concept of outreach, but it is important to just take a moment and reflect on how we've arrived at this current moment.

Over the last three years, the unified care team or UCT has managed the city's incumbent response to ensure our public spaces remain open and accessible to all while also supporting individuals who are living unsheltered.

This work is successful in connecting people to shelter, but we know that there is a greater level of need, in particular for those who require more intensive engagement to become housing ready.

And this is really the space in which we rely on our contracted agencies to step into and fill.

They are a critical partner in expanding the city's ability to connect with the broader homelessness population.

And in reflecting on this partnership and their important role last year, HSD announced that it would resume the direct oversight of outreach funding from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

This decision was made to ensure that outreach is fully aligned with city needs, focused exclusively on unsheltered homelessness, and is also coordinated with the unified care team.

Alongside bringing this funding back HSD also expanded our own outreach team to further the UCT mission And we do just want to take a moment to thank council for support of both of those initiatives next slide With this transfer complete we will now be implementing a new neighborhood outreach model in 2025 that we believe meets the Seattle's current needs in several different ways.

First, the model will provide a cohesive and coordinated strategy that has a clearly defined investment area.

For us, this means ensuring that outreach workers are present consistently in community and meeting unsheltered individuals where they are.

Second, the model recognizes, again, that while the UCT is effective in providing light touch engagement that is focused on shelter connections, there are individuals with greater needs that require more intensive support.

And for this, we will be leveraging outreach agencies' experience in assisting those individuals to permanent housing and other critical resources.

And then finally, as stated previously, I should say, as stated previously, there are diverse needs across the homeless population, and our communities do need specialized services to effectively address them.

This includes, again, vehicle residency and behavioral health outreach.

And then, really important as well, this model is going to be promoting streamlined communication between the UCT and outreach agencies.

Over the last two years, outreach coordination between KCRHA and the unified care team has been challenging at times, so this new model will allow for direct communication between agencies and HSD regional coordinators.

to guide field deployment.

And for more details on this model, I'm going to turn it over to Christina.

Next up.

Thank you, Chris.

So this slide outlines the model which will deploy seven district-specific multidisciplinary outreach teams across all Seattle neighborhoods.

The first component of these teams will be expanded UCT outreach staff.

This team's focus will continue to be on connecting individuals to shelter and providing consistency and continuity of care.

To address those needs beyond the UCT, HSD issued a request for qualifications last year to procure specialized outreach services.

These include street-based care coordination to support those living alone or in encampments who need intensive, prolonged engagement.

vehicle outreach to engage those living in vehicles about shelter, safe lots, understanding parking rules, and moving off the street, and behavioral and mental health outreach to connect high-needs individuals to medical professionals and healthcare services.

To supplement these district-specific teams, HSD also procured population-specific outreach to deploy agencies with similar backgrounds or lived experience that will receive referrals citywide.

All of these services will coordinate more seamlessly with UCT ongoing efforts.

On the next slide, I'll explain how these outreach teams will engage with their assigned district.

As mentioned, next slide, please.

As mentioned, the specialized outreach services deployed across the district outreach teams were procured through HSD's 2024 street-based outreach services for unsheltered individuals, RFQ.

The next few slides share which agencies received awards for each service type and where they will be deployed.

So this first one is the street-based care coordination awards.

And these services will be deployed when longer-term engagement is requested or required to work with an individual toward housing readiness, medical treatment, reducing legal barriers, et cetera.

These intensive engagements is usually required for folks who are chronically homeless.

These individuals often have multiple barriers to coming inside and may regularly decline shelter offers.

This deeper engagement provides time to better understand these needs, build trust, and make effective service connections.

Their focus will be on relationship development, system navigation, resource connection, and document readiness, all with the ultimate intention of assisting an individual to achieve their unique goals and move toward ending their homelessness through referrals to shelter or acquiring permanent housing.

Evergreen Treatment Services Reach Program received the award to provide this service in Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, while the Salvation Army will serve Districts 3 and 7. Next slide.

The second service type is vehicle outreach that will engage with individuals living in vehicles.

They will assist in assessing people and vehicles for safe lots, refer folks to shelter, and assist with ensuring that lived-in vehicles are mobile and legal.

This might include small mechanical repairs, as well as providing information and education about the city's parking laws and regulations.

Success here looks like referrals being made to safe lots and shelter and also ensuring that vehicles are mobile and parked legally.

University Heights Center received the award to provide this service in Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, while the Salvation Army will serve Districts 3 and 7. Behavioral and mental health outreach.

Behavioral health specialists will serve on the district outreach team as well.

These specialists will be deployed to work with individuals suffering from severe and persistent mental illness.

Success for these individuals often includes referrals to behavioral and medical health professionals for substance use and mental health treatment, as well as assessments for permanent supportive housing placements.

Downtown Emergency Services Center received the award to provide this service in all districts.

I'll hand it back over to Chris to share more details about how population-specific outreach will be deployed.

This is our last outreach service type, and as opposed to the last three, the population-specific group will be deployed citywide.

We know that black and brown people disproportionately experience homelessness, and it is important that they are represented in the agencies that are serving them.

These population-specific providers specialize in outreach through credible messengers or individuals who have similar backgrounds.

or experience to the neighbors and relatives that they're serving within our communities.

Alongside being a credible messenger, oftentimes these agencies can offer culturally appropriate treatment, housing, or employment options and offer holistic wellness practices as well.

Stepping apart for a moment, there are also agencies that serve specific subsets of the population, such as families or youth and young adults.

and, again, have access to services that are designed for these groups specifically.

I want to put a note before discussing the awarded agencies that, again, these are organizations that will be deployed on a citywide basis and interact with unsheltered individuals across Seattle and also receive referrals for such individuals from the neighborhood teams.

The awarded agencies are the Seattle Indian Center for Alaska Indian and Alaska Native populations.

Urban League and We Deliver Care will both be supporting black and African American individuals.

Mary's Place will be tasked with providing outreach to families with children.

And finally, youth care to youth and young adults.

Next slide.

This slide doesn't present any new information, but it is an overview of the, again, population-specific providers and the composition of the district outreach teams, all on one slide.

Next slide.

Our final slide shares more on how HSD will track and measure outreach's impact.

In general, we seek to understand our services across three different categories.

The first is quantity or how many services are delivered.

And here you can see that we'll be able to understand how many people are referred to each agency for assistance.

the number that ultimately enroll in outreach services from that, how many service connections are made for the list of items here, which again, really critical housing readiness, vehicle assistance, treatment and recovery services, physical and mental health treatment as well.

The next area is quality.

How well are these services delivered?

And in this, we'll be looking at the percentage of referrals that agencies receive and the clients that are engaged within 72 hours.

So we really want to focus on prompt engagement, the percent of people who are consistently meeting with agencies after connections are made, and the percent of weekly outreach huddles that are attended by agencies.

Finally, we will measure agency impact or what these services actually achieve.

Here, we'll be keeping an eye on the number of outreach-led encampment resolutions, the number or I should say the percentage of individuals who are participating in outreach services from referral.

Again, wanting to understand the number of people who enroll or the percentage of people and number that enroll in shelter and permanent housing.

And finally, as well, really, the percent of people that enroll in treatment and health care services.

Next slide.

So that concludes our presentation, and we're happy to take questions.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, any questions?

Councilman Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here.

Nice to see you.

Do you all track on the performance metrics?

Are individuals tracked to see how well these services are going and to see if folks are entering the system all over again after there's been a referral made?

Because ideally, obviously, we want people to get treatment help if that's what they need or behavioral health treatment if that's what they need and then move on, hopefully, to stay to a housing situation, whether it's PSH or whatever is needed.

It's hard to know whether these are new individuals coming in or the same individual.

So do you track all of that?

I will probably turn it over to Christina in a moment, but I will say that is definitely the plan.

I think not only in having agencies report their metrics into HMIS, but also utilizing our regional coordinators, outreach counselors, the district huddles to really look at who is unsheltered in our community, Um, really triaging there and assigning out, um, understanding what services they get connected to.

And then throughout those meetings and calls, having up progress updates on, um, how that service is felt and what enrollments are successful.

But, um, Christina, do you have anything more to share?

I would just add that as part of the district outreach team and the coordination between them, they will be keeping a care coordination list where they identify the people, identify the needs, identify when and where the referrals were going to.

And then they would have that information if that individual comes back to the street and they could go back to see what previous referrals were made and kind of where to go from there.

Thank you.

And at some point, Chair, it'd be really I know I would appreciate getting some type of information on how well we're doing based on that data.

Obviously not an individual person, but we're appropriate sharing that data so we know how we're doing and if there's something we need to be doing different.

And if I may ask one more question about the actual strict specific teams.

And so what are the opportunities for our engagement with those teams?

I guess ultimately I want to make sure that I'm sharing with constituents.

Can constituents reach out to these teams in the districts directly?

Are we still just encouraging folks to go directly to find it, fix it, and then that connection is made that way?

What is the best way to engage, to tell constituents to engage if they see someone needing assistance in the districts?

And then separately, how do we engage when we're trying to track, you know, on the back end, whether the person got the assistance or just so we have a very relational director, as you know, and so just so we have a touch point on also, you know, what is needed in the district that those teams may need.

I would say the Find It, Fix It app is probably still the best avenue for constituents to bring requests to our door.

I think they'll be moved through the unified care team as well, and then really discussed and reviewed in those outreach huddles as well for each particular district.

So that would be the main way, and I think I probably need to defer to the unified care team for more about what the direct communication there looks like.

Um, our, our regional coordinators, certainly we have one assigned to each district as well.

That'll be really the point person to, to look at these issues.

Um, anything to add, Christina?

I think you got it.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, chair.

Okay.

I'm not sure who was next.

Looks like council member.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, director Kim.

Appreciate the presentation here.

Would.

love to better understand this new district outreach model.

Is that intended to subsume and replace in its entirety the UCT regional model that has five or six regions?

And if not, how does that, what is the relationship between this outreach model and the legacy model I just mentioned?

Well, I can frame it first and then have Christina go into the details.

And so we're talking about the same things.

And so we learned a lot from UCT.

We've had successes, and we knew that we needed to move to being neighborhood-based.

This is a resource that allows us to go deeper and be coordinated.

And so just on a practical basis, and please correct me if I'm wrong, But before we, it was by design, it was nobody's, you know, this is not a blame for the outreach workers who existed in the contracts under KCRHA.

It wasn't directly affiliated with our goals and what we're doing together.

And so now that we have these contracts, we can work neighborhood based.

And also we just described some of those agencies too that are really supporting the city.

because there are folks who reside all over.

So it is neighborhood-based, but we're working in concert.

We have the contracts, and that is a part of the expectation.

And so agencies applied, knowing that they would work with UCT, working in the neighborhoods, working with the regional coordinators.

And so it really is syncing everything up, all the tools together, so we can go deeper.

but do you wanna offer some of the technical, just underscoring some of the technical, but I just wanted to reassure you that this is bringing it home.

Yeah, and just to build off of that, it wouldn't replace the larger neighborhoods that the UCT currently has.

So districts four and five are part of the north-northeast neighborhood of the UCT, and so they have two regional coordinators as part of that neighborhood team.

on the UCT.

So the regional coordinator for District 4 and the regional coordinator for District 5 are both part of that north-northeast neighborhood team on UCT.

And then for District 6 and 7, those are the northwest neighborhood of UCT.

So they will be part of that neighborhood model that have the larger neighborhoods within the UCT, and we are just, with the outreach approach, getting a little bit more granular and going to the district level.

Knowing that we are at council, we're presenting it to you as the districts.

Sure, sure.

So my takeaway is it depends, but this is a new model for HSD, but UCT is going to largely retain their OK.

Well, it sounds like, thank you for sharing that.

And I appreciate your disclaimer and caveat at the beginning that you don't represent the entirety of UCT's work.

But it does sound like there is an opportunity.

I'm partial to this model here that you talked about for a number of reasons.

It allows more responsiveness.

It allows more flexibility.

It maps directly to how we think about this work, and amongst other benefits.

But I also think there is not for simplicity purposes, for consistency purposes, and to truly live up to a one Seattle approach, I do think there is an opportunity to further simplify and to have a consistent set of mapping and think about this work in the city of Seattle and not cross wires and say, well, this region, but this district number seven, but this cell, like, so, and recognizing that that's not something that you all would necessarily be, so we'll continue the conversation, but I, again, do think there's an opportunity to build upon this and, do something truly One Seattle on a going forward basis.

Also appreciate the customization and the innovation reflected in some of the targeted outreach in terms of, for example, the vehicle outreach approach.

As you all know, colleagues, as you know, my district bears the brunt of the lived-in vehicle crises across our city.

And depending on UCT's reported data, it's at least two, sometimes three X greater than the nearest region.

See, that's where it's confusing.

And so we need to do better.

So I appreciate the innovation reflected in some of these, again, targeted custom bespoke outreach and engagement models.

Also appreciate the performance metrics, like how you all intend to gather and track that.

I'll be paying close attention to that on a going forward basis, particularly with respect to the districts and vehicles and how we can do better.

Final question, so that was just some comments and observations.

I do have a question, I understand, so my office met recently with some folks from the Salvation Army and as I understand it, they have several shelter facilities and almost all of them are in District 1. And I understand under, and they provide a lot of work for amongst other things, the vehicle outreach, but they were assigned in this award to districts three and seven.

And so just curious to better understand, you know, the rationale and their approach there.

Yeah, the rationale for the assignment really came about as part of the RFQ process in totality and how that all was finalized.

I would say part of the Salvation Army's, I think, interesting piece there were those connections, in fact, that you called out and what they can bring to the table.

So I think just because those shelters might be in D1, it does not necessarily mean that, you know, I think they will be utilized with Salvation Army's work and across our other districts as well.

I think really in bringing together all of the agencies to kind of collectively look at resources out there and how to work across those and not be siloed is a big part of the work coming up.

So we're not only meeting in the district huddles and meeting with organizations individually, but bringing them all together to resource share.

And I think with this year learning, you know, what are those really strong connections?

How does that communication really further the needs of our community as well?

And kind of looking at that in its totality.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Madam chair.

Thank you.

Council member rank.

Thank you for today's presentation.

Um, just, I have a number of questions and so I'm going to thank you in advance for fielding all of these, um, to that.

And, um, I just also have to state at the top.

We have a number of amazing outreach providers that are serving our community right now that continue to do tremendously hard work.

And so pleased to see the awarded organizations and have the clarity of who will be working in what areas.

As it relates to some of these metrics, looking at the performance metrics, will all of these metrics be input into HMIS or will the city be doing a separate, keeping some of that information separate out of the HMIS system?

All of the agency efforts will be put into HMIS.

I think in particular, you know, attendance at the regional huddles, that's something that's going to be tracked by our UCT regional coordinators as well.

And looking at that outreach led resolutions, I think too, that'll be more of a systems talking across each other, but we are putting an emphasis on HMIS.

And within this, how are we also taking steps to track folks who may be seen over time at multiple encampments and ensure that we're not perhaps pushing folks across the city into different areas through our strategy?

Yeah, I think that'll be mostly deployed within the outreach huddles and care coordination lists.

I will turn it over to Christina in a second, but I think because we'll be having regional coordinators overseeing all those efforts and then meeting as a group, that will be where some of that information is shared as well.

And we'll be doing regular cross evaluation of our care coordination list within each district to see if there's people who are moving from one district to the next district or moving back.

And so our tools will communicate with each other to try to ensure that we're following through with individuals who maybe move from one district to the next and it doesn't necessarily break up their care.

And paired with that, we know that with a solid outreach strategy, I look at other program models that kind of complement support outreach.

How are we connecting our strategy with diversion dollars and diversion resources to outreach right now?

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Can you say more about diversion dollars?

Right, thinking about the centralized diversion fund currently administered, I know that's between Africatown Community Land Trust and building changes, and have we cultivated a connection between that centralized diversion fund?

I know it's connected to broader parts of the system, but has there been some conversation around outreach being connected to diversion dollars?

I think on that front, with the centralized diversion fund being overseen by the KCRHA, I think I would maybe pull back a little and say we are continuing to partner with KCRHA on access to broader resources.

I think thinking of diversion or permanent supportive housing, we want to really emphasize our outreach agencies working to get folks into coordinated entry and how to successfully do that.

We're having conversations with KCRHA to talk about what tools we can bring to not only the contracted providers, but also to bring our HSD outreach team into that process as well to really have a full care coordination strategy.

I think that's how we're tackling that.

And then in speaking related to my last response too, I think working with the outreach agencies, understanding they're the experts and have a good grasp as well on resources to tap into and ensuring we share those across all agencies.

I certainly appreciate that.

I know one of the original concerns by the city pulling back and kind of taking steps to own outreach strategy, again, was a concern that there might be a breakdown in terms of strategy with the larger system efforts in this.

And so certainly want to emphasize that we'd like to see a connection in those strategy efforts.

So encouraged to hear that you're working with KCRHA and would just continue to emphasize, want to make sure that we're connected to, again, a larger system and regional conversation around how we're linking up different program models.

To that end, also looking across these metrics, we know we have a fantastic HMIS system, which I feel like we don't talk enough about how just even nationally we have one of the best HMIS systems in the country.

And we know just by way of the nature of homelessness, it can be challenging to get good data at all times.

We want to commend our region's efforts at having good data.

And when I look at these performance metrics, I notice that a number of them are really dependent on the performance of the larger system too.

And I want to champion for a moment what I know I hear often from outreach workers who have trouble making a referral to a partner agency, have trouble being, of course, being able to find a housing unit for somebody too.

And so I certainly want to make sure that we are upholding these performance metrics.

And I want to name that a few of these are really dependent on the success and partnership with other agencies.

So how is HSD accounting for kind of that reality and our system shortfalls?

That's an excellent point.

I think one we recognize, and I think with the data as well, looking at how it tells the broader story of outreach and our homeless services system, and I think in calling that out, again, to talk about partnership with KCRHA and bringing some of this back and really using it to say these are the needs of the community and the clients coming into contact with us.

How can we meet those better?

How can we, if we're having challenges, getting folks enrolled to a particular referral, can we have a conversation with that organization as partners to figure out how to improve a process there?

So I think that's the real hope in tracking these metrics as well.

I would also add that part of the idea with the district huddles and the care coordination is that those referrals between agencies could be smoother, at least amongst outreach agencies, and then referrals to the system at large can be tracked more collaboratively to try to see where the gaps are and where the breakdowns are happening.

Thank you for that.

And if you can provide as well on that same end, talking a little bit more about accountability for providers, especially as we're going about this model, what is that going to look like for HSG?

So one of the referral, one of the mechanisms that we're tracking is a 72 hour response to referrals.

So trying to ensure that outreach is connecting with individuals and also as part of this model was having our own team be responsive to UCT needs so that the contracted providers have more time to do what they have identified that they kind of do best.

And so, as we are...

making, sorry, as we are making referrals to these agencies, tracking that they go to that referral within 72 hours, and then trying to track the follow-up with those individuals.

And if they cannot be found, then bringing that back to the care coordination meetings and talking about how we can connect with them later.

And my final question.

Did I hear correctly that your general guidance from an HSD perspective when we get questions from our constituents about an encampment or something going on is to direct people to report and find it, fix it?

That is correct.

That's what we're working on.

And I think with just launching this as well, and we have the district teams out, it's still early stages, but that is the best resource at this time.

Certainly understanding, and I know Find It, Fix It is a centralized administrative resource, but I have to name that the message that sends our constituents is a concerning one, where that's the same place where they may be reporting a pothole or some type of need for trash remediation.

I am concerned with the message that that sends the public, and I have a deep level of discomfort directing constituents to that, and that is not an HSD problem, to be very clear, I just think we should should name that and would like to find an alternative strategy in doing something to that effect, but I needed to name that on the record.

Understood, yeah, and we'd be happy to keep digging into that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, I have some follow-up questions.

So are these district teams in place now or do these contracts still have to be implemented?

So actually earlier this month we did begin deploying the district teams and huddles have happened.

Um, we have most of the contracts set up.

There's still just a couple that are being finalized, but, um, everyone is, is operational and we've also worked to get them all the HMIS training.

So we are, we are launched.

Great.

Thank you.

And how many individuals are on a team?

So when we say team, who's part of that team?

So there's one regional coordinator per district.

There's two HSD outreach staff per district.

And then as part of the RFQ, the goal was to have two of the street-based care coordinators per district, one vehicle outreach per district, and one behavioral mental health outreach per district.

Great.

Thank you.

That's really helpful information to know.

There's a lot on the team, a lot of resources on the team.

So really helpful to know.

And then where are they operating from out of the districts?

Are they located in the districts?

Like an office?

Well, they're in the fields in the district.

So the expectation is five days a week having these outreach teams In the district, on the ground, working with people.

Terrific.

Thank you.

And I just do want to, I always say this when UCT is here, is just how much I appreciate and our district appreciate your services.

And not only that, but just the partnership.

Because even though, you know, we direct constituents to find it, fix it, You all are great partners.

And I know our office is constantly reaching out to UCT in particular.

following up on some of these requests or not even requests, but just, you know, flags from the constituents.

And so I very much appreciate that.

And that's why I said earlier about the relational piece, Director Kim, you're always very responsive as well.

And I very much appreciate your partnership.

And as it relates to this body of work, very much appreciate the whole UCT team and all the work that they do and just the responsiveness, like I said, and the fact that they stay so close in touch with council and are responsive to our questions on behalf of the constituents.

So I want to give you another shout out because it is something that we very much appreciate in the district and I know across the city.

And if I may add, just to make sure that we don't walk away thinking about Find It, Fix It as a kind of depersonalized tool that's automated, just wanted to underscore that we have found it to be extremely useful, whereas before, comments or requests can go anywhere in the city.

And this really came out of wanting to be responsive and provide good customer service and track when the request comes in and what is the response.

And also behind the scenes, it does come to UCT and that information is reviewed and triaged and either acted upon or closed.

And so I know that there's a lot of space where things are kind of automated and it feels depersonalized, but this is, process improvement that we're utilizing, and certainly we will, again, don't want to over-speak for UCT, but I know that we're all committed to improvements, but it is a way for us to really track and triage, especially with this new neighborhood model versus just individual requests going out in different ways.

It is a very important data point, too, that helps inform decisions, and so I just wanted to make sure that I could lift that up as well.

Thank you, Director Kim.

My recollection of the policy to funnel things through find it fix it was for if to make sure we were having a centralized place so there wasn't duplication efforts and worse so that there wasn't a request out there or someone that had been identified that wasn't getting assistance because somebody a different department thought they were on it and so as a way to make sure that we had a centralized repository and then it would get funneled out to the various departments but there was a way to track it so no one fell through the cracks That was my recollection, and you're nodding yes.

So, okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, on that note, I'll back you up, Director Kim and Council Member Rivera, because it is a way of finding people that need help.

ultimately and if it does contribute to what KCRHA and other providers or what's known to be sort of kind of the ideal, which is a list of people and what their needs are and are they how can we help them get back to whatever medical treatment they might have lost or whatever.

I mean, that is ultimately what we're trying to do is establish some, well, get people indoors and get them into services and establish some stability in their lives.

So anyway, on that note, I just wanted to say that I have long supported UCT's work and I oppose the previous council's budget action to send funding that was allocated to the UTC in the mayor's proposed 2023 budget to KCRHA, so I did support bringing it back in-house and its expansion last year to the district model.

Thank you very much for seeing that vision through.

And I also applaud Mayor Harrell for recognizing that having whatever at a localized basis really does help.

It helps to get to know people, what their needs are.

We can't think of people who are living outside as a monolithic block.

And so the closer we can be on a more regular basis to the people that need help, the better.

And I do believe that's what UTC's mission is.

When you were talking about some of the things that CT does and what you're tracking and how you allocate awards, I'm not going to get into asking for the specifics and how you make your decisions.

I just want to say that supporting getting them life-saving services is what is most important to me.

And I say life savings because our outreach providers provide a lot of services.

They generate relationships with people and help them get a lot of different services.

But I'm specifically thinking about addiction treatment and in the midst of a fentanyl crisis, epidemic, whatever you want to call it, that it's extremely important to actually to do more than just meet people where they're at, but actively encourage them to seek help and help them get it.

And so, thank you.

I'm leading up to a thank you and then a question.

Thank you very much for helping set up what our public commenters referenced as my budget action in 2024, I think, to provide...

just a small fund of money to pay treatment service facilities directly so that people can get on-demand recovery-based inpatient or outpatient treatment.

And we are hearing that it is working.

There are some folks that co-lead caseworkers have gotten into Lakeside Myelom and WeHeart Seattle, et cetera.

So thank you very much for that.

It was an irregular model, but thank you.

On that note, I do wanna know, do you track how many people are going into, I mean, it is one of your performance, but how do you, do you ever require that actively encouraging people to seek treatment, not necessarily at an inpatient facility, but at Evergreen Treatment Services or whatever?

I mean, is that part of how you evaluate a nonprofit that will get city funding?

Yeah, I think that is a really key piece.

It's not just that we want referrals to go out to organizations, but we want them to be effective and actually connect folks to services.

So that's definitely something we want as a primary goal.

I think, you know, talking about getting folks stably housed, but also meaningfully connected to services that promote that.

And that is something we'll look into.

I think we're going to use, again, the care coordination lists as well to not just understand who was sent to another organization, but did they actually move in and receive services?

And the RFQ also talked about in the contracts now when to exit clients from care, and it's really once that strong connection to another case manager is in fact made and someone can continue on with services.

Christine, anything else you would add?

I think part of your question was, do we require people to go to treatment?

And I think with that, no?

Do we require the outreach services that we contract with to encourage treatment when they see people that might need it?

Sure.

Motivational interviewing is definitely something that we look to providers to have training and ability to do.

And so talking to individuals about what their needs are and what their interests might be and kind of using those motivational interviewing techniques to get them where they need to be.

Okay.

That was the answer to my question.

Thank you.

And I think to your point, it's, you know, outreach workers, absolutely.

I think they want to do the referrals and they can, you know, what has been as, as you mentioned, which is why we're trying to open up some additional resources.

is then where are the viable either services out there that can receive individuals who want the treatment or want services.

And your ad with Lakeside Milam, as well as with Valley Cities, we've got some opportunity there for outreach workers to directly do some referrals through our process.

And so that's really exciting.

We didn't have that before directly.

And so because those are contracts that we also have, it aligns, again, our resources with the work that we're doing.

And so that's going to be interesting to see how much it's utilized.

They're both different.

One is the reimbursement and the one is a bed, you know, reserve beds for us.

But, you know, it's, of course, incumbent in just underscoring to make sure folks in the viewing public, it's not a requirement, but that we have the actual resources to receive people who, are eligible, ready, and willing.

So, thank you.

One final thing.

And when we're talking about long-term housings, there is a coordinated entry, whole system with KCRHA, et cetera.

And as was mentioned by the We Deliver Care commenters, there's also a network of sober housing opportunities, recovery.

You can go for treatment or...

perhaps stay etc so and if when the spots aren't open for you know in some of our contracted housing providers then just i i would hope that people are aware of the of the other options in the in the community um that's all i would say absolutely

Wonderful.

Thank you, Chair.

I feel the need to just clarify my comments from earlier and really underscore the importance of centralizing our homelessness response system.

And that is a point I've actually spent a number of years of my career working on doing exactly that.

It's why we set up KCRHA in the first place also to centralize our homelessness response services so we have all the contracts living in one spot.

In the previous system, we didn't have that.

They were spread and they continue to be spread out.

across the entire county when we look at our other partnering cities also going about their own efforts to address homelessness.

Also looking at ways where we're centralizing our data systems, which is why I'm asking so many questions on how much we're reporting into HMIS and consistency in that system.

Again, my comments here are not about the need to centralize because every bit of data and reporting that we know support centralizing our services so we can best serve people and using models like a by name list.

I really want to just be clear that my comments are much more related about the message that we're sending to the public about reporting to something like Find It, Fix It, which this is the same place again where people are reporting dead animals, people are reporting overgrown vegetation, nuisance, potholes, snow and ice.

This is the only area where we're asking people to report about other people.

And I just really wanna be clear on that point.

We're talking about people here in this presentation.

And so, again, this is not to cast blame, but rather to say I just hold concern about the message that sends to the public, especially given the rates of violence that people experiencing homelessness are experiencing against folks in this community, and how we can do our work as a full community to try and temper some of those dynamics.

and just be able to do right.

So again, my comments are much more about doing right by and sending a positive message to the public that people are not to be fixed, but rather to be supported and helped and brought together.

Thank you.

We're aligned in our values.

And for the record, I fully support KCRHA in being that centralized strategy and having the majority of the emergency response contracts.

And so we're aligned.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson, is that an old hand?

That's an old hand taking it down now.

Okay.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Great.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

It was very helpful.

This is exciting.

I know that myself and I think some others were pushing for more sort of district model.

So this is exciting to see this come to fruition.

And I know it's up and running in D5.

We've had a few rollout issues, but I'm sure those are gonna be ironed out shortly.

So I'm optimistic and also been really pleased that in talking, once a week with the UCT team for, well, it used to be in Northeast region, but now D5.

And they are just thrilled to be able to have these expanded partnerships, to your point about now that they can do the light touch and know that for the people who really need more intensive kind of walking through that they have that variety of resources available to them and feeling that this is really gonna be able to amplify the service to so many in our community who really have these kind of profound needs.

and often multiple and complex needs.

So I'm really grateful that we are able to provide those services.

One question that I had just to clarify, when you say the 72 hour response to referrals, so is that UCT making the referral to the particular outreach agency and then that agency responding to the referral?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

And so the expectation is that they will respond within 72 hours.

That is the goal that we're going to be looking towards.

I think, as mentioned earlier, we want to see what success looks like.

We understand that individuals can be hard to connect with.

So is that realistic?

I think the main piece is that we are hoping for prompt response to individuals in the community.

Yeah, I think that that's going to be critical to hold people to that 72-hour response time because otherwise things are not going to happen.

And to that point, also being able to strike when people are ready.

So that's important.

The other thing I'm a little...

a little worried about is that we, and I understand why we've broken it down by specialization and skill set, but I'm a little bit worried that we might wind up becoming too siloed in the sense that that's just your piece versus my piece and things then falling through the cracks.

So just wondering kind of how you're going to approach making sure that agency one who gets the street-based referral goes out there and say, well, that really should be going to the behavioral health people, and then there's even more time that's lost, really.

Yeah, I think that's a great point.

I see Christina wants to chat too.

I think we are looking for this to be an iterative model, and the expectation is that all agencies are available to support unsheltered individuals.

We may have specialized skill sets, but that it's really about sharing those to meet the greater need, but Christina.

And I think that's also where the collaboration and coordination piece comes in.

I think that the idea is for these teams to be very well connected, collaborating and coordinated on a very regular basis and rather than being siloed to try to prevent duplication because I think previously there's been a lack of coordination amongst agencies and so then you get multiple agencies providing services potentially to the same individual without communicating about the work that they're doing.

And so trying to have that really regular touch point, regular communication between these teams to try to ensure that an individual is getting the care that they need and not getting siloed, but also not duplicating.

So, and I thank you, Council Member Rink, for your comments about the HMIS.

That's certainly a very, very powerful tool.

I know we've had Lisa Dugard here talking about the work with SPD and not them not having access.

reach and lead not having access to SBD information and vice versa.

So just wanting to make sure that, is there going to be some sort of, besides HMS, a repository for this information that people can access in real time, basically?

So you've got to provide, you know, when you're talking about keeping track of people moving from one district to another, are people, you know, how well are they actually maintaining in services, those sorts of things?

Absolutely.

I think, again, it wouldn't just be HMIS.

It would be these care coordination lists that are managed in the huddles and that our regional coordinators are communicating.

in charge of keeping up to date and working in those huddles to get those updates about what services are received.

But Christina, is that, would you say?

And I guess just the sharing of information would be with the agencies that we have kind of an agreement to share information with, and it wouldn't necessarily be with SPD or with agencies outside.

No, that was an example of an issue where there's not information sharing that's problematic.

Yeah, I think with the overall goal, I think as called on the metrics is just that we want to make sure coordination is there across agencies and not have things living in certain silos again that folks can't access.

So that's a real critical goal we want to make sure we hit with this initiative.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm also interested, so when you're talking about motivational interviewing, is that something that, you know, in terms of your metric measurement, like you've got treatment and recovery services, number of service connections, are you in quality?

So to council member, Nelson's point like part of this is also getting people actively referred into treatment and talking as we as the you know the street based services and even the behavioral health services are going out there using every interaction to talk about how we can get you, you know, there's medication management available, there's a mobile van available, there's, you know, inpatient or outpatient available.

So always using that point of contact to continue to provide the positive message.

So what I would like to know is that and that motivational interviewing, which is part of what are attaining the personal goals, are you keeping track of of how often those actual questions are being asked, that kind of motivational interviewing is happening around the need for and desire for some sort of treatment, be it medication management or actual sobriety treatment.

So looking at the performance measures, we're tracking the referrals that are made, and we're also tracking the referrals received.

Is that correct?

And so there's a level of tracking, and partly it's individualized for the person.

And so do you want to say more about what that looks like in the detail of reporting in that?

I think as well to talk about it's going into HMIS, but again, in these care coordination huddles as well, understanding this is the resource we referred this person to.

These are the resources that are out there.

This individual was successful in connecting to resource A.

Here's how to happen.

I think if there's an unsuccessful connection, understanding in those huddles as well why that was unsuccessful?

What were the particulars of that situation?

Was it an individual issue?

Was it a more organizational issue?

Is there conversations to have?

I think it's all iterative, but we want to track that information and those conversations to make the model as most effective as it can be in connecting on to care.

And one of the performance measures also is looking at the frequency of the interaction, too, right?

It was a minimum of a month, it sounds like.

And so I think, you know, we've talked about this, too, when we were at table, talking about different types of referrals.

And I appreciate what you're asking.

I think this year we're going, this is new, we're going to develop a baseline and we're going to understand.

It's not punitive when somebody, of course, and you know this, but if they decline and they're not ready, how do we continue to be in relationship?

And that's the whole point of going deeper and longer is building that trust.

And so when somebody is ready, then we can have the opportunity to get them seamlessly into that program or offer that service.

And so It's gonna be different for different people, but we need to be relentless in our relationship and being available and having the resources to provide folks.

But with this level of data, we're gonna have a more complete story in a year.

Yeah, that'd be helpful.

Again, it's just really an opportunity to continue, to take each opportunity to remind.

People are not necessarily gonna be ready.

There are gonna be a lot of declines of treatment, but to take each opportunity to be positive about what the options are.

That's, I think, kind of what I, for me, that's what I'm asking, yeah.

And then I know we're running out of time, or we've run out of time, but I just have one last comment, really, which is to Council Member Rink, your point about reporting, I mean, we're reporting encampments, right, because of sort of the effect of that on the neighborhood and the community, but the fact is that it is about people who are living there, so if there might be eventually some way to perhaps It would be nice at some point to have a 9-1-1 sort of tree, not triage, but a tree when you call 9-1-1 to report this or that like they do in Albuquerque and some other cities.

Council Member Morales talked about this a lot too.

Maybe someday we would get to this being that part of that.

I recognize the, yeah, the disconnect and the discomfort with using, calling it, find it, fix it.

But at the same time, it is a very powerful tool.

So it's what we have at the moment, but certainly we can work on trying to come up with a different name or perhaps a different system to include it.

So anyway, those are my final remarks.

Thank you very much for the presentation and all the work that actually went into creating this program.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about how it's going in the future.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Well, are there any final comments or questions?

Seeing none, this concludes the February 26th meeting of the Housing and Human Services Committee.

The next meeting is scheduled for March 12th, 2025. The time is 1134, and we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.