Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 832020

Council Select Budget Committee will come to order.

I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Select Budget Committee.

It is 10.37 a.m.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Peterson?

Here.

Sawant?

Here.

Strauss?

Present.

Gonzales?

Here.

Herbold?

Here.

Juarez?

Here.

Lewis?

Morales?

Here.

Mosqueda?

Here.

Ape present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council colleagues, today we have a continuation of the meeting that we began last Friday with the continuation starting at amendment number 40 for the remainder of the budget of budget amendment considerations as it relates to SPD's budget.

We will begin those conversations immediately after public comment, and colleagues will have the chance to sign on to additional amendments, ask questions or comments, and we will endeavor to get through the remainder of the amendments today with the intention to bring amendments back up for vote and consideration on Wednesday of this week.

If there's no questions about the agenda that's in front of us as a continuation of Friday, the agenda will be adopted.

We are going to go right away into public comment.

We do have the desire to get through as many people as possible with our public comment this morning and also recognize we are trying to end our committee meeting so that there is a break between our meeting and the upcoming full Council meeting.

recognizing that we will again have public comment again on Wednesday morning.

We appreciate all of you calling in.

I think you many of you already know the spiel but very briefly I will call three people at a time.

You will hear you have been unmuted.

That is your opportunity to begin speaking.

After you've begun speaking you will at 10 seconds into the end of your time hear a chime.

That's your indication to wrap it up.

You will be muted again at the end of your time.

Please hang up and do call in on our listen-in line or watch on Seattle Channel, either online or on the television.

If you don't get a chance to say your full comments or we don't get a chance to hear from you today, please email us at councilatseattle.gov.

Again, more opportunities for public comment coming up later this week and again next Monday on top of the public comment we've already had today.

We appreciate all of you calling in.

If there's no objection, we will have public comment for at least 20 minutes.

We will end before 11 a.m.

to get through for two hours of discussion.

Hearing no objection, let's go ahead and begin.

The first three speakers are Shoshana Weinberg, Erica Jacobson, and Alex Emery.

Shoshana, good morning.

Council members, my name is Shoshana.

You're good to go Shoshana.

Okay.

Good morning.

I'm testifying on behalf of Youth Care which serves young people experiencing homelessness.

We are urging you to cut the SPD budget by 50 percent and reinvest that funding in the four point proposal put forth by King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle.

Since our founding in 1974 Youth Care has seen the historic defunding of housing behavioral health and our social safety net.

alongside the criminalization of homelessness, mental illness, addiction, and poverty.

We've also seen massive gentrification and the displacement of our Black and Brown communities, and we've seen the disproportionate rates of homelessness and poverty among Black and Brown people paralleled by over-policing and excessive force.

Our policies and investments are backward, and we urge you to right these wrongs and set them straight.

Thank you.

Thanks, Shoshana.

I know you called in last week and we didn't get a chance to hear from you, so thank you for calling back in.

Erica, good morning.

Hello, my name is Erica Jacobson, and I rent in District 2. I'm calling in full support of King County Equities Now's large list of demands upon City Council.

We will not accept anything less than 50% cut of SPD's budget.

We demand that money be reinvested in community care and emergency services and into the black-led organizations of this city.

We demand that City Council take concerns around stocking gentrification seriously.

And looking over today's potential amendments, I see that the council is listening and trying to change the system.

I'm especially hopeful for Amendment 54, solely led by Councilwoman Sawant, and investing in housing.

I would like to know that in laying off SBD staff, it should be a priority to keep the BIPOC staff on the book.

BIPOC staff are a necessity.

Please know that a future of less policing requires drastic change of strategy and investment in BIPOC community and leadership.

Earlier this month, I shared the story of my dear cousin's death at the hands of police.

His name was David Morty, and he deserved better from the country he grew up in.

Be a part of this change so that no other BIPOC have to share the same fate.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Erica.

Alex, good morning.

Hi, I'm Alex.

I'm a homeowner in District 2. There's been a lot of numbers and terms flying around lately, and it's easy to get confused.

So I just want to use my time today to clarify some terms and make sure we're all on the same page.

We demand that you defund the FPD by 50%, at least, and invest that money in black communities.

We're demanding an amount greater than or equal to 50%, or $85 million minimum, not the $2.6 million in cuts you discussed on Friday.

That's 3%, which is less than 50%.

Does that make sense?

Another example, at least 50% of Seattle voters support you in defunding the police.

I could say that 64% of voters support you transferring money from police to communities, but here I'm casually referring to a number greater than 50% as, quote, at least 50%.

When I say at least 50% of you have pledged to defund the police, I'm referring to the fact that seven of nine of you have pledged to defund the police.

That's 78%, which is more than 50%, or in other words, at least 50%.

defund SPD by $85 million immediately and invest that money in Seattle's Black communities immediately.

Thank you.

The next three people are Kelsey McGrath, Jazlyn Huerta, and William Bullock.

Kelsey, good morning.

I'm Kelsey McGrath, renter in District 3. I'm tremendously appalled and disappointed by the amendments put forth by Mosqueda, Morales, Gonzalez, Herbold, and Strauss.

You are co-opting the language of the movement while doing less than the bare minimum to enact radical systemic change for Black and Indigenous lives.

When you commit to defunding SPD by 50% but then offer a plan that one, defunds by 1.5%, two, does not mention black or indigenous people anywhere, and three, does not lay off any fully trained officers, you are upholding white supremacy under the guise of so-called progressive leadership.

Your $83 million down payment is misleading when the funds come from Rating Day accounts, not SPD.

These amendments do not meet the demands.

Your excuses about bargaining with FOG are excuses.

You have the power to enact real change support to launch amendments or step down.

All right.

Jocelyn welcome.

Hello I'm Jocelyn Huerta.

I live in District 3 on Capitol Hill and I'm calling to request that you decrease the SED budget by at least 50 percent and reinvest that money into community-led solutions.

That being said I have a question about how the budget handles lawsuits.

I got the chance to ask Council Member Strauss on Friday, but did not get an answer, so I'm calling to ask the Council at large.

As police brutality lawsuits against the SPD and the city pile up, where is the money to pay for damages going to come from?

We're talking about the city facing a $200 million deficit for 2021, but my concern is that Seattleites are also going to have to pay for the fallout from SPD's lack of control and increasing violence.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I yield my time.

Hi, my name is William Bullock, and I support defunding SPD by 50% of the remaining 2020 budget.

You have all proclaimed that Black Lives Matter.

Now is the time to listen to what that movement is actually asking for and show that you aren't simply mouthing hollow slogans.

The Police Guild has repeatedly shown they have no loyalty to the people of Seattle, only to their own ability to act with impunity.

They have engaged in brutal reprisals and disinformation against the people who have opposed them and allied themselves with Trump's DHS secret police, who they will serve again without hesitation should they return.

We shouldn't reward them with the ability to set the terms of their own funding.

Some of you have heard anger from the people of Seattle.

Please understand that what that anger is is us begging you please do not abandon us to these thugs.

Do not teach them once again that their actions have no real consequences.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next three people are Peter Shaliko Maya Garfinkel and Catherine Dawson.

Peter good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Peter.

I live in Wallingford, Seattle District 4. I'm calling in support of defunding SPD by at least 50%.

I appreciated seeing Friday's resolution and amendments, and I'm encouraged that council members Mosqueda and Strauss are already working to extrapolate this year's changes to 2021 and 22. But I urge you, as you're doing these back of the envelope calculations and working out the vision, don't be set aside with 42%.

We need 50% at least.

Police violence against Seattleites has gone on long enough.

Get the layoff notices sent out ASAP and to more than just 100 officers.

Until those notices go out, this is all just talk.

Black-led, community-led solutions need that funding to be able to scale up and keep us all safe.

Thank you for listening.

I'm calling in support of defunding SPD by at least 50%, investing in black communities and dismantling other policing forces in our city, specifically the navigation team.

The navigation team has a long history of harassing and criminalizing those experiencing homelessness instead of focusing on addressing root causes.

of housing insecurity, the navigation team prioritizes the concerns of property owners instead of focusing on what community safety and care should be.

The navigation team sweeps encampments, destroys people's belongings, and contributes further to displacement.

Defund SPD, defund the navigation team, and invest in community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine, good morning.

Hi my name is Catherine Boston district 3 renter calling to voice my support for defunding SPD by at least 50 percent and investing that money in black communities.

To be clear that the amendments put forward by Mosqueda Morales Gonzalez and Strauss do not meet those demands.

We ask for 50 percent not 1.5 percent.

We ask for money invested in black communities not colorblind compromises.

We ask for 84 million from SPD not from rainy day funds.

Defund the police by at least 50 percent this year and every year.

You've heard hundreds of calls and seen tens of thousands of your constituents march.

You promised 50% and we have your back.

But if you only deliver $2.6 million, you're as bad as Council Member Peterson and Mayor Dorfman.

Defund the police, support Solange's amendments, and dismantle the navigation team.

I yield my time.

Sarah, good morning.

My name is Sarah.

I'm asking you to put aside your individual political agendas to attend to the needs of those who are elected to serve.

Prematurely pledging to cut SPD's budget by 50% without a well-developed plan in place with a validated capacity to transfer SPD services is irresponsible and dangerous.

It isn't working in Minneapolis and New York, and it won't work here.

We can and should do better.

Let's do this right the first time by soliciting a wide range of community feedback debating respectfully during the council's fall budget process and phasing in a thoughtful detailed plan that truly increases safety and community wellness.

We need police in Seattle.

We need police response times to be faster rather than slower.

Our officers also need support not to be villainized.

We need you to stand up and do what's right.

Slow down and put in a thoughtful plan in place.

Please abide by the OTA made and serve the people who work live and play in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

The next three people are Jessica Scalzo, Johanna Bitton, and Richa Duby.

Jessica, good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Jessica Scalzo, and I'm calling again in full support of defunding SPD by at least 50% and using all of those funds to go directly to Black and Brown community-led restorative justice programs, education that benefits Black and Brown youth, and also housing that will directly support black households that have been pushed out of the city.

I'm concerned about only defunding by 2.6%.

That's not enough.

I support Shawna Sawant's amendment and I hope you will also.

Thank you for the time.

Hello, my name is Joanna and I'm from District 7. Dear council members, I would like to remind you all that seven out of nine council members committed publicly to defund the police by 50%, which would be $85 million this year.

However, now I am hearing reports that that would be impossible.

We elected you all to council because we had hoped that you have the ability to do simple math and move around funds.

If Black Lives Matter, prove it.

Find a way to stand by your word and choose the right side of history.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Here are other demands.

We want you to reallocate those funds to Black communities including education and public health.

We want amnesty for all protesters.

No new youth jail.

And we want you to recall Jenny Durkin.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

And Richa.

Good morning.

Licensed in Seattle.

I'm a support Good morning.

My name is Richard Dubé and I'm a small business owner licensed in Seattle.

I'm a supporter and volunteer with the Coalition of Seattle Indian-Americans.

Our group follows the leadership of King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle.

There have been objections to cuts in the SBD budget on the ground that we will see rampant crime.

We've already seen rampant crime on part of the police and paid them overtime for it.

$6.3 million was the overtime cost for Seattle police attacking justice for George Floyd protesters in the first 12 days of protests.

Even with the 50 percent cut, SPD would have $85 million left, which is still nearly five times the city's annual funds for immigrants and refugees, enforcing labor standards and civil rights combined.

You're offering 1.5 percent?

Why is this even a debate?

The next three speakers are Elizabeth Harris, Anitra Freeman, Jason Field.

Elizabeth, good morning.

My name is Liz Harris.

I'm a D4 resident and a homeowner.

I'm co-founder of the Northeast Seattle Social Justice and Equity Council.

Today, my wife and I delivered a petition and its responses in support of the demands laid out by Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now to Council Member Peterson.

In just a few days, the efforts of our small households garnered 308 signatures from D4 residents who want you to vote in favor of defunding SPD by 50% and reallocating those funds to BIPOC community-led services.

Alex Peterson, if you can state Black Lives Matter, then know we hear you and expect you to be accountable to those words.

We urge you and the rest of the council to strive toward meeting these demands.

Vote in favor of defunding by 50% and reallocating funds to community-led services.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anitra, good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Anitra Freeman, formerly homeless member of Wheel and Share.

Disband the NAV team.

Put that $8.5 million to better use.

The Wheel Low Barrier Women's Shelter has never in 20 years turned a woman away without a solid referral.

During COVID, our capacity is cut by more than half.

We dread the time we won't have any place to send people to, a time coming soon.

We need referral options for vulnerable women now.

More tiny house villages now.

Funding and space for Wheel to continue to operate its shelter and walk-up services, and funding and shared shelters to continue to operate 24 hours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jason, good morning.

Hello, my name is Jason Fields.

I'm a homeowner in District 5. We must defund SPD by 50% now.

A few weeks ago, I was on an evening walk off Northgate Avenue.

I saw a man being chased by several policemen.

They caught him, and within minutes, no fewer than eight police cruisers were lined up in front of where he was caught.

No fewer than a dozen armed police officers surrounded the man, now pinned down on his chest.

He was powerless, certainly afraid.

I walked away concerned about the safety of that man.

The scene was a crude reminder that we are civilians living in a police state.

This instance occurred after mass public outcry and demonstrations against police violence.

Why did this happen?

because the police force cannot and will not change.

They are designed to invoke violence.

The moment is now.

We cannot wait.

Defund SPD by 50 percent.

Invest in our black and brown communities.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Karen Gillen followed by Christina Asuncion.

Sorry Karen.

Sorry.

Oh my goodness.

Let's try this again.

Karen Gillen followed by Christian Asuncion and then Madeline Cooley.

Sorry everyone.

Good morning Karen.

Good morning.

My name is Karen Gillen and I'm a downtown resident.

We have an historic opportunity to change the way public safety is accomplished in Seattle by moving to approaches which reduce the use of force and address systemic racism.

The country will be watching to see if we are successful and will either use us as a model to emulate or as a cautionary tale of how to how to fail.

Immediately reducing the size of the force without first fully understanding what you are sacrificing and without developing an alternative to protect public safety will result in disaster.

I urge you to slow down and work with the mayor, chief best, black community leaders, business leaders, and other community stakeholders to create a strategy, develop a plan, and then work on implementing it.

Cutting the police force is not the first step in the process.

If you want to genuinely want this model of success to be a model of success for the people of Seattle, rather than an example to be avoided by others.

Thank you very much.

Christian welcome.

Hi my name is Christian Asuncion and I am in District 3. I'm calling in to support defunding SPD by at least 50 percent and reinvest in community based solutions.

If Seattle is truly saying Black Lives Matter then it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

SPD is part of a systemic racism and oppression.

If the council does not defund and reinvest then they are complicit to this racism and abuse of power.

They do not care about Black lives and will uphold white supremacy.

The recent proposal from Friday is not enough and you must do more immediately.

Drastic change is needed.

Defund by 50 percent and reinvest.

Thank you.

Thank you Madeline.

You're next.

Hi, my name is Madeline, and I am a resident of District 7. I cannot even begin to express how disappointed I am in the majority of this council.

Despite pledging to defund SPD by 50%, only council members who want has proposed anything substantial.

To those who want, thank you for actually listening to your constituents and demanding change.

To the rest of the council, how can you claim to be for this movement, yet when the time comes to actually act, all you offer is a non-binding resolution and amendments adding up to less than a 2% cut?

That is more than 48% short.

Yet many of you continue to speak as if these amendments mean something.

We can do math.

Furthermore, SPD and SPOG will fight tooth and nail to prevent losing funding, whether it's $2 million or $85 million.

Two months ago, this council passed a ban on tear gas, knowing there was a chance it could get held up in court and in labor negotiations.

Yet you took a stance and passed it anyway.

Ashling Cooley, followed by Kate Simpson and G.

Lester.

Ashling, good morning.

Hi.

I spent 18 hours in jail sleep deprived and wrongfully transferred to Kent in the morning.

I was forced to sit in a concrete cell handcuffed behind my back for five hours.

I was hit with a baton shoved dragged across the ground and tackled by SBE.

This type of abuse is not new for people of color.

That's why we need to defund SBE by 50 percent at least right now.

Your amendments so far are embarrassing.

I fully support Kashama's proposal to cap off your pay.

If you do not support it we'll know how much you value our abuse.

What I really have is a question that I hope you'll entertain now.

Can you do anything more to protect your constituents while we continue to demonstrate until demands have been met?

Protesters are being brutalized and arrested, held and abused.

I and many others are dealing with severe physical and mental health impacts.

Council keeps encouraging us to continue demonstrating, but does not protect us from brutalization by STDs.

Kate Simpson, good morning.

My name is Kate Simpson and I live in Capitol Hill.

I am in favor of defunding SPD by 50% and reallocating the money to fund community-based public safety and restorative justice.

The draft budget resolution put forth on Friday does not go far enough.

It is imperative the police budget is cut by 50% at least.

SPD's violent treatment towards protesters, specifically protesting police violence in BIPOC communities, demonstrates this necessity.

Nothing less than defunding by 50% will begin to heal the violence committed by police against Seattle's Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.

Please uphold your pledge to defund by 50%.

Thank you.

Thanks, G. Good morning.

Hi, my name is G Laster.

I'm a renter in District 7. I'm calling to support the defunding of the Seattle Police Department annually by at least 50%.

Council Member Sawant, King County Equity Now, and have put forward concrete plans and action items to use these funds to invest in Black and Brown communities.

We have a desperate need for housing investment in education social services and a reimagining of public safety and care.

We have the funds and we have the desire to accomplish deep structural change for the benefit of Black Indigenous folks and people of color.

I just want to say that when we're talking about $85 million to put this in perspective 2016 adopted budget for The Seattle Police Department was nearly 300 million, and in 2019 was 398 million.

Over three years, it grew more than the amount that we're talking about removing.

This is not even the beginning of structural change.

This is the...

The next three are Ashley Meyer, Aaron Newsom, and Kimberly Gonzalez.

And then we're done for the day, folks.

Thank you so much for all of your public testimony.

And for folks who didn't get a chance to call in, we look forward to hearing from you either via email or on Wednesday.

Thank you.

Ashley, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Ashley Meyer, and I'm calling to demand City Council not defund SPD by 50%.

In January 2020, a poll showed 97% supported adding 150 police officers, bringing Seattle up to the national average of 21 officers for every 10,000 adults.

Since then, burglary cases are up 87%, affecting not only small businesses who are keeping Seattle residents employed and paid, but also residents.

Knowing this information, how is it responsible to downsize our police force?

Chief Best is trusted by our residents, while respected by your officers and mayor, and a knowledgeable resource for you to rely on while re-envisioning the police department role in Seattle Public Safety.

Please include her in your meetings and examinations.

Defend, not defund SPD.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Erin, good morning.

Hello, my name is Erin Newsome.

I want to urge the council to consider what the city will lose with the decision to defund the police by 50%.

We will lose some of the most highly trained officers in the nation.

Officers who are at the forefront of police reform and accountability.

I urge you to slow down and consider the consequences of losing these dedicated public servants who protect our city.

I urge you to work together with Chief Best and department leaders to create change rather than hastily cutting one of the city's most important resources.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then our last speaker is Kimberly.

Good morning, Kimberly.

Hi, I'm Kimberly.

I live in South Seattle.

First of all, that last comment was completely wrong in every account, but I won't even address that.

For anyone who wasn't listening in the past couple meetings, let me fill you in.

The proposals made here are absolutely insulting to the Black people and the allies who have been tirelessly calling for very specific demands, two of which are, one, defund SPD by at least 50 percent, and two, invest that money into Black and brown communities.

Instead, these council members who are pledging to do that are nowhere near 50 percent for 2020's SPD cut, and they're attempting to fund community programs with rainy day funds and COVID relief.

Do you think that we wouldn't notice?

Do you think that we are stupid?

Instead of cowering under the police union, make bold, real, uncomfortable cuts to SPD.

Instead of trying to make change fit into a racist system, break the system.

If Black Lives Matter, use your privilege to stop harming Black lives now and actually stand up for real change.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes today's public comment.

Let's go ahead and get started with the first item of business.

Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record item number one?

Agenda item one, review of proposed Gatlin Police Department.

to the 2020 proposed rebalancing package for briefing and discussion only.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Council colleagues, just as a reminder, we are starting off with amendment number 40. And Council Member Morales, thank you for your patience as we got to your amendment.

The rest of our colleagues, I know there's a number of amendments you're excited to talk about as well.

We will do the same process that we used last week, where central staff will describe it.

I'll ask you to move it for the purposes of discussion.

Not move it, I'm sorry.

I'll ask you to describe it for the purposes of discussion so that we can then have a discussion.

Any sign-ons, and we'll go on to the next.

We have two full hours for this conversation.

I appreciate your engagement on this effort as we undertake historic change here.

Council, central staff.

Hello, Jeff Simms.

I see you on there.

Thank you for being with us.

Would you like to walk through amendment number 40, please?

Thank you, Chair.

Jeff, for the record.

I'm so sorry, Jeff.

I do have a note that I would like to share with central staff on behalf of Councilmember Juarez.

We would like to make sure that anybody who didn't get the chance to add their name to the record for signing up for public comment still gets, I'm sorry, to the record for signing up as a co-sponsor to any amendment still has the opportunity to do so.

Central staff, could you please make note of the following for Council Member Juarez's co-sponsorship?

Amendment 18, Amendment 19, Amendment 20, Amendment 22, Amendment 23, amendment 24, amendment 25, and amendment 27. Again, those are for Council Member Juarez, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27. Thank you, Council Member Juarez, for indicating co-sponsorship of those amendments.

Before we have Jeff start again, are there any additional council members who would like to add their name to amendments that we described on Friday?

Okay, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I wanted to add my name to Amendment 31.

Excellent.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

And any additional?

Okay, I've noted that Councilmember Peterson, we will add you as a co-sponsor to Amendment 31. And if there's any questions from central staff, I'm happy to, or our clerks, I'm happy to follow up with them.

We are on amendment number 40 by councilmember Morales.

Amendment number 40 sponsored by Councilmember Morales will discontinue all of the funding for the navigation team, not just Police Department funding, but also in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services and also the Human Services Department that does not include, misspoke to some degree, that does not include funding for the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The next two amendments, both sponsored by Councilmember Sawant, would not only defund the navigation team by the same amounts, but also would defund the amounts that are provided in the Department of Parks and Recreation for the navigation team.

In addition to being different substantially through that inclusion or exclusion of parks funding, the three amendments also differ from each other in the proposed use.

The amendment at hand here, proposed by Councilmember Morales, Proposes to use all of the funds saved by that reduction to be limited only for the use of outreach and engagement services for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

Amendment 41 would actually, from council members to want, does not provide any targeted use for those funds.

It just discontinues the availability of funds for the navigation team.

And Amendment 42 provides all of those funds for the expansion and creation of tiny home villages.

I'll note that all three of these amendments then would be exclusive of each other, as they're using incredibly similar funding amounts.

And in addition, they would conflict with Amendment Number 31, which was discussed last Friday, because that discontinues funding for the Seattle Police Department of $216,000, representing the savings that could be achieved by removing police from the navigation team.

With that, I'll turn it over to Councilmember Morales to speak to Amendment Number 40.

Thank you, Jeff.

Councilmember Morales.

Yes, thank you.

Thanks so much, Jeff.

Colleagues, this amendment will be updated to have the police funding portion stricken.

Since we have Amendment 31 on deck, we submitted this before all of these last pieces were in place.

But we know that removing the police is not enough.

I do want to thank Council Member Herbold, who has spent years working to protect the humanity of our homeless neighbors by regulating how the NAV team functions.

But it's clear from what our homeless community has been saying that they are out of patience and they just want to fully end the navigation team.

So my staff, Devin Silvernail, has been working really hard with providers, with frontline workers, with the folks who are doing this work to ensure that this amendment reflects what they are asking for.

I've said several times that we need to invest in models that prioritize the health and well-being of neighbors who are living unsheltered.

The NAP team doesn't do that.

It was never designed to do that.

And as you all know, we've seen the number of 72-hour and obstruction sweeps rise.

I've personally talked to people who've been swept dozens of times with no offer of shelter.

And the NAP team is just not providing the kind of trusted outreach and referral that unsheltered folks are looking for.

I believe it's time to cut the cord.

This amendment would end the kind of cyclical practice of forcibly sweeping people around the city, and instead would fund existing proactive services like REACH, the Chief Seattle Club, DESC, and others who really prioritize social work, crisis intervention, de-escalation, mental health, overall health and well-being, and shelter referral for our unsheltered community.

We have, uh, as, as Jeff said, a few, um, a few options here.

Um, my goal and the goal of the community is to replace the navigation team with something that works better and works better for everyone.

Um, so with that said, um, I just want to make a note that are, um, in contrast to the, um, amendment that council member someone is offering, um, ours does allow HSD about a month.

to make changes required by our amendments.

I believe hers gives them about two weeks.

Ours preserves existing funding for the parks department.

As I said, as we were talking to some of the frontline workers, what we heard is that the folks who are doing the outreach think that the litter pickup is really important, but they would like somebody else to be doing it so that they can focus on outreach and case management.

And the total re-appropriation from this bill, because we've taken that $216,000 out, is about 1.6 million.

Council Member Sawant's is 2.3.

I think it's worth supporting both, but I do think that ours responds especially to what the frontline workers are asking for.

And with that, I will turn it over to the chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Morales.

I see Council Member Sawant's hand.

So as was stated, this is an amendment to stop the sweep similar to the amendment that my office has proposed, which as Jeff said, will be discussed next.

And thank you, Jeff, for the summary.

I have informed Council Member Morales' office already.

My staff have informed that my office is happy to work together with their office to consolidate these budget amendments.

And as we've said for years as the people's budget movement and Nicholsville and Lehigh and hundreds, if not thousands of community activists have said, we need to stop the sweeps.

They are inhumane and ineffective.

They simply move people from one corner to the next.

endangering the meager belongings that our homeless neighbors are able to hang on to.

They do nothing to increase available shelter space or affordable housing.

They just make homeless people more desperate and less likely to trust social workers.

Mayor Durkin has conducted over 1,000 sweeps and they have not helped.

I have never once met anyone who has said I was swept and it helped me find housing or I was swept and it improved my life in this or that way.

We have spoken to hundreds of people who have been swept in my office and some over 10 times.

We have met people who have been swept over 10 times and not one person has said that it worked for them.

Especially during the pandemic, the sweeps are even more barbaric and in fact put not just homeless neighbors but the entire community at heightened risk for public health.

The Centers for Disease Control advises that cities like Seattle could allow people who are living unsheltered or in encampments to remain where they are, unquote.

The CDC explains why, quote, clearing encampments can cause people to disperse throughout the community and break connections with service providers.

This increases the potential for infectious disease spread, unquote.

Given that guidance from the CDC, it is appalling to me that Mayor Durkin's administration would ignore the science and insist on continuing inhumane and dangerous sweeps.

And I do have points for the amendments that are coming up, but I'll reserve them.

Thank you, Council Member Swan.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, thank you very much.

Council Member Morales, I believe that you received or that we all received notification from the folks from the Coalition to End Homelessness in support of the amendment.

Do you have anything else to add from any stakeholder engagement that you've heard from so far?

No, um, just that we've been really busy talking to stakeholders, um, including up to yesterday morning anyway.

Um, and, uh, I do believe that folks are very interested in making sure that, um, you know, we, we put money into the frontline workers and, uh, move this out of, uh, out of the current structure.

Well, one of the things that I think is compelling is trying to figure out a way for us to lift up the workers who are currently embedded into the existing system, like case managers, mental health counselors, those who are providing housing counseling.

We should be in a position where we're supporting those individuals within the city to not have to be in situations where they need.

I appreciate the efforts you put forward here.

Are there any additional folks who would like to add their name as a I will also add my name, and will be interested in hearing more about how this could continue to protect those who are non-sworn officers in other departments as a key sort of priority of mine as we think about those Seattle City employees as well.

Thank you very much.

Okay, moving on.

Amendment number 41. I'm sorry, for the clerk, I will just summarize.

Co-sponsors to Councilmember Morales' amendment include Councilmember Sawant, Councilmember Herbold, and Councilmember Mosqueda.

Okay, thank you.

Going on to 41, please.

I've already spoken to amendment number 41, but I do want to clarify that I utilized, after engaging with Councilmember Sawant's office, a similar calculation method just to simplify the considerations for the council here.

We have not, at the time of publishing, we did not receive information from all the necessary departments on the exact amounts that are still unexpended or unencumbered.

And so the dollar amounts here are really more reflection and difference between including a cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation, which is what Council Member Sawant's two amendments would do, or not including a reduction to the Department of Parks and Recreation as proposed by Council Member Morales.

Otherwise, the funding sources are similar in their calculation approaches.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Please go ahead.

So as I said in the last amendment, this is the stop the sweeps amendment from my office.

The total dollar figure is larger than the previous amendment because it assumes that the navigation team that carries out the sweeps will be eliminated as a whole.

That doesn't mean the people will be made unemployed, obviously the workers.

but it means that that function that the navigation team provides will be ended.

This is exactly what the King County Coalition on Homelessness is demanding, and this is what the vast majority of community members are demanding and have been demanding for years, because what is happening currently has not worked.

The managers in the human services department whose job it is to decide which encampment should be swept and when would no longer be needed for that job if the function is ended.

And so should be moved into other open roles in the department as the city council eliminates if the city council eliminates all the sweeps, which I think we should.

It's high time.

This budget amendment is simply to stop the sweeps and does not specify where the funding should go.

The previous amendment to you stated that the funds to be used for homeless outreach through the REACH program is a good use of those funds, and I, of course, support that.

Thank you, Council Member Swan.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, seeing none, any additional folks would like to add their name?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Swan.

I believe you have the next amendment as well.

Jeff, anything to add to the next amendment?

not at this time.

Thank you, Chair.

Council Member Solano, please go ahead for additional comments on Amendment 42.

I will be withdrawing this amendment because this was an alternate version of the Stop the Sweeps amendment that we just discussed that directs the funds to support tiny house villages.

My office prepared this amendment before the council passed other funding through the Amazon tax for those tiny house villages, so I am now withdrawing the version of this amendment now.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Seeing no additional questions about that, let's move on to amendment number 43. And Jeff, I see you are off camera.

I just want to check with central staff.

Amendment number 43 by Council Member Sawant.

Any additional comments from central staff?

Okay, I'm going to, there we go.

Hi Jeff.

Sorry, a little delay with getting myself unmuted.

Appreciate it.

And just for the viewing public, again, amendment number 43 is where we're at.

Amendment number 43 compares very similarly to an amendment that was provided earlier that also would reduce funding would provide $3 million of funding for community led research.

This was also discussed on last Friday, however, in this case, a funding source was.

identified as $3 million from the patrol operations budget of the Seattle Police Department, whereas last week, as all council members are well aware, the approach was much more technical in nature, looking at considerations related to layoffs and notification trades and things like that.

With that, I'll turn it over to Council Member Sawant to speak to her amendment.

Thank you, Jeff.

Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

As I mentioned Friday, during a previous amendment, this amendment would reduce the funds for the Seattle Police Department's patrol operations by $3 million and add $3 million to the Human Services Department to contract with community-based organizations to design community safety alternatives to repressive policing.

to remind members of the public the version of this amendment that was proposed by other council members on Friday did not fund this community work by defunding the police but rather would draw money from the COVID relief bill that the council just passed and that was incidentally just vetoed by mayor Durkin over the weekend and also from the city's almost depleted rainy day fund.

The community, the movement, and our people's budget campaign have been very clear from the get-go.

The money to fund this community work must come from the SPD budget because primarily, the police need to be defunded.

This is not a budget cut aimed at the police department.

It is defunding the police because It is necessary in order to bring about social and racial justice.

This amendment from my office specifies that the funding should come from defunding the police.

The amendment from the other council members does not.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to talk to several activists and organizers in the Justice for George Floyd movement and found that many were really very disappointed and even shocked that so many council members, Democrats, who just weeks ago enthusiastically pledged to defund the police by 50% have not proposed anything in that ballpark.

My office totaled up the cuts proposed by the establishment and they come to just under $2.6 million in the remaining 2020 SPD budget of the $170 million.

And this is excluding the $16.3 million the mayor has promised and conceded to.

One doesn't have to be a mathematician to recognize that $2.6 million is not anywhere close to 50% of the $170 million.

It is necessary to, and also just to make the mathematics clear and to compare apples to apples, if you include the $16.3 million that the mayor has announced and conceded to, to both my proposal and the proposal for the Democrats, and if you compare those two side by side, then the proposal from my office and the people's budget Summer 2020 campaign adds up to 50% of the remaining budget of the SPD, whereas the proposal from the Democrats adds up to 11.1%.

So compare 50% to 11.1% just to make it an accurate comparison.

But it's also important to note that what the city council Democrats have proposed adds up to $2.6 million.

It is necessary to answer some of the reasons or excuses in my view council members have given for why they claim that defunding by 50% is not possible.

Councilmembers have said that there isn't enough money left in the police budget.

But in reality, there is around $170 million left in the police budget.

People may already also have seen a number under $88 million, but that was from half a month ago.

And the police budget is for a staggering $34 million a month, which is just astounding.

It's far more than any of the the city charter.

The city charter says that all social justice oriented city departments get whether it is immigrants or refugees or libraries or civil rights or labor standards and even far more than the fire department.

Councilmembers have said that the city charter would need to be changed.

All the city charter says about this is quote, there shall be There is no charter amendment required to defund the police.

This is just a political excuse.

Councilmembers have said that defunding the police will take time and that changes must be negotiated with the Seattle police officers.

My office has discussed with the city attorney's office and other legal experts and this is simply a wild exaggeration by the political establishment that is totally entrenched in the idea that police are sacrosanct.

I spoke to a unionized metro bus driver over the weekend who was laid off due to budget cuts and was given 25 days notice.

Why do police require three months?

In reality, it should be the reverse.

Bus drivers should not be cut in the first place.

And if they are, they should require far more notice because bus drivers, as has been declared, are essential workers.

They support our communities and are especially needed during the pandemic.

It is true that the city must negotiate the effects of these budget changes with the police officers guild, but the city council has every authority to change the budget and there is no legal requirement that the negotiations be protracted.

Just for comparison's sake, let's look at what happens when the political establishment wants to get something done.

In 2013, when the democratic establishment in the state government wanted to pass a record $8.7 billion tax handout to Boeing executives and betray the machinist union, they called a special legislative session, introduced the legislation, debated, voted, and signed the bill into law in just seven days.

Council members want as somebody who actively worked against that handout to Boeing.

I'm well aware of that.

I'm going to ask you with this line of comments, this line of comments is in relation to each of the amendments that you have today because we are looking at the 3 million.

I understand that it's an entire package.

I just want to understand if this is related to the entire package.

You have to let me speak.

You have to let me speak.

You can disagree with me, but I want to I want to finish speaking then you can ask your questions.

No one will credibly argue that this legislation is simpler or less impactful than defunding the SPD, and they passed that bill in seven days.

Just two years ago, when the mayor and the council establishment determined to repeal the first Amazon tax, they did it in the space of 48 hours.

The repeal bill was introduced on a Monday and voted the next day.

Just last month, July 13th to be precise, King County Metro handed out 200 layoff notices to bus drivers.

Their last day is this Friday, 25 days after being given layoff notification.

So we have to be clear that it is entirely possible to defund the SPD by 50% right now in the 2020 budget And it is hypocritical, given that record, for other council members to say we can't reduce the size of the SPD until November.

That is simply not true legally.

Whether to do so or not is entirely a question of political will, and council members will need to decide if they choose to follow through on the promises they made to the movement or not.

And it's not just activists marching who are supporting a 50% defunding of the police.

As you know, a new, ironically, business-funded poll I would also like to reiterate that this particular budget amendment is for a tiny portion of the police budget, less than 1% overall.

Even if councilmembers believe that cuts to the police budget cannot be implemented before November, which as I said I do not agree because it is not supported by the facts, that would still leave two months out of the year.

Two months out of 12 months of the police $409 million budget, which is a bloated budget, is $68 million.

And this is only an amendment for 3 million or 4.4% of those two months of the police budget.

To say now that we need more time is an insult to the community that is demanding I urge councilmembers to co-sponsor this budget amendment to fund community alternatives to repressive policing by defunding the police.

Thank you.

They are framing for this amendment and all the amendments and the whole topic at hand as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And with that in mind, council colleagues, Council Member Herbold, please.

You are on mute, Council Member Herbold.

Could I, could the folks who are running the screen scroll down so I could see the top of the screen?

I'm just, I'm trying to figure out this particular action assumes funds for the community-led research projects starting when?

For central staff.

I didn't make an assumption about the data.

I only made an assumption about the total amount that would be provided.

OK.

So the council's proposal proposes to use a source of dollars and contract through the legislative department in a way to create certainty so that these dollars could get out the door.

Given that there is a lag time between notice of layoffs, and layoffs occurring and the possibility of SPOG appealing.

I'm just wondering, when would the savings be available to HSD for the research process?

Our proposal gets it out the door as soon as the legislative department can contract.

These dollars are dependent on an engine that the council does not control.

And so I don't understand how these dollars actually get the funds into the community-led research process.

I'll allow Dan Eater who I believe is on the call and is really our well-versed in how these would be proceeded to respond to that question.

Thank you.

Just waiting for Dan to appear.

There you are Dan.

Thank you.

I apologize.

I was not tracking.

Could you please ask the question?

Could you please ask your question again?

Absolutely.

So first, I'm trying to understand this budget action assumes savings from patrol operations starting starting at what point after the council's action of council's vote on the on the budget.

Jeff explained that unlike our budget proposal, it doesn't make assumptions about when the dollars would be available.

And so my question is, is that given that there will be a lag time between notices of layoffs and layoffs occurring, and during that lag time, There could be a SPOG appeal and request to bargain.

I'm just trying to figure out with this budget action, when would the savings actually be available to HSD for the research project as compared to the, you know, the earlier proposal where we endeavor to have the legislative department contract dollars that we know that there's certainty that we can access.

So yeah, again, I just don't under, Council Member Swann is saying that this proposal gets dollars into the community's hands for this community-led research process, and I'm having a hard time understanding how it does that.

I believe that Council Member Swann's assumptions are that the The city could move quite quickly or more quickly than central staff has been assuming in terms of laying off patrol officers and make the three million dollars available as quickly as the officers are laid off.

So if one assumes that uh, that the officers could be laid off in three weeks or six weeks or however many weeks but not three months as central staff has been describing in the past.

Um, then then there would be need.

The question is, how many officers need to be laid off in order to achieve $3 million of savings?

I guess my question is, the $85 million has been put out there as a marker of what could be accomplished.

My understanding was in order to accomplish $85 million in reductions, those layoffs would have had to begin I'm wondering if you could comment on that time frame for when that slew of amendments would potentially have to go into effect to realize that level of cut.

The $85 million total cut that you're referring to, I believe, is in Amendment 54. That's correct.

But the framing was offered for the slew of amendments here.

So if you'd like to comment on that.

Yes, I think that the city's expectation is that there will be layoffs that can be accomplished in 2020. The approach for, as we'll discuss when we get to Amendment 54, and that is also incorporated here in Amendment 43, is that the city will assume that those layoffs can happen and will happen in 2020 And the proposal is to spend the, as I understand it, the proposal is to spend the salary savings from those layoffs for different purposes.

There is some, as we described in the conversation from yesterday, there is a question of what risk the city is willing to take that that assumption will pan out.

Um, if the city does spend the cost savings, and then it turns out that assumption is not correct, and there aren't as many or there aren't any layoffs in 2020, and the city would, um, have to have already spent the money once and wouldn't be able to spend it twice, we'd have to cut some other spending in order to continue to pay the officers.

Council Member Swanton, then I have a follow-up question.

I think it's important to state once again, as I've done before, that these are mainly these are matters of political judgment and political will not.

These are not mechanical or legal questions.

Although there's one other aspect of this that comes from her voice, which I wanted to respond to first quickly.

I agree with Council Member Herbold that, you know, it's a question of Human Services Department, the contracting is done through the HSD, not to the council, and that the council does not directly control that money going out the door.

So yes, I agree with that.

But that's something that's constant throughout all the amendments, whether you look at the amendments that Democrats put forward on Friday, or the amendments from my office.

Oh no, our legislative department.

I'm sorry.

Our proposal has the funds go to the legislative department so we can enter into the contract.

It does not send the dollars to HSD.

I'm sorry for interrupting.

Only on this one thing, though.

In any case, my point is that I just wanted to get that out of the way, because I'm happy to make that change.

We would be happy to make that change.

For us, that is not the main question here.

And so if that's a sticking point, we're happy to make that change consistent with what you raised.

But the main question here is not that.

The main question is, do the legal challenges that the objections of the Police Officers Guild need to be resolved before and that is not true.

Officers do not have to be laid off before the contracts go out.

It makes zero impact on when the human services department would have the money available to contract out the funds.

is, does the council have the confidence to actually carry out the police officer layoffs?

And that comes down to political will.

I mean, whether or not the layoffs will happen this year is up to us.

Do you want to make it happen?

And if you want to make it happen, then fight for it.

Absolutely fight for it and make it happen.

And the assumption that my amendments, the amendments on the people's budget are making, are not the assumption it's making is the assumption of political will to actually make it happen.

I think that is an important question to keep in mind.

We are, the other package is proposing layoffs and cuts to the positions of, for 70 officers, some of them through attrition, some of them for officers that are currently on the force.

But it is not true that we control whether or not those layoff notices go out.

That is out of our purview.

And I think, the recognition of that, that we don't control that machine that starts that process, both the layoff notice process and the negotiation over the personnel impacts of these decisions.

made it very, very important to try and identify dollars that we do have control over and that we can actually get out the door for this purpose.

And why that's so important is that this community-led research project is integral to our commitment to continuing the discussion about how to responsibly reduce our city's reliance on policing and instead shift our focus to community-based solutions.

The work that the research project is going to do is going to create the infrastructure to make that shift.

And we have to start just like it was so important to members of the council to use this rebalancing process to start the conversation around reducing the size of the police department rather than, as the mayor has asked us to do, wait until the 2021 budget discussion.

We also think it's critically important to get those dollars out the door now.

Any delay will result in a delay in our continuing support for the larger discussion around shifting to be able to do that.

I think that is one of the things that we need to be looking at in terms of policing resources.

I'm just finding it deeply unfortunate that council members are engaging in such sleight of hand.

I mean, the idea of a delay is flatly untrue.

It's a question of whether you're willing to fight for it to make it happen or not.

And the budget is definitely in the purview of the city council.

So what I fail to understand and what community members are completely boggled by is why is the city council, especially after making such promises, unwilling to use that power to full effect.

We have the power to make a budget that will actually reflect a 50% defunding of SPD.

So what is stopping us?

And talking about sleight of hand, The proposal that Democrats have brought forward envisions laying off 70 officers, or 74.5 to be precise, which is 4% of the SPD workforce, 4% of the workforce.

Two years ago, many of you approved a bad contract that the community was saying, please do not approve this SPD contract because it will roll back police accountability.

Last year you approved many of you approved hiring bonuses for the police officer to quote-unquote attract officers So in other words you have the power to do one thing or another you and you chose to approve a bad contract You chose to give hiring bonuses to already bloated police budget and now you're choosing not to to pass a budget that reflects a 50% SPD.

So let's be clear.

And my message is to the members of the public, not to you council members.

We need to understand what is slight of hand and what is actually in the hands of the city council.

And it is within the hands of the city council to pass a budget, summer budget this year that reflects a 50% defunding this year.

The question is, will they choose to do so or not?

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, and I appreciate that we want to get through all of the amendments today.

I'm going to hope that some of this conversation is wrapping in some of the other amendments or questions that we have.

My last question here, and Dan, perhaps this is for you, given the conversation that we just had and the fact that layoff notices need to go out and personnel decisions have to be bargained, my concern here is that we are We, my concern is that layoff notices would have had to go out basically over the weekend.

That's the feedback that I've received so far that in order to realize the type of savings or reductions, I shouldn't say savings, the type of cuts that we're talking about in the proposed package that Council Member Sawant has articulated, layoff notices would have had to go out over the weekend.

And in order for us to realize the universe of cuts that are being described, the amendment would effectively mean laying off the entire SPD by November.

Can you comment on that?

Well, I don't think the last statement is analysis that has come from central staff.

I don't know exactly what the timing is of actual layoffs.

After consulting with labor relations staff and with law, central staff has reached the conclusion that for our estimating purposes, we are going to be counting on a three-month lag between whenever the layoff notice is given and when we would expect officers to no longer be employed by the city.

So in the event that it happened on August 1, and it is now August 3, so that didn't happen, but our estimates from last week were that in the event that there was a $3 million cut with layoff notices on August 1 and we would begin to achieve salary savings three months later on November 1 and in order to achieve a three million dollar cost savings from those layoffs purely from the salaries of laid-off staff that would have required a 180 FTE layoff in control.

My comments were related to the $85 million.

Realizing that by November, would that not have meant that the entire SPD would need to be laid off in November?

Extrapolating to a larger figure, yes.

Our conclusion is that in the event that our estimates of the timing pan out, that there wouldn't be enough salary savings, even if all of the sworn officers at SPD were laid off on November 1 to achieve an $85 million savings.

Okay, Council Member Suarez, you're off mute.

Would you like to make some comments?

Yes, please.

Yes, I just want to say yes it is true that labor relations have given the estimate that Dan just quoted but just wanted to remind members of the public this is the same labor relations that supported the police contract two years ago that the vast majority in the community opposed and This is the assumption that Dan stated is the assumption of central staff, but I wanted to emphasize that it is not a legal requirement.

There's a difference there.

And also, this is a question not for staff.

It is a question for elected officials.

Why are we not doing everything in our power that is legal?

And why not assume maybe 25 days as happened to the unionized metro bus drivers?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

whether or not the estimate of two, three, four, five months is accurate or not accurate.

My understanding from both Amendment 43 and the host of the $85 million package being proposed by Council Member Sawant, that all of those dollars, meaning all of the $85 million is proposed to come from personnel savings.

Is that correct?

I'm not sure if that's what the proposal is, but that's what central staff's understanding is of the practical effect because the rest of SPD's budget has already either been spent or has been paired back so that there are no other remaining budget authority except for staff salaries.

So any staff salary savings are the mechanism for achieving the cut.

So when Council Member Sawant says that the Seattle Police Department budget has $170 million left for the remainder of 22, that means that SPD has $170 million worth of salary to pay for the remainder of 2020. That's the assumption.

Uh, I'm not sure if I can answer the question directly.

My understanding is that there's $188 million of remaining budget authority in SPD is, um, 2020 adopted budget.

But the mayor has proposed to, um, administratively not spend some of that.

Um, cutting, for instance, travel and training and recruitment and retention and equipment budgets.

And the Council is considering, through Amendment A to Council Bill 119825, a rollback of the budget authority to match the proposed administrative spending cuts.

My understanding generally, although I can't back it with exact dollar figures, is that the remaining budget authority would be all for salaries in SPD.

Okay, that's helpful because I want to make sure that in the spirit of transparency, that the public isn't left with the impression by Council Member Sawant's comments that somehow these are dollars related to equipment or some of the other discretionary funds that you've described.

Dan around travel costs or training costs.

What we're talking about here is projected salary expenditures, i.e. paying people who currently work for the department for their time.

And so the only way we can effectuate the $85 million proposed by Councilmember Sawant is by not paying for that time, which the only way we can do is by firing enough people who work at the police department to allow us $85 million worth of money to use for other purposes.

Um, and so I just, I just, you know, Dan, I don't, I don't want to put you in an uncomfortable situation.

I'm not asking you to sort of validate that, but my understanding of the proposal is, um, is that, is that that's in effect, uh, what is being proposed, um, by council member Sawant.

And so I think that the concerns that are being expressed by other council members is that whether you agree or disagree, this particular part of our workforce has been represented by unions for long before our time on the city council for decades.

And those labor contracts carry with them certain obligations that we as management are required to comply with.

Now, if we choose not to comply with them, then we just tolerate the slew of unfair labor practices, go to interest arbitration, and and see what the judge says.

But I think that to say that it's not true, that there are legal requirements on us is just patently false.

That's just not an accurate assertion of the situation.

Now, whether or not we want to ignore our obligations under labor law is a different issue.

question, I think that sets a dangerous precedent to just simply categorically ignore our obligations as management to state and city labor laws, in large part because we are the type of city that has, I believe at last count, over 158 bargaining units at the city of Seattle.

And I can imagine how anti-labor interests would just jump at the opportunity to make an argument that how we have treated our labor management obligations in this context should apply to other bargaining units.

And so I want us to be transparent with the public about the fact that those labor laws do exist.

They're not fictional.

They're not pretend.

And they're not unique to us as a city.

They apply to any public employer across the state.

And I think that it's important for us to, again, be really transparent with the public that those laws are real.

And that whether we like the fact or not, it is a reality of how we have to address whether or not we will be able to realize actual dollars from the $85 million proposal or even from our proposal.

if we are not successful in negotiating the impacts of the decisions we're making via the budget.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

I do see Council Member Sawant's hand before Council Member Sawant.

Dan, I saw you nodding.

There was a question there.

Did you have anything else to add in response to Council Member President's question?

No, Chair Mesquita, I have nothing else to add.

Okay, council members want to wrap us up on this one and then we'll go through the rest.

Let me just say in just opening this, it's just, I'm not surprised, but it's quite interesting to see how council members are now displaying where they actually stand.

And I hope members of the public are watching.

As far as the laws that have been I would like councilmembers to actually quote which law these amendments that our movement has put forward are not complying with.

We all had the same briefing from the city attorney's office.

And after having promised that you will defund the police by 50%, now you seem to be describing some implications that I did not actually get from the law.

from the knowledge that we are all privy to.

Council members are implying, and Council Member Gonzalez just did, that we would intentionally, that these amendments would intentionally violate bargaining requirements.

Absolutely not.

We are saying, of course, that impacts need to be bargained.

That is the law.

But that should not take three months.

A few minutes ago, Council Member Mosqueda said, When I said it took 25 days, that King County Metro gave 25 days notice for bus drivers, it was stated by Council Member Mosqueda, well, that's a different bargaining unit.

Now Council Member Gonzalez is saying, well, all these labor laws apply to any public employer in the state.

Absolutely agree, that is the law.

All public employers in the state have to comply with that law.

But if bus drivers can be laid off with 25 days notice, then why can't Seattle police officers be laid off with maybe similar notice, 25 days?

So in other words, by saying that, or by implying with the sleight of hand that the law requires you to have longer notice, you're basically acknowledging that the Seattle Police Officers Guild gets special treatment.

And so I appreciate you acknowledging that, even though you didn't intend to, obviously.

To address other points, Just on the $188 million that Dan mentioned, I mean, yes, that's accurate in terms of technically what's available right now.

But I also wanted to say that's misleading because as I think central staff have noted themselves, and I don't think the central staff was intending to be misleading.

I just wanted to clarify to the public.

That was a mid-July figure and we obviously assume that there's been a spend down since and that explains why we are counting $170 million because that's the calculated leftover for the five months left.

So police department has $170 million in the budget leftover.

and yes it is true that personnel is about 80 percent of that and I'm just again I'm not surprised but just astounded by the now the concerns that are being put forward for the personnel of the police officer you know the the armed officers I'm not sure what you all council members thought you were promising when you said you're going to defund the police by 50 percent this is exactly what people want people want a smaller police department and yes, that means laying off police officers.

Yes, I am saying that as a rank-and-file member of the labor movement, I want to fight against budget cuts for City of Seattle employees that provide socially just and necessary services to our community.

not armed police officers who are causing harm.

And so, yes, it does because the budget is 80% of the budget is personnel.

That is what it means.

That is what people want to do.

People are strongly supportive of cutting the number of police officers the city hires, strongly supportive of cutting pay and overtime.

And that overtime does a lot of harm.

In that overtime, they repress protest movements, carry out violence against protesters, harass poor, working class, and homeless people.

And so as far as what it is that we are prescribing in the amendments in our movement, we are saying this is an across-the-board cut.

We are not prescribing what should be cut in the sense that it is up to the executive to choose how to cut.

Yes, it will require cutting many police officers because that is how much they're spending on overtime.

That is the biggest chunk of their budget.

But the point is we are saying cut $85 million from the budget.

And the executive needs to carry that out.

And we are, of course, not accepting this idea that people of color officers will be laid off first.

That is absolute nonsense from Chief Best, and we don't accept that.

But the point is, we are saying you have $85 million for the rest of this year.

The rest $85 million will go to community.

And by the way, again, to remind people, the $85 million that the Seattle police will be left with will still be far more than many other departments combined.

We have about an hour left for this morning's conversation.

I do want to get us through as many of these amendments as possible.

I think it's also important for us to note that technically, yes, the technical advice that we heard was that there is at least a three-month window at best case scenario in order for us to negotiate the potential layoffs legally.

Yes, there is a concern with assuming that the entire police department would go away at the end of that three months beginning in November.

My concern here is that I want to make sure that we're keeping commitments to getting dollars out the door to community that are usable, that are realizable this year.

The proposal to do exactly what this specific amendment is talking about in terms of getting $3 million out the door, I think there's a shared goal.

I think that the strategies that we're talking about differ in terms of where the funding is coming from because of those both legal and technical concerns.

And it does not take a mathematician to know that those dollars are not necessarily going to be in hand if these are the barriers that are in front of us.

The goals are the same.

I will not be adding my name to this.

I wanted to see if there was anybody else who is going to add their name, even though the same goal of 3 million to fund community-led research process is something I've supported in the previous amendment so that we can accomplish the same goal here.

Any additional folks, comments or questions or amendment additional co-sponsors?

Seeing none.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Sawant for your opening comments.

I think that that is helpful framing for the rest of the amendments that are in front of us.

Your next amendment is amendment number 44. Council Central Staff, please take it away.

Council Members, good morning.

Calvin Chow with Council Central Staff.

Amendment 44 is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

It would cut 125,000 of general fund from Seattle Police Department and Patrol Service patrol operations BSL, and the intent of this is to offset loss of general fund revenue from approximately 300 parking spaces to allow SDOT to expand its free parking program for homeless care responders.

Council Member Sawant, any additional information you'd like to share?

The intent of this amendment is to allow the Seattle Department of Transportation to expand its existing free parking program for healthcare responders to include an additional 300 parking spaces near organizations that provide direct services to Seattle residents experiencing homelessness to support homeless service workers.

Homeless service workers have been increasingly burdened during COVID like other frontline workers.

One homeless service worker reached out to my office about this and about the impact of needing to worry about two-hour parking restrictions while being overwhelmed with supporting Seattle's homeless population during COVID.

And we've heard similar concerns being reflected by many other workers.

This budget amendment would make funding available for that expansion of the free parking program by a minuscule cut to the police department's $147 million patrol operations budget summary level.

Thank you, Council Member Swann.

Any additional questions or comments?

Seeing none, are there any folks who would like to add their name to this item?

Okay, thank you very much, Council Member Swann.

Let's move on to amendment number 40,

I'm going to turn it over to Yolanda Ho.

This amendment number 45 would add $80,000 of general fund to the office of sustainability and environment to support the green new deal oversight board and would cut $80,000 from the Seattle approximately $136,000, the general fund that the council had added for the Green New Deal oversight board during last year's budget deliberations to address the general fund revenue shortfall.

This amount, the $80,000, would cover staff costs for the Green New Deal advisor beginning on September 1st, and also provide financial hardship stipends for board members beginning on October 1st.

The board has not yet been appointed, though it was established last year due to the delay in hiring the advisor position.

As noted previously, the cut to the Seattle Police Department would likely result in layoffs if there are no other non-personnel savings available.

Additionally, the amendment contains a proviso to prevent additional funds, these additional funds from being used for other purposes.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Good to see you.

I didn't get a chance to say welcome.

Council members Sawant, please go ahead.

This budget amendment restores the funding that the mayor cut from the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

City Council passed the ordinance creating the Green New Deal, I mean the resolution, I believe, that created the New Deal Oversight Board last fall after grassroots organizing from God Green, the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, indigenous organizers, and other climate activists.

Since then, the mayor has done everything in our power to The intention of the green new deal oversight board is to be a body to fight for the city to do real investments into the green new deal.

It will include representatives from environmental activists, labor, communities impacted by climate change, local tribes and subject matter experts and has a mandate to make recommendations on the city budget.

The mayor has refused to advertise for open positions for the Green New Deal Oversight Board, refused to appoint people until a staff person to focus on it can be hired, and then refused to hire that person, including it in her budget cuts.

This is simply unacceptable.

To restore the funding is a very small amount of money.

The budget amendment would restore the funding to the Green New Deal oversight board to remove any excuse for appointing people and allowing it to begin its work.

It funds the board by reducing the SPD's patrol operations budget by $80,000.

It accounts for that $80,000.

It accounts for two hundredths of 1% of the police budget.

So funding it would have no practical impact on the police budget, but it would allow the GND Oversight Board to be established, which would make a big impact on the momentum for that work.

And I hope council members will agree to co-sponsor this amendment.

And I just wanted to correct myself from earlier.

It was an ordinance that created the Green New Deal Oversight Board last fall.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Swann.

questions or comments, colleagues?

Okay, just a quick question I have for Yolanda.

Yolanda, could you remind us how much of the funding was accomplished in the jump start resolution or spend plan that we passed that, or hi, Allie, that included funding as well for this very concerning cut that Councilmembers Sawant articulated?

I'm just wondering how the funds match up.

I don't have the exact dollar figure of how much of the jumpstart

I believe more than this amount to it and it would support the the payroll or the staffing costs as well as the stipends needed for the Green New Deal beginning in 2022.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, council members.

So want any additional comments on this?

Please go ahead.

Just to clarify, it's a question, it's a temporal question.

The Amazon tax that the city council passed will begin funding for this in 2022, but preceding eight months is where the mayor has shown inaction.

And so this would provide money for the Green New Deal Oversight Board now as last year's ordinance called for.

Thank you very much Council Member Sawant.

not seeing any additional comments or questions, any additional co-sponsors.

Thank you very much, Council Member Swatt.

Let's move on to Amendment 46.

Okay, Amendment 46 is sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

This would impose a proviso on the Seattle Police Department's entire budget beginning on September 30th until the SPD or the Mayor's Office provides a report to the Council describing which SPD functions could be fully civilianized and or moved out of SPD.

The amendment provides a detailed list of functions that should be considered in this report, such as administrative services, the Criminal Investigations Bureau, human resources, and many others.

The report should include an analysis of staffing and funding needed to support these functions in 2020 and anticipated in 2021. And should the report not be received on or before September 30th, SPD would not be allowed to spend any of their remaining funds for 2020.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Council Member Strauss, this is your amendment.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

This, this proviso requires the executive, as Yolanda said, to specifically lay out a plan for fully civilianizing and or removing functions from Seattle Police Department, which could be better executed outside the chain of command or in a different city department.

This report must minimally include a staffing analysis with regard to what funding is needed to support these functions for the remainder of 2020 and in 2021, such that if necessary, the appropriate monies can follow functions which are transferred from SPD.

The deadline for this report coincides when We will be making changes for the 2021 budget and allows us to have real-time tracking information in how we will proceed for the biennial budget, which we are beginning to write at the end of September.

My office has laid out the major areas of SPD's function, which should be seriously considered for full civilianization and or removal to a different independent department by bureau and specific units.

In order to meaningfully and responsibly move to a more effective and efficient model of community safety, we must deliberately look at and include the executive's visions and justifications as we look to right-sizing SPD.

I want to end by noting that this is just a starting, not an ending point for implementing a community-based long-term approach and our ability to understand how SPD is spending their dollars in real time and having a backstop to ensure that we receive this report in a timely manner so that we can move forward into 2021 and beyond is incredibly important.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

Additional comments or questions?

Madam Chair, Council Member Juarez here.

I would like to be a co-sponsor.

Oh, thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.

Council colleagues additional questions seeing none council members taking on a co-sponsorship now Councilmember Juarez, Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Morales, did I see your hand?

Yes, Councilmember Morales, Councilmember Gonzalez, and I'll be I got you Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Sawant, Councilmember Herbold?

You have a comment.

I will be adding myself.

I will summarize that for central staff before we move on.

Councilmember Herbold, apologies for the miscommunication with that.

Go ahead and ask your question.

in a letter that we received from the mayor and the chief, where they told us that they wanted to work together with us to realize between 76 and $86 million in reductions to the 2021 budget in our budget discussions coming up in September.

And so getting this information about further civilianization and functions that SPD does not need to do, I am very hopeful that will allow us to realize that shared goal of at least realizing an additional up to $86 million in savings in the 2021 budget.

Thank you for that context, Council Member Herbold, for your support.

Any additional comments or questions, colleagues?

Okay, on amendment number 46, sponsored by Council Member Strauss, We have Mosqueda, Sawant, Gonzalez, Morales, Juarez, Herbold, Peterson, Lewis.

I think that makes all nine.

Council Member Strauss, thank you for bringing this forward.

Council Colleagues, let's move on to Amendment 47.

All right.

Amendment 47 is also sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

This is a fiscal reporting proviso.

And this amendment would impose a proviso on SPD's entire budget until the SPD or mayor's office submits a report to the city clerk every two weeks regarding a variety of expenditures and also reports on any grants it has applied for and or been awarded.

How this would work is that the first report is due on or before the effective date of the legislation to lift a proviso and then would be required to be submitted every two weeks thereafter until the end of the year.

should the city clerk not receive any one of these reports, this proviso would prevent the SPD from expending any of the department's remaining funds for 2020 until the report is submitted.

Additionally, this amendment would require a report due by September 15th regarding claims, well, against expenditures for law firms to defend the city against claims against either SPD or individual officers and requests a variety of information on that topic as well as detailed descriptions of weapons and equipment purchased to date in 2020 and information on all federal grants received since 2015. I will note that based on some feedback I received that we should maybe include this report that I just described in that first report so that it's kind of wrapped into the proviso so that would need to be slightly amended for the sponsor's knowledge.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, colleagues, for signing on to the previous amendment.

And I know with so much going on, I had intended to co-sponsor the amendment before us with Councilmember Herbold.

My apologies for Councilmember Herbold.

That has not been included here.

I know there's been a lot of moving parts.

Specifically speaking to the fact that we are moving quickly and need a lot of real-time information, this proviso is meant to foster greater real-time accountability with regard to the spending in the city's largest departmental budget.

Given the city's fiscal shortfall and potential issues with the police department's spending this year, this will require the executive to report every other week regarding ongoing 2020 expenditures in key areas of community interest.

such as grants, contracts, overtime, personnel contracts, consultants, individual training, and travel, including conferences, although hopefully not many people are traveling right now.

This regular snapshot of police spending will help inform Council's decisions in regards to next year's and the biennial budget and how best to transition functions and funding outside of SBB.

The report shall include not only year-to-date amounts shown as totals and percentages, but after the first report, changes from the prior report as totals and percentages as well, so that we understand how things are moving in real time.

This is the way that we are able to craft a budget for the future that is reflective of real-time data.

This allows us to gauge the amounts of 2020 spending and the rate.

I will also flag This also flags for the public and council which of these key areas might be in danger of being overspent before deficit spending takes place, as we are worried about with the overtime spending.

This proviso also compels SPD to report annual expenditure since 2010 for outside legal representation retained by the city to defend the police department or its officers against lawsuits.

The report shall contain information regarding the types of claims, whether there is a pattern of claims made against them, and whether there is pattern of claims made against the same officer.

We can only chart a course forward towards bias-free policing if we take stock of how SPD has performed in the past and actions taken by residents to vindicate their legal and constitutional rights against the department.

SPD will also be required to detail its expenditures in 2020 thus far on weapons and equipment.

Finally, the SPD will be required to disclose descriptions and amounts of all federal grants received from 2015 to present.

This provides us further transparency regarding priorities and spending of the department.

I will note that Council Member Herbold was helpful in adding the aspects of I will assume Councilmember Herbold is a co-sponsor of this.

And council colleagues any additional questions or comments Okay, hearing none seeing none I know councilmember Juarez is also interested in being a co-sponsor additional co-sponsors at this point Councilmember Peterson and I will add my name as well and Councilmember Lewis.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Gonzalez.

Oh Councilmember Swann.

Thank you very much.

Okay Wonderful, I see Council Member Herbold, Juarez, Peterson, Mosqueda, Lewis, Gonzalez, and Sawant.

Thank you, Council Colleagues.

Thank you very much, Council Colleagues.

Council Member Sawant, moving on to amendment number 48. I'll turn it over to central staff first.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Lisa Kaye from Council Central staff here.

This amendment sponsored by Council Member Sawant would cap the total annual salary plus overtime for Seattle Police Department employees at $150,000 per year.

Some of the positions in the Seattle Police Department that are eligible for overtime are represented, and so changes to salary and overtime pay would be subject to bargaining.

Central staff is conducting additional analysis to inform council members about the city's ability to make salary and overtime changes as anticipated in this amendment.

That completes my report.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Swatt, please go ahead.

Seattle police officers are some of the highest paid people in the city of Seattle.

I mean, by both in the city and also employees of the city of Seattle.

This is not an accident because throughout history of the class society, whatever class is in power, always make sure to pay their forces of repression first.

A handful of officers are paid over $300,000 a year, and one was paid over $400,000 a year.

According to Open the Books, which counts salary plus overtime, 199 out of 200 top paid City of Seattle executives slash employees are in the Seattle Police Department.

Almost exclusively police officers, sergeants, and lieutenants, these 119 people were paid an average of $268,000 last year.

It is overwhelmingly the result of overtime, which we know is often racked up with violent repression of protests.

I have no objection to police officers making decent wages, but just like city executives, there is no reason why the city should be paying officers more than $150,000 a year, which is more than the overwhelming majority of workers in our city are paid.

And I mentioned city executives because on Friday, I had an amendment to cap city executive salaries who are not unionized employees, but no council member supported that either.

Those high wages should go to teachers, social workers, other workers who do so much good for our community rather than building up in overtime that police officers, armed police officers get paid for abusing protesters.

Some may claim that this amendment will create problems for some SPD employees who have already made more than $150,000 a year.

As central staff have noted, quote, as of June 2020, 14 of SPD's executive and manager positions earning more than $150,000 are non-represented and are not eligible for overtime pay.

Capping those positions at $150,000 would result in a reduction of about 1 million based on June 2020 salaries, unquote.

So just those 14 salaries alone will give the city $1 million to reallocate immediately to the community.

And it's not a question of negotiation because these are not union positions.

As for other SPD employees who are above the 150,000 threshold because of overtime, I'd say this amendment is needed precisely to rein in the out of control overtime.

As many of us in the movement have noted, just as was reported by the press, just in the first 12 days of the George Floyd protests, the police officers got $6.3 million of overtime, which is just unacceptable.

I want to be clear that this amendment is not just about saving dollars.

It turns out, as I've said, that many of the police officers who are racking up ungodly amounts of time also have extensive records of abusing members of the public.

To quote from a revealing article in Mint Press News just out last month titled, quote, most overpaid cops in the country.

Seattle police rake in up to $300,000 per year.

This is the title of the article.

And in the article, they say, quote, many of the best paid police officers have long histories of violence and corruption.

The Mint Press article cites Lieutenant Michael Keba, who in 2019 made $303,000 in the whole year.

The article states that 10 years ago, quote, he, meaning Keba, had attempted to suppress a police brutality complaint when an officer kicked a man in the head.

Witnesses claimed the officer said, I'm going to kick your ass when I catch you, before the man gave up going to the ground.

Keba dismissed the claims because the officer said he was in danger.

And an officer knows, and this is a quote from Keba, an officer knows better when he's in danger than even two civilian witnesses, unquote.

Another highly paid SPD employee, police lieutenant James Arata, who was paid $281,000 last year, according to the same article, quote, admitted to as an act of revenge, sending anonymous letters to his own department full of false information about fellow officers who had helped get him disciplined.

He was promoted from sergeant to acting lieutenant the next day, unquote.

There are other examples as well, which I won't have time to share, but I will share the article with other council offices so you can read the information directly yourselves.

These examples should shock the conscience of any member of the public.

These officers need to be held fully accountable for their actions, something that has not happened despite eight years of consent decree.

Quite the reverse, these individuals have enriched themselves through their actions.

They have acted with near universal impunity because they recognize, as the community painfully knows already, that the political establishment will go through endless contortions and make endless excuses to avoid holding them accountable, as we are seeing on display even today.

This amendment limiting SPD salaries plus overtime is at least a small step in the right direction.

And we can and indeed must put the savings from this amendment directly into the community to begin to repair the harm and trauma that these and other overpaid police have inflicted on community members.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Colleagues, questions on this or comments on this?

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Swann for bringing this forward.

I'm interested in this amendment because I agree that there are excessive salaries paid.

I think one of the hesitations I had with the other amendment was I think certain department heads do warrant salaries above $150,000 if they're you know, managing a large department there, you know, for example, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, you know, it's over $1 billion budgets they're managing and to attract that talent, I think we need to pay more.

I am attracted by this amendment and interested in potentially co-sponsoring it with you.

I just, I didn't know if, would this also apply to the chief and the assistant chiefs?

Is that the idea or is it?

Perhaps it's a question for Central South.

Would this apply to the chief and the assistant chiefs?

And if, Council Member Swan, if you want Central South to answer that, that's great too.

Oh, sure.

Lisa?

Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, it would apply, yes.

Okay.

And Lisa, anything to add to that?

So I'm, you know, I think, again, I think department heads warrant a higher salary than that.

But we are seeing this excessive compensation that's not acceptable.

And so I would be interested in seeing if it could be amended to maybe not include the chief or certain higher level folks.

But I really like this approach.

I think we need to look carefully at the successive compensation.

So I appreciate your bringing this forward.

Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

Thank you councilmember Pedersen.

I mean I think that the as everybody knows and I've done this for six years now and this is the seventh year I think executive salaries should also be capped but this particular amendment is still something that we are working on and I would welcome co-sponsorship with the understanding that our offices can work to amend it.

I'm willing to amend it in order to have something pass.

And please, I would urge you to co-sponsor and also work with my office.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll reach out.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Harpold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I had, as it related to Councilmember Sawant's proposal for the citywide cap on compensation, I had requested a sort of a policy review of how other cities handle this issue.

I'm just asking instead this time for maybe if central staff has any information like that.

I would be interested in learning more.

councilmember Sawant has brought this up before, I am interested in the concept.

I led the council on eliminating performance bonuses for the City Light CEO, and generally agree with the principle here but would also like to be informed on how other cities address this very same issue if it's at all possible to find that information out in a short amount of time.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold, we did include a response to you in the list of all the other questions that we responded to probably about a week ago.

Oh you did?

Okay great.

I had directed that.

We've been receiving about 6,000 emails so I'd be happy to to flag that one for you.

I really appreciate it.

And I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't gotten back to me.

I thought I had directed that question to Council Member Sawant.

But in either event, I'm really glad to know that I've got an answer.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Lisa, thank you for that answer.

And I know that you will probably be sharing it not just with Council Member Hurdle, but all of us.

Is there anything that you would like to point to in response to that question since it's been flagged?

I think the We only found one example, I think it was Minnesota, and the salary was linked to the governor's, the salary for some local officials was linked to be a percentage or using the governor's salary as a threshold, and we didn't find any others.

Excuse me.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant, I appreciate you bringing this forward.

I don't see any additional hands.

I will note that Council Member Juarez is interested in signing on as a co-sponsor of this as well.

I believe Council Member Peterson, just double-checking, you are interested in signing on as a co-sponsor?

I'm going to connect with Council Member Sawant's staff on a small amendment to this, potentially, so not right now.

Thank you.

Okay, wonderful.

I think in the spirit in which it was discussed as a possible amendments to I would like to see if there's scoping to maybe not include the top, top person or people.

That's my understanding is the conversation you're going to have, Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

And Councilmember Sawant, I heard you say that you were open to that conversation and looking for co-sponsors as the amendment evolves.

If I can just, yes, I absolutely am.

And I invite other offices.

I will just say this, though, that in response to the points that came up, I mean, thank you, Lisa, for sharing that, sharing your research.

I will say that even if no other cities did this, of course, the question to council members is, do we think in the middle of the pandemic when tens of thousands of working people in our city are living on the precipice that we should ask very high earners to do their part, especially since it will I think it's important for us to be able to invest this excessive pay into socially needed programs and black and brown communities.

I hope that will be the guiding question in how this amendment shapes up.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

This is Carlos Lugo with Council Central Staff.

Amendment 49 to Council Bill 119825 is sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

Sorry, excuse me, Carlos.

Do you mind speaking up just a little bit?

Oh, yeah.

There we go.

That sounds good.

Sorry about that.

So for the record, this is Carlos Lugo with Council Central Staff, and Amendment 49 to Council Bill 119825 is sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

This amendment would cut $50,000 in general fund money from finance and administrative services for jail contract services in anticipation of a potential extension of a waiver from King County that would reduce jail costs from October through December.

This amendment would then add $50,000 in general fund money to the Human Services Department.

The amendment would also impose a proviso on the HSD funds to develop a plan for community visioning process that will result in recommendations on scaling a non-police 911 response system.

The community visioning process would incorporate culturally relevant expertise by social service organizations and individuals with direct lived experience to include persons experiencing homelessness, mental illness, and substance use disorders.

Estimated savings from the expected jail contract waiver range from 1.7 to 2.1 million.

However, if the jail contract waiver is not extended from October through December, cutting funds from FAS for the contract may result in FAS then having to find another source of funding to pay for this portion of the contract costs.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Council Member Lewis.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, and thank you central staff for that overview of this proviso.

So, you know, as I've discussed extensively in public and here at the council, I'm very interested in new methods of community-based low acuity first response.

Had a town hall on this topic last week and heard from the work that some folks are doing, particularly in Denver, in going through a similar process right now, where they are about two months into the actual performance part of their pilot for a community-based low-acuity first response based on the CAHOOTS model, the crisis assistance helping out in the streets, pioneered by the Whitebird Clinic in Eugene, Oregon.

This would be the first step to contract with a community-based organization to provide the plan to get our own pilot going here in the city of Seattle, and then scale that up in the 2021 budget session in the fall once we have this plan in place.

the target unit within HSD to deliver the funds was decided on in consultation with community partners who thought that that particular unit would be, based on their past work, appropriate, and the work that they've done with LEAD and other kind of diversion-based programs that have been very successful in the community.

As we heard last week, the jail waiver has been granted to continue, or King County at least intends to.

I would imagine that that waiver is going to continue to be granted for the foreseeable future, since it is based on deintensification efforts related to COVID, and it does not look like that is going to change in the short term, at least not for the rest of 2020. So I would anticipate that $50,000 being a fairly small amount to fund an initial planning and study session of this type would materialize from those savings.

So with that, I think this is the start of developing, scaling, building up our own community-based low acuity response system.

It's been really, really inspiring to look at how that's taking shape in some other pure cities like Denver.

And I think it could definitely work really well here, and this is the first step in that process.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis.

Council colleagues, additional comments or questions?

Councilmember Herbold, please.

community-driven research project has in its scope a community visioning process that includes recommendations for scaling a non-police 911 response system.

How do these funds add value to the scope of the $3 million community research project that includes this goal.

I appreciate that Councilmember Herbold and they could probably, I would imagine that they could be combined.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

But of course I was developing this proviso in isolation from some other parallel efforts.

So I wouldn't have any problem just rolling this in to that process or having this be additional money that could be sought by community to augment that process.

I would be happy to sign on as a cosponsor of this.

Councilmember Juarez, Councilmember Sawant, additional folks who are interested in co-sponsoring amendment number 49. Councilmember Sawant?

Okay, let's go on.

Amendment number 50.

Hi, Councilmembers.

Amendment 50, sponsored by Councilmember Sawant, would cut $700,000 from the Seattle Police Department's budget and add that money to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to increase funding for eviction legal defense and for renter rights advocacy and outreach.

$200,000 would be allocated for eviction legal defense and $500,000 for renter rights advocacy.

This would increase the capacity to contract for such services, and the cut would primarily be taken from efforts in SPD that supports personnel costs for patrol officers and will result in layoffs that could be a mix of sworn and civilian personnel.

I'll turn it over to the sponsor, Councilmember Swann.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Swann.

Please go ahead.

Similar to the budget amendment proposed by my office to fund the green new deal oversight board, this budget amendment funds essential community needs with an extremely small reduction to the police budget.

This amendment would increase funding for renters rights and organizing.

by $700,000, as was just stated, and make a corresponding reduction to the police department's patrol operations budget.

In particular, it would increase funding for organizations like the Tenants Union and the Housing Justice Project, who provide support for people threatened with eviction.

over 30% of renters nationwide were unable to pay their rent on time this month, and parts of the country where eviction moratoriums have been lifted have seen a deluge of evictions.

In Seattle, the moratorium is in place to the end of 2020. However, the threats of evictions are happening now alongside many other renters' rights violations.

Renters' rights organizations are working overtime to help renters get organized to defend their rights, and this budget amendment would support their work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much

Okay, Amendment 51 sponsored by Councilmember Morales would cut $500,000 from the Seattle Police Department and add it to the Office for Civil Rights to support a community-led participatory budgeting process for the 2021 budget.

SPD staff have indicated that $500,000 of the funding that had been dedicated in the 2020 adopted budget to the computer-aided dispatch replacement project has been reprogrammed by the executive to conduct community outreach around a re-envisioning of the role of the police in providing public safety.

This amendment redirects that funding to the Office for Civil Rights for the participatory budgeting process.

And I'll turn it over to the sponsor, Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So as many, Many of our colleagues have said there were some parallel efforts happening before all of this came together in the last few weeks.

So this amendment was drafted before we had the discussion about the $3 million going toward participatory budgeting research.

That said, we are working with central staff before the vote on Wednesday to transfer, instead of going to OCR, to transfer this $500,000 into the legislative department.

to align better with the intent there of funding through the legislative department, the participatory budgeting work.

And I will be following up with colleagues about that.

I think the recommendation from central staff is going to be to reduce that $3 million that we've already talked about by $500,000 and use this to fund that section or that portion.

So we will to get this wrapped up quickly and share that with colleagues as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.

Council colleagues, are there questions on amendment number 51?

I am not seeing any questions, Council Member Morales.

Are there any additional individuals who would like to add their name as a co-sponsor?

I see Council Member Sawant.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Morales, I appreciate it.

I see councilmember Sawant signing in.

Moving on to amendment 52.

support efforts to bring charges or prosecute individuals, but would not prohibit spending on actions to release charges or eliminate charges.

And I'll turn it over to the sponsor, Council Member Swatt.

Thank you, Council Member Swatt.

Please go ahead.

This budget amendment, as was stated, would place a provisional on the police budget stating that none of the money appropriated in the budget would be used to support the prosecution of individuals for actions taken while participating in justice for George Floyd protests, including but not limited to collecting or transmitting evidence and providing testimony, except as required by court order.

and as was stated, funds may be used for the purpose of dropping charges, releasing arrestees, and clearing their records.

The council discussed this budget amendment in detail really last Friday when we discussed a similar proviso on the city attorney's budget.

And as I said at that time, this is perhaps the most important amendment here.

As we discussed on Friday, when the Seattle Police Department arrests protesters, they can forward those arrests to the city attorney.

for prosecution but I also can send them to the county prosecutor depending on what the charges are.

And while the city attorney has issued positive public statements about not prosecuting arrested protesters, we have not seen similar promises from the county as I stated publicly during the discussions last week.

While the city has no authority over the county prosecutor's decision, the reality is is difficult to carry out prosecutions without the evidence and testimony of Seattle Police Department officers, and those officers, of course, are under the city purview.

I appreciate council members who indicated on Friday that you will be supporting this proviso, and I hope you stay with that, and I urge all council members to sign on as co-sponsors.

Thank you very much.

Council colleagues, questions or comments?

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

I have a question about the provision saying except in case of a court order, and I just want to clarify, maybe it's a question for central staff, is this basically saying that if If there is a subpoena for the police department to appear in court and provide testimony, and if that evidence is in turn subpoenaed pursuant to a court order to bring that evidence as well, that that would be an exemption under this proviso?

Do I read that correctly?

Council Member Lewis, yeah, that is my understanding, and I would defer to Council Member Sawant on the intent, but if they were court-ordered to appear to provide evidence, if not for that exception, the proviso would restrict the city from paying those officers to go and testify and that sort of thing, so it would be providing an exception just for the scenario you're describing, but I'll, again, turn to the sponsor to confirm that that is her intent.

Yeah, I mean, there's nothing really involved in this language in the sense that the city council cannot prevent if there are court orders.

So it's just a clarification.

In any case, it wouldn't be able to prevent that.

So it's just clarifying that.

Right.

I mean, I guess I just raise it because in practice, the like the only way that that testimony or evidence would appear in a prosecution is if it was subpoenaed by a court order.

So I guess I'm just flagging that I think with that, which I agree, Council Member Swan, I do think it's sort of beyond our power to limit that, unfortunately.

But just flagging that as I read this, I don't I don't really know to what extent this would actually, in practice, impact SPD's ability to support those prosecutions in the event that King County prosecutors subpoenaed, ordered their cooperation to show up in court, provide the evidence, and provide the testimony.

And I do think it's, legally, it's a necessary exemption, but I guess I just wanted to flag that with that, I don't know that This proviso has more symbolic, I mean, important, which is important, but I just wanted to clarify that point because I do.

I do think it would limit the overall impact.

I would just, yeah, just to clarify that the evidence from the police officers gets sent to the prosecutors first for the prosecutor to decide if they are able to or they want to move forward.

That is not a court ordered thing.

That is something that the police department does.

And there are countless instances of where they arrest people on false charges and then that information gets sent to the prosecutor and this is specifically happening in relation to the protesters.

And so there's a whole universe where these things are happening without any court order, but voluntarily from the police department.

right and i appreciate that clarification i guess that you know there's nothing to say that king county couldn't just because i understand that they do like you know just sort of permissively i'm getting given this material that s pd accumulates that there would be nothing to stop the king county prosecutor from just subpoenaing the evidence uh...

if it if it if that is sort of what the process this proviso would require them to do.

But yeah, I guess it would require an additive step, but I think ultimately it would probably still get there.

But in any event, I just wanted to clarify if that was the case, because to my knowledge, we don't have the ability to limit the subpoena power of any other authority.

And I just wanted to make sure we weren't trying to do that here.

I would just note that without this proviso, I mean, if what you're saying is true, that would mean a lot of subpoenas, and I think that would put a spotlight on the King County Prosecutor's Office.

So I don't think this amendment would be purely symbolic.

It is within the realms of the law, yes, and so we don't want to pretend that we don't have some limitations here.

But even with those limitations, with this provisory to force the court and the police to take further steps.

And I don't assume that it's automatic that it will be that easy for them to do all of that in so many cases.

Also, how many arrests have happened that we have to keep in mind.

And if this proviso were in place, then for each of those cases, the court and the police would have to take all of those further steps.

And I feel like it is our job as the city council, in the face of such brutal violence against the protest movement, that we do everything in our power to make it harder for them to do that.

No, we cannot go outside of the bounds of the law, but within the bounds of the law, it is possible to put roadblocks in their path from carrying out these unjust arrests and prosecutions of protesters.

Yeah, and I appreciate that that nuance is reflected in it, which is great.

So I think it it does certainly square with the law.

I guess I have one more question to for the sponsor and central staff.

And this is sort of similar to one of my questions last week.

But like, would would the contours of this amendment be broad enough to include requesting that Um, S. P. D. Not participate in a potential prosecution brought for, um, for example, like an assault that happened during a demonstration, but was not like a protected free speech activity.

So, um, like the march in my neighborhood last Wednesday, um, where someone on Queen Anne was was bludgeoned in the head with an object and like you know i don't and i'll say like i don't know how related that was i just know that it happened like during a demonstration i don't even know if it was a demonstrator that did it but it was certainly someone that was like adjacent to the crowd that did it to someone who came out to to sort of confront the crowd and i just i wonder if this would be broad enough because you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, we're protecting people that are getting arrested for nonsense, like certainly, and there's been a lot of that, but people that are getting arrested for actually physically assaulting community members, you know, that's something I'd want there to be accountability for, and I wouldn't want to set up an unnecessary roadblock to it.

So I just want to clarify that here.

Please go ahead, Council Member Sawant.

This was a point that had come up on Friday and I have responded to that point.

The problem is that if the language is not the way it is, then the police can and do always find an excuse to say that the arrest is not free speech related.

The police never say, I'm arresting you for your free speech.

It's often something that the protesters didn't actually do.

So I think that if you look at the number of instances where, you know, the example you're using is happening and the number of instances that I'm talking about through this proviso, I mean, it's just a day and night difference and the intention is not to prevent an arrest where it should happen, where an incident like you mentioned happened.

And as I said on Friday, absolutely, the intent is not to prevent that.

But if you don't do something about what has happened, where hundreds of protesters, ordinary people have been impacted, then it's like we're saying we can't do anything at all.

And so that's the spirit behind this proviso.

Thank you.

If I get an answer from central staff on that, too, and then I have a brief follow up.

Absolutely.

I'm looking for our folks from central staff here.

Oh, hi, Allie.

Hi.

Council Member Lewis, I am pitch hitting here for my colleague, Asha, and so I will follow up with that question.

I do think it is as written, it is for actions taken while participating in justice for George Floyd protests.

And so how that gets interpreted will matter about whether or not the action you're describing was an individual who would say they were participating in those in those protests.

But I will follow up with more information.

All right.

And I'll just flag to really quickly, you know, unlike unlike the amendment last week, where, you know, with the city attorney proviso, where I didn't really think there was a problem or I didn't really think it you know it that changing the language of really make material difference in this is one where i think that there is a huge problem i mean there's a massive problem where uh...

there are tons of arrests being made on that are pretextual and and resulting in uh...

uh...

really horrible abuse of people's civil rights in the city uh...

But there are also, you know, and in the scenario that I brought up today and brought up last week, I would note there hasn't even been an arrest made in that case, to my knowledge, nor is there a complete understanding of what happened.

But I do just want to make sure that acts of physical violence are things that we would still want to have some accountability for.

I would be happy to work with central staff and the sponsor and council members to want to To maybe see if there's a way to just clarify that so we we get it exactly I am happy to work with the sponsor and central staff to make sure that is clear.

This is important and there is a massive problem here as we saw most dramatically with a journalist from the independent being arrested for failure to disperse and chronicling that extremely intolerable that they were subjected to.

So I think it does warrant action.

I think it's great that Council Member Sawantha, you brought this forward and I'm happy to work with you just to make sure that...

that certain things don't slip through the cracks where this council could maybe be characterized as being unconcerned about that violence.

And I know that's not the sponsor's intent, and I know that there's a way to probably figure out how to communicate that.

So I just wanted to flag those, and thank you for bringing this forward.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Any additional comments or questions?

I'm going to turn it over to councilmember Sawant.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sawant, I appreciate you bringing this forward as well as I indicated last week.

In the same vein that councilmember Lewis articulated his desire to see this advance forward with some additional specificity.

I think the question was raised about how we are defining the George Floyd protest given the ongoing nature and as a prime sponsor, how we're defining that as well in this moment of uprising.

I'll be adding my name as a co-sponsor with you, recognizing those future conversations are coming and appreciate you bringing this forward and the ongoing work.

Just quickly to say I'm happy to work with any of the officers to find a meaningful language with the understanding, I hope, in agreement with all of you that we don't want to blow giant loopholes to what is necessary to achieve, which is standing up for protesters' rights.

Thank you very much.

I see a lot of head noddings on the screen here.

So let's move on.

3 minutes, colleagues.

Let's try to get through these last two.

Councilmember Sawant, transfer 9-1-1, amendment number 53. Lish, I see you off mute.

Please go ahead and welcome.

Hi, Lish Whitson, Council Central staff.

This amendment would move the 9-1-1 authority from the Seattle Police Department to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services moves the entire budget and 142 staff in 9-1-1 to FAS.

Because there is not an appropriate budget summary level in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, and none of the bills that you are currently considering would amend ESL, This amendment will require a new bill to be introduced.

The same is the case with the data-driven policing positions that you talked about on Friday.

That will also require a new bill.

And that's it.

Thanks.

Before I speak to this amendment briefly, I just wanted to say there are just two amendments left, and I hope the council will finish the discussion on these two amendments today rather than leaving it for Wednesday, because these are two core amendments, core as in core of what the movement has been demanding.

So I hope that we are able to extend the meeting just for that.

So one of the demands of the Justice for George Floyd movement was to take and is to take the 911 call center out of the police department's chain of command.

It is important because so many 911 calls do not require the response of an armed officer.

Many 911 calls do not require someone to be arrested, and yet that is what happens.

And in fact, we see community members, for example, like Charlene Alliles, who end up losing their lives as a result of this.

This budget amendment does not claim to answer the question about which calls are best answered by our social workers, et cetera.

I mean, those questions need to be answered by people with real expertise and experience.

This budget amendment is simply a step forward towards moving the 911 call center out of the police department's chain of command by removing its funding from the police department's budget.

And instead, it places that funding in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services as a temporary measure while community organizers design where it ultimately should go.

There are really good precedents for this approach when the LEAD, which is Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program, was first being formed.

For years it was funded out of the Finance and Administrative Services, just like we are proposing with this amendment.

LEAD organizes successfully resisted efforts by the political establishments to move their I do want to caution that this budget amendment is only the first step in and it would amount to little more than an accounting shift.

However, if we're serious about removing the 911 call center from the police chain of command, then giving it financial independence is an essential first step, so I hope council members will co-sponsor this budget amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Swan.

Council colleagues, questions or comments?

Seeing none, thank you, Council Member Swan.

Any additional folks?

Council Member Hurdle, please go ahead.

Yeah, I just want to ask that Councilmember Lewis refresh us about what the timeline is in the resolution that we are sponsoring about legislation to do just this move 9-1-1 services out of SPD and into FAS and how that goal to do that and in a reminder of when we are seeking to do that, either is consistent with this goal or is in some way unaligned with the goal here.

So I appreciate that question Council Member Herbold and I'm going to filibuster a little bit while I load up the resolution.

Sorry to put you on the spot.

Yeah no it's perfectly fine.

You know what I would say while I'm looking for it just so I can you know specifically cite from the resolution is from my conversations with central staff about this very issue, which, you know, which I feel really strongly about, mostly because it it relates really closely to developing new types of low acuity first response, having an independent 911 call center.

I was talking to central staff about various different ways to do it.

And one of the ideas that had come up was this idea of temporarily basically parking the 911 call center in FAS as sort of a place where we could maybe speed up the transition by moving it there while we wait to see if there is a more appropriate existing department or we could go through the process of creating a new successor department.

I think that the timeline that we laid out, have laid out in the initial draft of the, in the resolution calls for a complete transfer before the end of 2021 to the official like new place.

I don't think that this particular FAS strategy, which you know, I don't have a strong opinion on this at the moment.

I want to kind of look into it a little bit more, but I don't, you know, and I want to actually talk to the union that represents the dispatchers about it too and see if they have strong feelings about it.

But my sense is that this is sort of like a way that we can put We can get it out of the department faster, but full well-knowing that formalizing the ultimate move is going to take a little bit longer because of a bunch of logistical things that are associated with it.

Presumably, we're going to want to relocate to a new call center, for example, because the current one is in the West Precinct building.

But yeah, the timeline, looking at it now, to be completed by 2021, but it's silent on exactly how we get there.

So, you know, I mean, I want to think about this approach a little bit more.

It's something I've talked with central staff about, and it's certainly one of the options.

Okay, thank you very much for flagging that.

Council members still want to wrap this up.

As I acknowledged before, the real changes would still need to be done, but this would be an important first step, and it would indicate real commitment from the city council.

And I really think council members should support this amendment, especially those of you who have promised.

who have made promise in the last few weeks.

I mean, we are voting on the budget now.

I don't understand why it's necessary to pass a resolution to do this in the future when we have the power to do it now.

This is one of the core demands of the movement, and it costs nothing.

It does not lay anyone off, so it's not even that the issues that were brought up earlier – or excuses, in my view, anyway – are relevant here.

It's just a question of indicating immediately through budget action that the council is committed to a further action and to make sure that the 9-1-1 call center, I mean, the whole process is moved out of the police jurisdiction.

Okay.

What I'm hearing is that there's interest in understanding better about how to reconcile the two efforts.

Council Member Strauss, I did see your hand and then I'd like to move us to our last amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I will make this quick.

I agree with Council Member Sawant that this needs to happen now and I agree with Council Member Lewis stating that we need to make the transfer only once and not twice with the understanding that we need to have a public safety organization to transfer these to to ensure that records are kept within the department.

I'd like to work with both of your offices between now and Wednesday to see if there's a way that we can I would like to say thank you to all of the councilmembers who have come together with both of that.

Thank you to both of you for bringing these amendments forward.

and Council Member Morales.

Wonderful.

Thank you all.

Council Member Swatt, we are on the last amendment and appreciate that you did frame the slew of amendments that you have as a package in your earlier talking points.

Would like to make sure that we get central staff and our IT and comms folks a break as well as our teams before the 2 p.m.

meeting.

So I'll turn it over to you to wrap us up with your last amendment here.

As I've said before, I support the demand for the Justice for George Floyd movement to defund the police by 50% to fund community needs, and that's exactly what this budget amendment does.

And it is important because of the harm done in our communities by repressive policing.

We need to end the police violence towards our communities of color, and we need to end the police killings.

We need to end the police violence and repression of protests and progressive movements, and we need to end mass incarceration.

This amendment is also important because it supports building affordable housing in our communities.

And study after study shows that reducing poverty and inequality and housing instability and homelessness are statistically the things that have the greatest impact on reducing crime and a positive impact on public safety.

Increased policing, on the other hand, has been shown to have little to no impact on reducing crime.

The budget amendment here funds housing, that is social housing, publicly owned affordable housing to reduce the gentrification and displacement in our communities.

It would defund the police by $34.7 million to fund housing.

And my office has proposed and supported it as my office has, sorry.

And when taken in conjunction with the other amendments to defund the police that my office has proposed and supported, That adds it up to defunding the police by 85 million, which is 50% of the remainder of the police budget for the year.

Because this is an amendment to defund the police by 50%, the reductions are divided roughly proportionately between the SPD budget lines like patrol operations, special operations, and administration.

The police budget, as we know, is divided into these gigantic budget lines.

For example, police operations is one budget line of $147 million.

And ultimately, it's the responsibility of the police chief and the mayor who have formal authority to decide how the police want to spread the cuts across the board.

but the council's job is to vote to defund the police by 50%.

The council has the power to reduce the police budget as a whole, and the mayor and police chief need to decide how they're going to implement that without making excuses that community of color police officers have to go first, which we don't accept, and as I've said again and again.

And I want to be clear that defunding the police is not a budget cut.

It is because we want to begin to end police repression and violence.

And this amendment is in line with the demands of the community overall to defund the police by at least 50% this year.

And I hope council members will support this.

It has been shocking to me that after all the promises made that the proposal that were brought forward on Friday just really utterly failed to do so.

And I hope the council will stand with the community and support this.

Thank you.

councilmember Sawant.

I appreciate your reminder that this is a policy discussion and not just a budget exercise.

I appreciate that.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

I'm seeing none.

Any additional folks want to add their name to amendment 54, our last amendment here?

Okay.

Seeing none, thank you, councilmember Sawant.

Council colleagues, as a reminder, we have gone through all of our amendments today.

We are going to start our meeting at 10 a.m.

on Wednesday.

We are anxiously awaiting our break so we can get our staff the time they need to get teed up for the 2 p.m.

meeting today.

Our meeting on Wednesday breaking news will begin at 10 a.m.

Thank you to Councilmember Peterson who chairs the transportation and public utilities committee.

We will no longer have that meeting that gives us an extra hour on Wednesday.

and to the Council President's Office for continuing to allow for this dialogue to happen so we can get wrapped up by next Monday.

With that, are there any other comments or questions, Council President?

Anything to announce for this today?

No, just wanted to make sure that folks were aware that with the change of the Select Budget Committee as a result of the cancellation of the Transportation and Utilities Committee, that public comment will now be available an hour earlier as well in terms of ability to pre-register.

So for folks, instead of being able to pre-register at 9 a.m., you'll be able to pre-register starting at 8 a.m.

for that Select Budget Committee meeting.

And then, colleagues, I failed to mention during council briefing, but I'll take an opportunity to do it now since we're in Select Budget Committee, is that you're all aware that we did receive a notice of veto of the COVID relief bill.

from Mayor Durkin, and my office is working with Council Member Mosqueda's office and the clerk's office on scheduling a special committee meeting where we can consider that issue.

And the earliest we'd be able to consider it is likely August 12th.

So please stay tuned for and we are looking forward to future communication from our Council Central staff on a potential special meeting of the full Council August 12th at 2 p.m.

for the sole purposes of considering the COVID relief bill that was vetoed by Mayor Durgan.

That is it, chair.

This is not about a political standoff.

This is about immediate relief to provide housing, food, and child care assistance and small business supports.

So looking forward to working with you and all of our council colleagues to ensure that that relief gets out.

Thank you very much, council colleagues.

We have reached the end of our agenda.

Again, our next meeting is Wednesday, August 5th, now at 10 a.m.

Public comment, as the council president noted, begins to be available for you to sign up at 8 a.m.

We will continue our discussion about the SPD amendments and have a possible vote on those amendments.

And I really appreciate all the work it sounds like you all are going to be doing with our central staff to finalize and fine-tune some of these remaining amendments for our consideration on Wednesday.

So thank you in advance.

And thanks, as always, to our teams, comms, IT, central staff, the clerks, and our individual offices for making these meetings possible.

We will see you at 2 PM, same Zoom line, Thank you very much, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.