>>> MADAM TERESA MOSQUEDA , DO
WE HAVE FOR HIM?
>> YES, WE DO. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE.
The budget committee will come
back to order.
It is to: 02 p.m.
The date is August 5th, 2020.
Will be please call the roll?
>> Councilmember Alex Pedersen?
>> Here .
>> Councilmember Kshama Sawant.
>> Here.
>> Councilmember Dan Strauss ?
>> Here.
>> Councilmember Lisa Herbold ?
>> Here.
>> Councilmember Debora Juarez?
>> Present.
>> Councilmember Tammy J.
Morales ?
>> Here. Present.
>> Wonderful, Madam and I will
make sure to note their present
when they join.
Will have a full afternoon as
well.
For the record, we still have a
handful of amendments we are
considering starting off with I
believe amendment 54 a which is
councilmember Kshama Sawant.
Thank you for all of your work
on that.
And I would like to go ahead
and get into the rest of these
amendments.
I had clarification I would
like to add.
I believe I can do it at the end
regarding the amendment
discussed last Friday.
I want to give some folks
accurate information about what
the mayor had them doing with
the fund and emergency fund
because there was use of those
dollars that was inconsistent
with the purpose of the fund
and amendment eight was to make
sure we rectified that and
clarified of where dollars were
coming from and what they
should be as well.
I will make some comments about
at the end.
Let's move into the remaining
úamendments for individual
consideration and Allie, I see
you are back with us.
Hope you enjoyed your lunch and
thanks for the break.
This is your amendment.
We will have Allie discredit
for us and I will turn it.
>> Thank you, chairman.
Thank you I am with your
counsel central staff.
I will briefly describe both
amendments 54 a and 50 4B and
return it to counsel Kshama
Sawant.
I will note that they are
mutually exclusive options and
as councilmember Kshama Sawant
noted previously, if either
option is amended, there may
be technical changes that need
to be made on Monday morning
because some of the funding is
in amendment 54 a and the same
spending for other amendments
that was a technical
correction.
Amendment 54A what cut $54
million from the Seattle Police
Department budget and added
34.7 million to the house and,
3 million to the legislative
department, 15.5 million to the
human services Department and
$700,000 to the Department of
construction and inspection.
50, 54B which is alternative
by councilmember Kshama Sawant
would cut $7.7 million from the
police department and would add
the 21.7 million to the office
of housing.
>> Thank you very much.
Councilmember Kshama Sawant,
would you like to go on this?
>> I moved to adopt amendment
54A as presented on the agenda
defunding the police by 50% or
by $85 million.
As Allie said, this would find
$2 million for the research and
to aggressive policing, $15.5
million for investment and
other youth programming,
$700,000 for renters legal
support and organizing and $34
million for affordable social
housing in conjunction with
reduction in the budget
conceded by Mayor Durkin and
for the George Floyd movement
and the transfer of the 911
call center.
This would defund the police by
50% now.
>> I was on mute.
Thank you so much.
>> I will offer you a second
for the purpose of this
discussion.
I would like to describe this
in detail.
>> Thank you as I said as I
have mentioned, this is the
amendment to defund the police
by 50% starting now which means
defunding the remaining five
months of the budget that the
city has available to us which
is $170 million, we are
defunding that by 50% meaning
defunding $80 million and using
the $85 million to fund various
community needs including all
the programs that are being
suggested in detail by
community organizations and
also to provide a small amount
of those funds for a much-
needed renter organizing legal
defense especially eviction
defense and because we know
there will be a tsunami of
evictions.
34 million for affordable
housing which we know is
extremely important to fight
racist justification.
When taken alongside the $15.3
million that the mayor has
promised to remove from the
police department and the
transfer of the 911 calls
including this budget amendment
would defund the police by 50%
now.
I would say just to clarify the
mass presented before the
break, my comparison has
proposed a $2 million
production to the police budget
which I'm sorry, cannot equal
to 41% of the 409 police budget
annual police budget by any
calculation.
$2 million in November would
mean two months so annualized,
that would be around $12
million.
Nothing like 41%, it would be
2.9% of the full 2020 FPB
budget of $409 million.
If you are looking at this
using another measure which is
the police force based on the
number of officers other than
the dollars in the budget, the
establishment proposal has the
1400 officers in the police
force by 100 officers which is
measured among these 100
officers actually officers
among those 100 that are
supposed to--hope and prayer
kind of thing because they are
hoping the 30 officers would
quit and that would come up to
100 officers.
Even assuming that all 30 of
them quit, which I do not
believe because one of the
problems means these police
positions are lucrative
especially even for those
repeat offenders for police
officers, they continue making
overtime which I don't see what
the incentive is for them to
quit.
Even assuming all of the players
and hundred officers are moved
from the 1400 police force,
that comes to 7% at best of the
police force which is neither
7% or 41%.
No matter what measure you are
looking to look at the--expect
the movement to believe that is
defunding by 50%.
Real defunding is important
because of the harm done in our
communities by aggressive
policing.
We need to end police violence
toward communities of color and
killings, there have been 28
police killings.
They consent to agree of the
form, 28 people killed by the
police, not one police officer
has been accountable, not a
single one.
We need to end the police
violence and protests and
movements and we need to end
mass incarceration with 2.3
million people behind bars, the
United States imprisons more
than any other country and
black Americans make up an
unconscionable 44% of the
incarcerated population despite
representing only 13% of
American residents.
Under this mass incarceration,
77 million people almost one
out of four Americans and up
having a criminal record.
This amendment is important
because it supports the
programs and building
affordable housing and study
after study shows reducing
poverty and inequality are
statistically the same that has
any impact on time and
improving public safety.
Increased policing or the
status quo of policing on the
other hand has been shown to
have little known fact and has
a lot of harm.
I want to be clear the SPD
should be focused on ending
police aggression and violence
and policing of protests ending
harm harassment of people of
color and homeless people, poor
people and working class people
ending the violence.
The Council will not be able to
achieve that and taking money
from COVID-19.
Does not matter whether it is
money, it is out of other
things defunded of the
community without defunding the
police.
It can only be achieved by
defunding the SPD by 50% now.
That is what the community has
seen clearly and on clearly
calling for.
That is beside what this
amendment does.
The demand to defund the
police, that would not be the
end of the struggle but it
would be a huge step.
Answer to some of the
councilmembers are giving of
this amendment is not possible
right now, they said there is
not enough money in the budget
for the police but in reality,
there is $170 million left in
the budget.
Councilmembers have said the
city charter need to be chained.
All they said was "they should
be maintained adequate police
protection in each district of
the city."
Let's be clear there is--just a
political excuse.
Councilmembers have said
defunding the police will take
time and changes must be
negotiated with the police
officers.
As I have said, we have
discussed with other experts
and this is a wild exaggeration
by the political establishment
which is in the idea that the
police--words do not mean
actions, actions and actions.
I spoke to a bus driver as I
said over the weekend who was
laid off due to budget cuts and
given a 25 days notice.
Why do the police require a
three months notice.
On Monday, we are all governed
by the same state law.
In reality, it should be
reversed because those drivers
are essential workers who
support our community and put
their lives on the line
literately during the pandemic.
It's true the city must
negotiate these changes and has
every authority to change now
and there is no legal
requirement those negotiations
need--as I have said before,
when the political
establishment wants to get
something done, it moves at
lightning speed.
In 2013, the Democratic--$8.7
billion tax handout to Boeing
to use the legislation.
They signed the bill into law
in seven days.
Two years ago, the mayor and
the Council revealed the Amazon
stats informing the public and
the space for 48 hours.
As I have said July 13th, last
month, to be precise, they
handed out 200 notices to bus
drivers.
Their last day is this Friday,
25 days after being laid off.
Just to be clear this is
possible.
To do this right now and it's a
matter of political will that
they will follow through or not
on the promises that they have
made.
This amendment is in line with
the demand of the community and
the amendment does exactly what
the community has demanded
which is starting SPD in 2020
by 50% and $2.6 million with a
political establishment is the
radical change.
As I said, they are not cutting
dollars, it provides those.
So, I would really urge that
the Council vote for this
amendment especially those
councilmembers who have said
that when we say defund, we
mean action.
Let's show the action.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, councilmember.
Any additional comments or
questions?
None?
Thank you very much.
No comments or questions,
Madam, will you call the roll on
54A?
>> Alex Pedersen .
>> Yes.
>> Dan Strauss?
>> No.
>> Gonzalez?
>> Same.
>> Lisa Herbold?
>> No.
>> Debora Juarez?
>> Councilmember Debora Juarez?
>> Sorry, no.
>> Lewis?
>> No.
>> Moralities?
>> No.
>> Teresa Mosqueda?
>> No.
>> One in favor, seven opposed.
>> Thank you very much.
The motion does not carry any
limit.
Councilmember Kshama Sawant,
you have another amendment .
They want to move amendment 54B
.
>> Thank you moved to adopt
amendment 54B , this is a
budget amendment to defund the
police by 50% starting November
1st.
>> Is there a second?
There is no second on that
motion.
Let's move to your next
amendment. Amendment 45.
>> Amendment 45 Sumter I
councilmember Kshama Sawant
with the environment for the
greater deal over and reduce
the police department budget by
$80,000 and oppose of the
provider.
>> Councilmember Kshama Sawant,
did you want to move this
amendment?
>> I moved to adopt amendment
45 which will restore the
funding that the mayor has on
the oversight board and it will
use the SPD perch operation
budget by a mere 85,000 which
accounts for 200 of 1% of the
police budget. Funding it would
have no practical impact of the
police budget but it will allow
the oversight to be established
which would make it back on the
momentum for the important work
.
>> Thank you very much.
Is there a second?
>> I will second.
>> Thank you, Tammy J. Morales.
Would you like to speak to
this?
>> Thank you as I said, this
amendment--unfortunately, the
mayor has held up the process
and as I said earlier also,
this is a mere $80,000 from the
Seattle Police Department and
patrol operations budget which
accounts for 200 or 1% of the
police budget.
Mathematically speaking, it
would have no impact on the
police budget but what the
$80,000 would have, it would
have a positive effect
important for the oversight
board to be established.
Since the Council passed the
oversight board after organizing
from got green, the sunrise
movement, indigenous organizers
and many other climate activists
and Mayor Durkan has done
everything in their power to
prevent it.
The intention of the oversight
board is to be a body to fight
for the city to the real
investments.
It will include representatives
from the environmental activist
community and from communities
directly impacted by climate
change, local price and subject
matter experts and will have a
mandate to make recommendations
on the city's budget.
The mayor has refused to
advertise for open position on
the oversight board and refused
to--can be higher and on top of
that including another budget
pet.
This is unacceptable stalling
of necessary work that needs to
be done by the city Council and
this is a small amount of money
and would remove any excuse
from the mayor from appointing
people and allowing them to
begin its work.
I would urge councilmembers to
vote yes.
>> Thank you, councilmember.
Questions or comments on this
amendment?
And question, ALY, remind us
the last question I had
whenever we talked about this,
I think it was Monday, it has
already been a long week I'm
sure.
My question was whether or not
we had included this in the
jumpstart investments for the
plan and I think Kshama Sawant
said yes we did beginning in
2022, this would apply funding.
Can I get clarification if that
is a summary that is accurate?
>> Councilmember Teresa
Mosqueda that is accurate.
There is one thing, I think
2020, 2022 which is correct ,
the jumpstart plans includes
investments in the green new
deal beginning in 2020 and the
jumpstart plan, in general,
provide funding to support cost
to implement and administer the
funding.
I will add, when I commented
last week that in 2021, the
Council will be able to
appropriate funds to implement
the program funded by the
jumpstart task and the Council
could choose to include some of
the administrative of the money
in 2021 to support this
position and note this position
was added and funded through a
Council add during last year's
budget process and this
amendment would restore the
funding for the remainder of
the year.
>> Thank you very much.
Any additional questions or
comments on amendment number 45?
Councilmember Sawant, I'm not
sure if you had anything else
to add.
>> Thank you no comments, will
the clerk call the roll on
amendment 45?
>> Pedersen?
>> Yes.
>> Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Strauss.
>> Sustained .
>> Gonzàlez?
Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you Juarez?
>> Yes.
>> Lewis ?
>> Yes.
>> Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Eight in favor.
>> Thank you the motion carries
and the motion carries.
Thank you one here is amendment
48, we will have you tell us
what this is about.
>> Amendment 48 is sponsored by
councilmember Sawant joined by
councilmembers Juarez and
Mosqueda.
This is just a description of
what the intent of the amendment
is.
I believe two amendment
registered to councilmembers
this morning to fully implement
the proposed change amendment 48
a and amendment 55, chair
Mosqueda and councilmember
Sawant would need to describe
those amendments now.
>> Sawant, do you have a
preference?
>> I was going to the amendment.
>> Okay, I could not hear all
what you had to say but let's
go ahead and have you move so
it's official and will have Aly
describe it as to which
amendment we should be looking
at.
>> Okay, I am joining amendment
for the eight and moving to
adopt amendment 48 a which my
staff circulated to you prior
to this meeting. My office has
bifurcated amendment 48 into
two parts, amendment 48a which
limits the SPD executive pay
and amendment 55 which imposes
a requirement that SPD report
to the Council every--$150,000
a year for SPD employees
despite the executives.
After the city council votes on
48a, I will ask the chair to
allow us to walk on amendment
45 which is sponsored by
councilmember Pedersen and the
reason I'm asking we do this
consequently is the two
amendments are related to SPD
pay issues and I would request
chair 23 to be picked up--thank
you
>> Sounds like a good plan.
Thank you very much.
Aly Pennucci, could you please
read into amendment 48a?
>> Yes, thank you amendment 48a
sponsored by trend,
councilmember Sawant--of the
Seattle Police Department.
This will prohibit funding on
personal cost for command
staff positions getting from
September 2nd 2020 through
December 31st 2020 unless
pinafore employees in positions
are reduced as part of the pay
period beginning September 2nd
which would be affected through
an amendment three the pay band
ordinance.
I will note the last piece of
the effective box for this
amendment described, as
nonexempt and they are
positions.
I will correct that for the
record and I will turn it to
the sponsor.
>> Before you do that,
councilmember , you have moved
it and I will second it.
I will turn it back to you
councilmember Sawant to help us
understand about 48a.
>> Thank you there are 13
executives in the police
command structure making
between around 200,000-
300,000.
>> Sorry, can you speak louder
or turn up your volume?
>> Is this better?
Thank you there are 13
executives in the police
department command structure
making between around 200,000-
$300,000 a year.
This is a toxic example of the
bloated Seattle police budget.
While we will have to wait for
the 2021 budget discussion in
the fall to deal with this in
the long term basis, we can
take steps like now to save a
few hundred thousand to invest
in community needs for the
movement.
I wanted to thank the excellent
work that the staff have done
in the last two days and staff
members from my office.
We learned as a matter of law
reduce the executive paychecks
to $250,000 a year.
Our movement would like to do
that.
There is no excuse with people
out of work, execution and
eviction for the police
department and executives to
not be asked to sacrifice a
little but we learned we
constantly reduce their pay to
$250,000 a year.
What we can do is reduce the
pay for the remainder of the
year to the lowest run in their
respective pay band and that is
what this amendment will do.
This means for an SPD executive
making around 220,000 a year,
that is their gross pay for 2020
reduced slightly to $180,000.
While the staff is running the
numbers on how many dollars
this would free up exactly for
community needs, our office
believes the figure would be
something around a half $1
million.
Again, this is a modest
sacrifice I believe to ask of
the most highly paid police
executives to make right now.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, any additional
comments or questions?
Councilmember Pedersen, go
ahead please.
>> I wanted to thank
councilmember Sawant with
working with our office and as
we discussed this and do
research for breaking the
amendment into two amendments,
I will support 55 which of the
other amendment I will discuss
later.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much
councilmember Pedersen.
And will be helpful if there is
anything you have to add to the
summary that Aly provided and
maybe a quick reminder of the
difference between 48a and 55
?
>> Hi, this is Karina on
counsel central staff.
48a amendment is solely
related to reducing the pay to
the command staff positions and
councilmember Sawant noted the
numbers would need to be
calculated to know exactly how
much the savings would be.
This would require reducing the
salary of each of those
employees for September through
the end of December to the
lowest amount on the pay zone
band and to give an example of
that, the police chief band for
that position is approximately
171, $172,000 a year to
$235,000 a year.
I'm looking at my notes, I
think she makes more than the
top band.
There would be probably a
substantial amount of
concoctions in the budget if
that happens.
And 55 is different, it
requires reporting on the
payments for employees who are
over $150,000 over the course
of the year and year to date.
>> Okay, any additional
comments?
Thank you very much.
Will councilmember Pedersen,
did you have anything?
Okay.
Go ahead.
>> I just wanted to reiterate
what Karina said that it would,
given the handsome salaries of
these executives,
mathematically that does mean
if we bring them for the rest
of the year to the lowest
possible run in their pay band
which is legal, then because
they are being paid so much,
even though each of them will
still have very handsome
salaries over all, it will
result in substantial gain to
the community.
As I said, my staff member
Jonathan will spend a little
bit of time looking at some
estimates.
We believe the gains for the
community will be somewhere in
the range of half $1 million.
It's not something to--as far
as the community of resources,
it will be very substantial as
Karina said and informing me
that teeth vestas paid $294,000
this year alone.
Even after this amendment
passes if it does, their
executives will be making more
than 99% of working people in
this city.
I will note that executives are
being paid more this year.
This is a fact, only the
governor of California makes
more than what the executives
are making.
They are talking about salaries
and very modest, sorry, it's
Andrew Cuomo who makes more.
I thought he was the California
governor.
But, my point is they are being
poured more than 49 governors
in the U.S.. We are talking
about really exorbitant
salaries in a department that
has caused a lot of harm and
violence in the community.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, councilmember
Sawant.
A quick question for Karina
with September 2nd start date,
can you describe how this
affects the need for
bargaining?
>> All of the employees and the
command staff positions are
exempt. So, they are not
represented.
To my knowledge.
My understanding is captains
and lieutenants and officers
are represented but none of
these command staff positions
are represented.
>> They are all nonunion.
>> Councilmember Morales, go
ahead .
>> I apologize, I'm sure you
have said this in the
beginning.
I missed it but I'm interested
especially.
>> I know rather than laying off
folks, reducing salaries is not
often and know end [ Captioner
cannot get audio -- ]
>> You did cut out a little, I
wonder if you took yourself off
of video and the audio and you
can ask your question again.
>> Sure.
>> There we go, we can hear
you, I will let you know if we
cannot.
>> What I was saying, if it's
appropriate during the
financial crisis, if we are
laying off positions with some
set of challenges, I know that
reducing salaries is a
reasonable alternative and I
apologize if you said this but
could you tell us again how
much can be saved if we are
able to make a reduction with
in the remainder of this year.
>> If these command staff
positions were reduced to the
lowest level in the pay zone
ordinance, I have not personally
calculated how much that would
amount to but sounds like
councilmember Sawant's office
estimates around a half $1
million would be safe .
>> Councilmember Morales, did
you have a follow-up or
question?
>> No.
I am fine.
>> Looking for any additional
questions.
Councilmember Sawant, I know
you circulated this but I did
not get a chance to ask.
I'm wondering even the
bargaining is not involved, do
we have the ability to take this
unilateral savings cut from
counsel?
Is that something, Karina, you
can comment on as a tool?
>> Councilmember Mosqueda are
you asking whether this kind
of reduction can be made to
represent this position in the
police department or non-
represented positions in other
departments?
>> Just here.
The Council may have a
additional comment.
>> I think what the question
really is is certainly I think
moving forward, when you have a
clean slate in terms of new
employees, there would not
necessarily be an issue.
I guess the question is, are
there any legal concerns with
implementing the intent of this
when the employee has already
has a pre-existing agreement on
compensation?
So, the command staff working
there now, they agreed to take
the job based on X amount of
dollars, can we sue this
writer?
Are there any legal issues with
laterally modifying that
agreement between members of a
staff and their appointing
authority setting aside
recognizing representation
issues?
I think that is an
implementation question I have.
>> For my understanding, it
will likely be permissible to
reduce these salaries but for
each of these positions, there
also could be case-by-case
analysis with a legal risk.
>> Thank you very much,
Councilmember Sawant, I saw
your hand .
>> I just wanted to say yes,
it's the answer to the question
is yes.
We can cut their wages to
$150,000 because that would
legally be not allowable as we
have been informed by the city
attorney's office. Reduce them
to the minimum wage because
they have to be paid within the
pay band for the Seattle
Municipal Court.
We have checked with the law
department and we are told this
is fine because this amendment
would keep the executives
within their pay band.
The appointment is a position
which goes with a pay band so
our understanding is that would
mean it's legal.
>> I do not expect them to be
happy about it but is it legal,
yes.
>> That was, I appreciate the
additional information and
clarity. I want to make sure
that applies retrospectively
not just prospective. In other
words, it does not have to be
like a new employee and it's
the new 150.
Can it be shifted in midstream
for a lack of better term?
Maybe Councilmember Sawant can
give us more information about
that if you had an opportunity
to give clarity on that issue.
>> If I can quickly respond, I
meant to say but I forgot but I
think this question with
councilmember Gonzàlez does
have clarification which this
is for September to December of
2020 and the wages that have
technically been assigned to
each of you to snap back in 2021
, if councilmembers want to do
this in 2021, they would leave
this for the fall discussion.
The reason we can cut the wages
of the executives to $200,000
is because it would mean
several of them would have to
work for free for the rest of
their.
That would be technically
unaccepted and illegal.
We are trying to do something
that is legal within the scope
of the law and that would
result in substantial savings
that could be directed.
>> Thank you thank you for the
clarification.
Any additional councilmembers
who have questions or comments?
Okay. Councilmember Herbold, I
thought I saw your hand.
Go ahead .
>> I thought I heard Karina say
in her description that it does
not fall into a pay band.
If I heard correctly, can you
understand what the impact of
this amendment would have on
the cheap salary?
>> It's the pay band for the
police chief position.
That is 172,000 to 275,000. So,
if this was passed, then the
police chief salary would drop
to 171,000.
I said the police chief is paid
outside of the band of this
moment.
>> Got it.
That is helpful, thank you.
>> Okay, thank you.
I think with that, that was our
timer on this amendment.
Councilmember Sawant, thank you
for the clarification.
Appreciate it.
I see no additional questions
or comments.
Will the clerk call the roll on
amendment 48a?
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Sawant .
>> Yes.
>> Dan Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Gonzalez?
>> Yes.
>> Karina Bull?
>> Same.
>> Excuse me?
>> No.
>> Thank you.
Lewis?
>> No.
>> Morales ?
>> Yes.
>> Teresa Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Six in favor, three opposed.
>> Thank you.
The motion carried and this is
adopted.
Moving to amendment 55. It was
not in my notes but I know this
was around this morning with
amendment 48 ages describe.
Thank youyour comments on this.
I see this is cosponsored by
Councilmember Pedersen and
Councilmember Sawant.
Thank you for working on this.
I will turn it to Aly .
>> Thank you amendment 55
sponsored by Councilmember
Sawant and Councilmember
Pedersen who have been
spending on prospective cost
employees who have paid more
than $150,000 with a effective
date of this ordinance and for
the remaining paid period for
work performed in 2020.
Unless the police department
submit monthly reports with
payment information for the
employees and city clerk, this
restricts setting up of
employees and would not
restrict personal costs that
provide payment for any work
which means it's looking
forward and not backward in
terms of impacting people
salaries.
>> Thank you very much.
I will turn it to move the
amendment. I see you talking
but you are unmute.
>> Sorry.
I move amendment of adoption 55
which is the previous amendment
48 with regulations of pay with
nonexempt employees who make
more than $106,000 a year.
>> That has been moved, thank
you, Councilmember Pedersen.
I will turn it to the
cosponsor for additional
information.
Councilmember Sawant?
>> Thank you I wanted to thank
Councilmember Pedersen and his
office for working with us to
bring this forward.
Last year, about 1400 SPD
foreign officers, a staggering
328 officers, sergeants,
lieutenants and captains, more
than one out of every five made
over $202,000 a year.
That was last year alone.
That's more than the governor
of everyone of the 50 states
made last year because we are
talking about $202,000, a year
lower than what the executives
were talking about earlier.
It's mind-boggling.
I recognize some of these 2019
SPD paychecks were inflated a
bit because of the backpay in
this collective bargaining of
agreements but even taking that
into account, these are
astounding figures still.
They said we cannot pay for
officers and other employees in
2020.
This is a matter of collective
bargaining.
I recognize we have no interest
in undermining it but we can
and at least in the Council
accepts to get more transparency
over the SPD pay pack so we can
engage this issue in the 2021
budget deliberations.
Their amendment would require
the Police Department to report
monthly to the Council
beginning in September on all
employees who are paid more
than $150,000.
Let's keep in mind this will
include the base wage plus
overtime, everything.
To these reports, the Council
will have an opportunity to
learn more about overtime and
other dates.
It should be accountability 101.
With these reports, the Council
and more importantly the public
can better understand how SPD is
paying its employees and what
can be done to reign in the SPD
budget. Because it is basic
sensible requirements to inform
our 2021 budget deliberations,
I would urge all councilmembers
to join Councilmember Pedersen
and me .
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
Councilmember Pedersen, would
you like to add?
>> Thank you, chair.
I concur with Councilmember
Sawant on this.
This is about responsibility
and getting information.
This has been reported numerous
times about excessive
compensation paid and there is
mystery.
We want to get to the bottom of
it so we can have a department
that is functioning in a
sustainable fiscal way for the
taxpayers.
Thank you.
>> Appreciate that.
Additional questions or
comments?
I am hearing none.
Thank you.
Will you call the roll on
amendment 55?
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes .
>> Yes.
>> Gonzalez?
, Lisa Herbold?
>> Nine.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Morales?
>> Here.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> High.
>> In favor, oppose.
>> Thank you, the motion
carries and amendment 55 is
adopted.
Thank you Councilmember
Pedersen and Councilmember
Sawant for working together on
that.
Appreciate the cooperation. We
have a few more amendments in
front of us.
The next two amendments relate
to the navigation team and Aly,
would you like to walk us
through that?
I have 31 on my list but we
will start with 40.
Let's start with 31.
>> I think we are starting with
amendment 31.
I want to confirm
councilmembers are seeing the
screen clearly.
Okay.
I was getting some messages.
Amendment 31 sponsored by
councilmembers Councilmember
Herbold, Councilmember Gonzàlez
joined by Councilmember
Pedersen, Councilmember Sawant
and Strauss would be $16,000
in the police department budget
for the navigation deemed in
the Police Department.
>> Thank you very much. Is
there anyone who would like to
speak on amendment 31?
Councilmember Morales would you
like to speak on it again?
If not, that is okay.
We had a pretty robust
discussion last time.
Any additional comments or
questions?
Councilmember Lewis, go ahead .
>> Madam chair, why are these
not incorporated in the
package?
I think we have all decided
that this is something that
should happen.
I was curious.
>> I believe it was because
there were two amendments on
the same topic.
>> Thank you as we were putting
the agendas together, we were
trying a group thing
somatically and because there
were two amendments, they were
groups together.
Sometimes it was not a perfect
science.
There was not a reason why it
could not just go along side by
side with the other amendments.
>> Thank you councilmember
Lewis, does that confirm?
>> Yes, thank you.
Looking forward to it.
Cheers.
>> Councilmember Sawant, I saw
your hand, go ahead .
>> I wanted to say a few things
about the navigation team
itself.
We know that navigation team is
named and it has been carried
out homeless enchantments.
People's budget movement had
for years been demanding that
we stop because we know they
are inhumane and effective.
They move people from one
corner to the next and they do
nothing to increase affordable
housing.
Instead, they make homeless
neighbors feel more desperate,
lose their belongings and that
is why we need to trust social
workers.
Mayor Durkan has conducted over
1000 Street and they have not
helped.
Many times, I have never met a
homeless that says I was
stressed and relies on housing
or it has improved my life.
I have spoken to hundreds of
people who have been swept.
Especially in the COVID-19, we
know the Centers for Disease
Control--a lot of people living
on sheltered or encampments to
remain where they are because
as the CDC says, "and Kami can
cause people to disperse
throughout the community and
break connections with service
providers.
Increases infectious disease
spread."
It's appalling that despite the
guidance from the CDC, the
Durkin administration would
ignore this and continue the
dangerous and inhumane streets.
Other homeless outreach workers
come to people with options for
housing I mean shelter or
actual housing, those offers
are accepted which is a totally
different conception from the
speed and navigation.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
Any additional comments or
questions?
Okay.
Councilmember Pedersen, please,
I'm sorry.
You are taking yourself off me.
I appreciate it.
I see no comments or questions.
Will you please call the roll
on amendment 31?
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> High.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Juarez?
>> Yes.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Morales ?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>>.
>> Nine in favor, one oppose.
>> They carried motion if
adopted.
We will carry on to amendment 40
.
>> Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
I will walk through this
amendment.
>> Thank you very much.
Amendment 40 has a total of
seven $39,000 from Department
of finance and services and
redirects $1.4 million to the
fund and navigation team and
expand data services before
going into details on how
things have changed, I want to
have the effect statement was
incorrectly updated to 1.4
million.
It should be 1.2 million.
Because of everything and the
amendment language is correct.
Running through the numbers
included in this.
>> Just a minute, I want to ask
, could you scroll to the
effect statement briefly so we
can see that.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Jeff.
>> Over all, what has gone on
with the changes putting this
amendment was updating the
members to the human services
department on the navigation
team and the administrative
services and determining how
much is available for
redirection by discontinuing
the navigation team.
$739,000 is unspent.
In the Department of human
services, there is $1.4 million
with staff salaries that are an
extended at this point.
The total probation for the
year is 762,000. Put all the
numbers together, it's $2.1
million which is why it poses a
restriction on $2.9 million in
funding to be used for outreach
services.
The primary number changed and
it change--adding outreach and
engagement services can include
financial assistance and
management.
Think of that as the divergent
services offered in our
homeless shelters and having
navigation services.
This amendment has been changed
from the earlier form which
excludes recreation funding and
likelihood that this would
result in the human services
Department.
>> Thank you very much.
Let's get this amendment in
front of us.
I'm sorry, if you could scroll
back up, I do not have that
listed on this one.
Hi, councilmember Morales.
Move this amendment and we will
turn it over to you.
>> Moved amendment 119825.
>> That have been seconded.
Councilmember Morales, would
you like to speak?
>> Sure, thank you, I will try
to speak slowly so I don't
freeze again.
I want to thank the cosponsors,
Councilmember Sawant , I think
this condiments everything we
have said about moving the
steam out. This would allow us
to give votes to so many of our
neighbors who lost faith in a
city that has used public
dollars to repeatedly mistreat
and push people out of space.
Our on house the neighbors are
frankly out of patience.
Even during discussion with
people who are on housed as
recently as yesterday, my staff
has turned we believe it when
we see it when we are talking
about having this particular
amendment.
I do want to acknowledge as
Jeff mentioned that while most
of the team could be moved into
other positions, this amendment
could result in the layoff of
one person represented who
serves in an admin position and
we clearly support the need to
bargain and support every person
to move into the city if at all
possible.
With that said, this effort
comes after years of trying to
protect the basic human dignity
of our homeless neighbors.
Time again, our city has
demonstrated a willingness to
district shelters and people's
last remaining possessions. It
has demonstrated a willingness
for services between
caseworkers and the people who
need them.
We have demonstrated a
willingness in to moving with
pulleys and backhoes.
We have demonstrated a
willingness to listen to our on
housed neighbors calling for a
change.
Here at the city Council, we
have been gassed with
questioning questionable
behavior and data from the
navigation team.
We are told we are irrational to
try to fix or even understand
the broken approach our city
has taken to engage in
sheltering on housed people.
This is not right.
My goal and the goal of the
community is to replace the
navigation team with something
better with everyone.
We have organizers and
advocates.
I want to thank clearly Gales
who called earlier, Aaron icing
over, all of the folks who were
doing the front line work.
This is an opportunity to move
past what has not passed and
scale up the things that have
by having trusted service
providers who have done good
work and who wants to do more
of that.
I want to thank my colleagues
who have signed onto this and
I'm looking forward to my
colleagues joining us so that
we can listen to homeless
service providers, organizers,
advocates and our on housed
neighbors and replaced the
navigation team with something
that works better.
Thank you.
>> Counsel calling for comments
or questions?
Councilmember Sawant and
Lewis.
Councilmember Herbold, go ahead
.
>> Thank you very much.
I want to start by reflecting a
little on my efforts as a
councilmember over the last 4+
years in trying to impact
collaboration and the
activities of the navigation
team. I received a call this
morning from the executive
referencing those efforts as if
those efforts were a reason to
continue in the vein that I
have been trying in vain. I do
not feel like those efforts
have produced results.
We have tried to create a
theory of change that we can
measure the results of the
navigation team by.
What we have seen is we have
seen these exactions and am
dollars to reduce the amount of
outreach people get and whether
people get outreach at all.
I am, I feel acting in good
faith.
One of the things I feel myself
and councilmember Lewis
proposed to the executives
months ago, I think it was the
end of January, was a
collaborative effort around the
policy for when it's appropriate
to do intimate removal.
One of the things we suggested
was a navigation team that
helped with residents and
encampment identify other
places where they could eat and
not be forced to move.
Whether or not that is moving a
few feet out of the right-of-
way or moving to another
location that may be outside,
not desirable but perhaps
preferable to a location that
the city has identified as
instruction.
Other cities have been using
that approach again helping
residents of outdoor
encampments local eight
--locations that have less
interference with the public,
use of public space and we were
trying to move the executive
towards that approach.
I read, in the city of
proclaimed last week, that HSD
took a credit said developed a
policy like that where they
would be allowed to work with
residents of encampment and
suggest they voluntarily moved
o other locations before being
faced with mandatory in camera
removals.
I learned that through that
article that the policy was not
approved by the executive but
this is the sort of harm
reduction approaches this
council has been asking for as
it relates to our unfiltered
neighbors for years now.
The other point I want to make
is in the call I received from
the executive this morning, it
was suggesting by removing
funding for the navigation
team, the Council would be
stopping the executive from
doing things like garbage
removal.
I'm sorry, I think that is
another use of a fear tactic.
The funding we are proposing is
funding to expand and maintain
homeless outreach and
engagement.
We know our outreach partners
like reach have been active and
helpful in promoting SP used
purple pilot projects
distributing garbage bags to
residents of folks living
outside, encouraging them to
understand that by maintaining
the premises, they will be less
likely to be identified as a
location for removal.
It's the Seattle Post utilities
department that picks those
bags up.
It's not the navigation team.
I reject that as a fear tactic
for sort of like if we do not
fund the navigation, the city
should have a do-nothing
approach to our homeless
neighbors living outdoors.
That's unacceptable and I
reject that.
I know the Council will make
sure that we will continue to
serve people living outdoors in
a way that seeks to minimize
the harm to themselves as well
as the harm of businesses if
people who are housed in the
area.
Think you.
>> Well said, thank you
Councilmember Herbold.
Councilmember Sawant and
Councilmember Lewis .
>> Thank you I wanted to add to
the point I made earlier that
it's very important to command
the activists who have been on
the ground for years. I think
going back to 2007 is not
fighting for the right for
homeless people.
For years, our movements have
demanded that these stock and I
appreciate the comments from
Councilmember Morales and
Councilmember Herbold.
A lot of fighting going on on
this issue and a lot of
threats related to garbage
removal and so on and so forth
even those the statistics are
documented that they are
causing harm.
I hope the Council will pass
this amendment and at the same
time I wanted to say this will
be the first step.
We will have to go further
because I expect the police and
Mayor Durkan to not accept this
amendment.
We will need to keep fighting
but I hope councilmembers so we
are different than a position
brought forward by the Durkin
administration by reporting
this amendment.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
Sounds like it's hard to hear
you.
Go ahead and speak up next time
and we will get you.
I can hear you okay.
We just want to turn the volume
up.
Councilmember Lewis, please go
ahead .
>> Thank you so much.
I am a little conflicted on
this amendment.
I want to echo some of the
concerns that Councilmember
Herbold raised of our efforts
last winter to pursue a series
of changes we put forward
actually with you Chair
Mosqueda on making the changes
we have long wanted to see and
how we have out reached on the
encampments. Councilmember
Herbold talked about some of
the things that were in that
letter.
I would say the addition of the
advocacy of really talking
about what we should be doing
to structure our strategy of
incoming outreach.
I centered a lot of feedback
that has not been manifested in
that team from a series of
great audits publicly available.
They have been doing this for
years.
One of which, we just wrote a
few minutes ago which is the
right side on the team by
reducing or even eliminating
the role of police officers.
To be clear, those called for
the entire removal of police
but certainly of the team
relative to what other cities
have been doing.
I think that was absolutely
essential.
I was happy to cosponsor that
amendment. It's clear of sworn
officers is undermined.
The effectiveness of the team,
not necessarily I'm blaming
those officers and their desire
to do outreach work but merely
saying that one someone
expensing homelessness that has
terrible past contacts with
uniformed officers, even if the
uniform is slightly different
for the navigation team, sees a
officer coming towards them,
that will have an impact on how
they will engage.
We have seen the team does not
have the kind of impact in
getting folks out of the
encampments that we would like
to see in securing placements
and that was on display during
a meeting we had in February,
we were still meeting in person
and in the spring when we have
additional conversations about
some of these are conducted.
Definitely engaging intently on
the navigation team, I'm glad
we removed the sworn officers.
I am just not there yet in
completely getting rid of the
human services component of the
navigation team until we have
scaled up the alternative
arrangements that we could make
by formalized scaling, our
partnerships with reach.
I am interested in seeing what
a police list team could be like
. I think that is a material
change and something that is
different that we have made the
bold stp of doing here today.
Be it something we pursue after
or the it something that is not
successful today.
I think we need to gradually
continue to move toward
something more decentralized
and more focused on the harm
reduction in community-based
interventions that will form a
bigger part of our outreach
strategy.
Given that I do want to see if
it can make a difference on
moving the police from the naff
team if that will help as a
next step.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Lewis.
Councilmember Herbold, please
go ahead .
>> Very quickly to respond to
the position that we should see
what happens with a naff team
that has no police, I have
heard for years that the
nonpolice team members of the
naff police would not do this
work without being accompanied
by police officers.
We have all had that antidotal
information confirmed by labor
relations.
We were told by labor relations
but it's true that the human
services department members
will not do this work without
police officers on this team.
So, I feel in a way, just
voting to cut the police
officers off the team, we
cannot very well say I did not
vote to eliminate the team, the
whole navigation team, I only
voted to cut the police
officers.
We have been told other folks
who are not police will not do
this work without police
officers.
To me, what that brings home is
a question of whether or not HSD
are the appropriate individual
to do this work. If they are
unwilling to do it without
police officers.
We know that reach will do this
work without being accompanied
by police officers.
They were the outreach component
of the naff team for years
until he decided to take this
off voluntarily because they
thought it was unethical for
them for do this work
accompanied by police and that
approach of doing the work made
them much effective as outreach
workers.
I appreciate the staff may not
want to do this without police
officers.
I am not trying to make a value
judgment on that, it makes me
think that, it makes me wonder
if they are the right people
when we understand the same
body of work can be done by
others who will do it without
police officers.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Herbold.
I want to offer a slight
reframe on that because I think
what I have heard from some of
the folks who are non-sworn
officers currently part of the
naff team is they have officers
with them because they are
seeing to provide a service for
the city that is picking the
people they interact with in a
stressful situation.
I think it is on us as a city
to remove this framework.
Let's help our city employees
that they should be going into
places where people are
encamped and taking their last
belongings.
I understand why people would
be scared or defenses of their
belongings.
Councilmember Herbold, folks
want to do the case management
, they want to do mental health
counseling and the housing. Why
are they being put into a
situation where they have to be
accompanied by an officer
because that creates tension.
I think there are a number of
reasons why we would want these
great employees and non-sworn
officers to be able to provide
mental health counseling and
housing assistance in other
areas.
I believe what I heard and
correct me if I'm wrong, is the
thing in front of us has
identifying spots for other
employees and there is
currently only one
representative on our team
member and Councilmember
Morales said, we can work to
help identify another place . I
want to make sure my
understanding is correct about
the opportunity that other
places in the city especially
for these represented workers
and to reiterate I think a city
that put the wrong framework
out and ask for run things the
orientation with how we engaged
to those living on sheltered in
our community is part of what
this discussion is about.
I hope it is seen as
complementary in identifying
other ways in which we should
be engaging.
Jeff, did you have anything to
add?
>> I want to confirm or
clarify, it does not require a
layoff of individuals on the
navigation team.
The likelihood of layoffs as a
result of the nation of funding
between 15-20 positions and
there is currently a hiring
freeze.
Even though there are vacancies
that may or may not be
compatible, they cannot speak
from the human services
department that they can see.
There is a hiring freeze across
the state and even if there was
an appropriate vacancy right now
, it would not be possible
given a broader history, that
could be a decision given a
waiver to or a course of action
but I don't have a reason to
believe that there could be
some implication of layoffs.
There are 15-20 people on this
team, it would be affecting all
of those employees.
>> Thank you.
Councilmember Sawant, you had a
hand up.
I wanted to double check that
I didn't miss the hand.
Councilmember Sawant and then
Councilmember Herbold .
>> To add it to Councilmember
Herbold , I wanted to say that
is exactly what we voted in our
office as well that workers who
comprise of the navigation team
do not want that or do the work
úwithout the police officers
present likely because the
navigation team is doing sweep,
they need oppression to force
people out of their tents when
they have no real option
alternative which is why this
is needed.
If you offer like for example
over and over again but if they
were offered a spot, they were
offered some solutions, they
want to move.
It's not like--they want to be
on the street, it's one of the
most devastating and
destructive experiences as a
human being to be on sheltered.
The reason police need
oppression is because people
want to maintain their rights
because they have nothing
better waiting for them.
As Mosqueda said, they end up
losing their belongings.
If the employee is are offering
people good options of where to
go, the whole situation of
conflict is eliminated because
the other workers do not want
to do it without the police
officers.
It's a question of changing the
body of work entirely.
We want to eliminate homeless
people and do actual outreach.
That is why they are talking
about expanding the navigation
team.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Councilmember
Morales and Councilmember
Pedersen, I'm sorry.
Did not mean to proactively
prevent it.
Count, Councilmember Morales,
Strauss and Councilmember
Pedersen .
>> I wanted to thank the
cosponsors again and reiterate
points that have been made.
One is this is nothing
precluding folks from calling
911 if they have some reason.
We are trying to remove this
entire function from the police
department from having
involvement because there is no
reason for them to be part of a
team of outreach workers.
That is one thing and the
second is we already have, in
the international District and
Pioneer Square, there are
community organizations already
doing this work building their
own ecosystem of support of
keeping management referrals.
The whole point of this
amendment is to ensure they get
the resources they need to do
what they do best and serve our
homeless neighbors.
We are trying very deliberately
to address the shortfalls of
this system, we have tried and
it has failed.
We want to take those resources
into the community
organizations doing the work
and make sure they are keeping
people safe.
>> Thank you councilmember
Strauss .
>> Thank you, chair 23.
I'm having trouble with this
amendment and I understand we
need to have a place to
navigate people to.
When you don't have the
appropriate shelter whether
that is tiny villages or a door
that the individual can lock
and feel safe in their home and
space, we need to have a place
for people to navigate to.
In addition, we need to have
housing for people to graduate
out of the shelter to be fully
housed which then opens up
additional sheltered spaces.
I have seen this be successful
in my neighborhood with sweets,
they were able to navigate
people to shelter when that
shelter was available.
I did not support moving one
person to another from around
the corner without a place to
live. We have a homelessness
problem in my neighborhood.
We have seen we are not able to
bring people inside to be in a
safe place and devastating
situations can happen to on
house and housed people.
We had a incident just now that
had a man hospitalized.
I hear you, Councilmember
Herbold.
You had a longer history of
working on this.
I will be open with you to
creating a plan to have this
past to the future.
What I understand is we need to
have safe places for people to
go because we are not
addressing the problem at the
scale of the crisis we are
experiencing.
Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you Councilmember
Strauss.
Councilmember Pedersen, please
go ahead .
>> Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
I want to understand, as I
understand, we found unity as a
council by removing the police
department from the navigation
team.
That amendment passed.
This amendment would take
additional funding from the
math team. I want a better
understanding from central
staff, these city employees who
have been working very hard in
this configuration for many
years, they have been put in
difficult situations and they
are part of our city government
family.
It's my understanding that they
helped to clean up, remove
litter and debris. In addition
to the services, is this
amendment defunding the
outreach services or is this
for central staff?
>> It does not defund outreach
services.
It provides to allow them to
expand and maintain.
Anything considered a outreach
service such as funding could
be maintained.
To your first question, the
actual role of daily duties of
the individuals that would be
defunded, the largest group are
called build coordinators.
Those are the individuals
--prioritize the in camera for
removal and conduct logistics
of the cleanup operation before
the staff. There is a contrast
removed by this amendment to
have a bobcat or something.
Then,
>> Sorry to interrupt.
If we passed this, there would
be no supervision on removing
debris and trash and even while
the campers stay there?
>> I do not know what we would
be missing.
The field coordinators I would
not describe as supervisors for
the individuals actually doing
the litter pickup and trash
removal, my understanding is
they are in a position going
through a checklist for what is
encampment and entering that
into a system and maybe have
worked to arrange for various
parties for removal.
The Department of recreation
part of the navigation team is
not affected by this amendment.
That is about $1.4 million.
The majority of which is money
that allows for trash and
litter pickup in the right-of-
way but about 400,000 used for
picking up in parks or other
locations.
A lot of that, over the last a
month, when there is no
reduction, that have been
--those are the staff trained.
Those are the ones doing the
removal of litter, debris and
things like that.
Is that helpful?
>> Thank you
>> This is amendment 40, right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Councilmember Pedersen, any
questions on that?
>> No thanks .
>> Thank you I want to double
check Madam chair?
>> Councilmember Juarez.
>> I'm a bit confused, too after
we just passed the former
amendment, I understand the
Park money will not be parked
but I guess what I am not quite
getting and please help me, as
Councilmember Morales said , I
believe you said we are cutting
the cord. So what does that
mean?
Does that mean there will be no
police officers with the
navigation team or the team
that works with the and
sheltered?
Those who do not want to go
because they do not feel safe
having an officer, if needed,
will get jobs somewhere else?
Can I get some clarification on
that?
>> I will take this and Jeff,
maybe you can back me up, fill
it out, whatever.
So, yes.
What we are doing, we have
removed the police from the
navigation team.
With this amendment, speak to
redirect funds so we can
contract with existing
providers.
We have talked about reach.
There are providers doing this
work that can do this work
better and they are not
interested in doing this work
with police involved. That is
why we did the previous
amendment.
What this also dies is it keeps
the money, as you said, for the
trash pickup because that is
something the city can and
should continue to do.
It increases funding with
service providers and this
limits the use of these funds
to outreach and engagement so
that we can make sure the work
that is happening is not moving
people from one side of the
street to the other.
It's referring them to
noncontent shelters and
villages and the things we are
trying to find in this process
so they are getting service
from folks whose main jobs is
in the community.
>> May I have a follow-up?
>> Councilmember Juarez .
>> This may be out of order but
can I ask a question for
Councilmember Herbold?
I have watched Councilmember
Herbold work on these over
decades and within the last
four years, when we started
off with what this navigation
team would look like and why we
were supportive in the
beginning and we know times
have changed.
Is it fair to say,
Councilmember Herbold, based on
your expertise, you, the chair
and the committee working
tirelessly, I think has the
most experience on this
counsel, are you saying that
the navigation team, in our
efforts with the executive, at
the end of the day that the
experience did not work?
And we should shift models?
I'm trying to understand.
I'm looking at the leadership
with Councilmember Herbold to
contextualize that for me.
If this is the navigation team
with police officers direction
is a thought experiment, then I
would rather someone say that
like you know what?
We tried this, we found it had
unintended consequences, and we
did the best we did.
It did not work and we will try
this.
Is that your position as well,
Councilmember Herbold?
>> You said it in a way that
maybe I'm not only supposed to
think but I really believe that
I had a commitment from the
executives to a culture of
continuous improvement.
When we identified ways that we
could continue to reduce the
harm being done of those people
and the negative impacts on
successful outreach outcomes, I
really did not feel we are not
hearing from the executive any
longer that they are interested
in the conversation about the
practices.
>> It is fair to say that the
harm outweighed the presence of
officers?
>> I feel the harm that has
been done, as it relates
specifically to an approach
úthat is more focused on
removing people from their
locations then addressing the
needs of those people. I think
that is the equation I feel
like has been demonstrated to
me over the last four years.
>> Thank you very much.
I do see Councilmember Gonzàlez
and Councilmember Sawant and
Jeff has been added as well.
Would you like to chime in on
the question?
>> Really quickly, I think back
and forth with Councilmember
Juarez and Councilmember
Morales and Councilmember
Herbold but where I was headed
west to phrase this up in terms
of policy questions.
The First Amendment we
considered the policy question
there was should if we keep the
navigation team, should STD be
part of the navigation team?
We need to circle a vote to say
we do not think SPD as a matter
of policy should be part of the
navigation team.
The policy question is does the
city of Seattle is human
services Department be in the
business of doing direct
outreach and engagement
homelessness based on the
navigation team experiment that
has been unfolding over the last
four years?
I think the answer to that
question is no.
We should not be in this
business of providing service
because we have nonprofit
organizations like REITs and
others who have better outcomes
and who are ready and willing
and able as they see additional
investments in order to do
REACH.
And the last couple years, I
have been advocating for the
more creative programs that do
not include employees at the
services Department.
Those examples include a
creative and innovative
partnership between our
business improvement area
organizations and outreach
organizations like REACH.
There have been wildly
successful were neighborhood
impacts of the result of folks
expressing homelessness in
those neighborhoods and also
producing positive results in
terms of connecting people to
meaningful services and
opportunities.
The way I see this is the human
services Department, they are
primarily in the area of
homelessness investments.
They primarily our contract
managers.
They primarily manage and
oversee grants we make to
nonprofit organizations to
provide direct services.
This is one of the unique areas
for which whatever reason the
human services Department now
since we have done is now
engaging in direct services to
people experiencing
homelessness.
The exception of their aging and
Senior services Department,
this is the only other one that
has employees in house to
engage in services.
For me, the policy question is
should we be doing that?
When all of our other outreach
and engagement services are
outsourced to nonprofit
organizations through our
grantmaking processes that have
performance requirements and
have processes associated with
them.
This is the right choice as to
effectively eliminate the
navigation team in order to
free up those dollars, fund and
support nonprofit organizations
that are more of that and more
effective with homelessness
outreach and engagement through
the contracting process.
I just wanted to signal my
intent to support amendment 40
and the rationale for why I
plan to do so.
>> Thank you.
I see Councilmember Sawant and
Councilmember Pedersen .
>> Thank you again, I wanted to
reiterate the point of those
questions or concerns which I am
having a hard time taking them
because these are either
councilmembers who have been
around the Council for a few
years or have another position
in the city Council and they
know what these issues are.
What is problematic is that
homeless people are being swept
. That needs to end.
We absolutely need for them to
have places to go to where they
can go where we do not demand
they without pets or belongings
without family members, we are
not willing to do that. We
should not expect that would be
acceptable to homeless
neighbors, either.
The reason the police are
required is because the whole
model of the work is something
that is homeless people and
they understandably oppose.
Homeless people oppose REACH
because we do not work for
them.
There is nothing more
complicated than that.
There is no good way of
sweeping people.
We are not good.
It would be disingenuous of us
and we should all know this.
Sweeps are the problem.
That is why the suites need to
end and why the coalition on
homelessness is calling for the
dismantling of the navigation
team or in other words, the
funding the navigation team
because we need a different
approach which is the approach
from other advocates that we
offer them shelter, housing or
services that works for them.
I wanted to read important quote
that has come from the
coalition on homelessness.
This is a coalition board
member and executive director
dated July 31st sent to the
whole counsel, "I'm asking you
to from the navigation team and
reallocate that to nonprofit
organizations. I often speak
about the mistrust of my native
community with all government
systems.
Government system instructors
led to the racial disparities
we see today simply sending out
to the employees with bottled
water and feel hygiene supplies
does not wash away feelings of
mistrust or erase the
oppression and notarization of
our community.
If you want to see improvement
with this issue, please and
power systems that are truly
mission driven and meant to
protect the government."
I think this quote captures the
essence of what Advent gets and
our community has been fighting
for for years and the system is
not working.
In closing, I wanted to thank
all of the activists who have
fought for this from the
beginning for many years
including the ones who just won
their campaign against by Mayor
Durkin but faith leaders, the
coalition on the investment,
many of whom who have been
advocating for years.
I wanted to thank the Black
Lives Matter movement
activists.
Because of this forcing the
Council to have a conversation
about this like never before,
not in my memory.
I hope the councilmember will
stand with the community and
vote yes on this.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
I think it is valid.
Every time we talk about the
navigation team, there is
misinformation that has been
put out.
I still have the scars from
conversations we tried to have
years ago about simply
increasing the amount of
funding that goes to a human
service provider, organizations.
By reducing the NAV team by
I'm sorry, not reducing b█ut
instead of adding, we were
going to add seven at the time
and the amount we received was
tremendous.
I think that's important for us
to continue to help answer
these because tremendous
misinformation is put out and I
will talk about that in a
moment but I want to thank the
folks who try to educate the
Council and the community at
large including members of the
media about what could be the
system standing in place if
there was no navigation team.
It is dozens of organizations,
the top two or three that have
trusted partners that are more
successful at getting people
into housing and more
successful about making sure
folks stay housed.
Councilmember Pedersen and
Councilmember Herbold.
Councilmember Pedersen, go
ahead .
>> Thank you I appreciate this
discussion rebalancing the 2020
budget and the Seattle Police
Department's with other
initiatives.
I feel like this policy is out
of the scope of those two
things.
I would much rather discuss
this on homelessness however
here we are.
I appreciate the chairs for
letting us talk longer about
this key policy.
What I am reading from the
central staff is that there's
actual result in layoffs in the
human services Department.
I heard Jeff Sims say it
impacts a 15-20 employees.
I want to know from central
staff, how many city government
employees from HSD would be
negatively impacted?
>> I am not able to give that
answer.
Receiving a supplemental budget
package receive information on
the vacancies and state
departments.
That information has not been
provided.
I do not know the level and I
believe it is 17 positions on
the navigation team.
However, some I believe are
vacant.
I do not know which ones or how
many.
That is why I have been
speaking of 15-20 because I do
know not know.
>> I think Councilmember
Gonzàlez may have an answer.
I did not want to cut you off
but did you have an answer?
>> I do, I had an opportunity
to do some outreach with the
union that represents the non-
sworn personnel referenced in
the effects.
My understanding based on the
communication is that the
employees who are currently
assigned to HSD are working out
of class.
Consistent with the terms of
agreement, those out of class
workers will slide back into
their original pockets or
positions that they originated
from.
The way I understand it, yes,
it goes away from the human
services Department but it is a
elimination of those out of
class positions.
I think that is true with the
exception of one position which
Councilmember Morales will look
forward to in the opening
remarks.
One position is original to the
navigation team and is at risk
of being eliminated as a result
of this amendment should have
happened.
>> There would be bargaining
potentially related to that
possibility.
Councilmember Pedersen, I did
not want to cut you off.
Go ahead .
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Gonzàlez doing that research.
That's helpful.
Some councilmembers were just
at a meeting at the
neighborhood business district
and they were expressing their
appreciation for the navigation
team and they were worried
about today's actions.
I wanted to get a better
understanding at times of what
I was hearing.
In terms of not the sweeping but
the cleaning of trash, debris
and needles and any instruction
in the rare cases on the
sidewalks or right-of-way, who
would be handling that, Jeff,
if we were to pass this
amendment?
>> I think the answer, this
would discontinue while
continuing services like
outreach and engagement.
To some degree, litter and
trash pickup.
I want to give the example of
something, I cannot speak to
what that might be if there was
a large item that could not be
removed.
I'm not clear on what that
answer would be.
>> Just to follow up, I'm not
talking about sweeping, I'm
talking about debris that
accumulates and when the NAV
team goes out and engages with
folks living outside, if
nothing happens, there is no
sweep and if it is not
available but there is a trash
cleanup that takes place. The
NAV team does that.
I guess what I'm wondering is
it sounds like the function
would go away but I just want
to get the facts.
I'm not sure that is true.
>> My understanding is that
would not go away.
The function is carried out by
the individuals hired by the
recreation.
I cannot recall.
I want to say this is around 12
individuals and they are the
ones doing the traffic
collection.
Those funds are not pressed.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Pedersen.
I think this goes full-circle
to the initial comments I saw
Councilember Herbold trying
to list as well.
So, I will make some final
comments here.
I think it's important for us
to get misinformation.
This is not just about leaving
folks outside.
This is about reinvesting in
community strategies that have
trusted partners and a proven
track record of helping to move
into places such as tiny homes,
hotel/motels and noncontent
shelter options in this kind of
Teresa Mosqueda.
We have seen reports from this
city that have successful rates
at getting folks inside and
coming out with different
framework.
As we scale up these community
partners, I believe the outcome
will be we will be more
successful with moving folks in
to housing and as to
Councilmember Strauss's point,
we must continue to invest in
housing which we are doing in
this budget in our COVID-19
relief.
We are investing more funding
into noncontent shelters in the
2020 package we have in front
of us.
I see these two are going
together to create more
opportunities for folks off of
the street and we provide a
more trusted voice to engage
with folks while maintaining
garbage clean up and doing
outreach through these trusted
partners.
To Councilmember Juarez's
question about whether this
has run its course and we need
to reinvest in where we see the
data driven solutions are truly
in a community solution for the
framework which has been a
proven track record of being
successful.
I think we will see more
positive.
For our neighbors asking us to
reduce the number of people
living outside and help people
get safely housed.
I we will be reporting this
today.
I will have conversations with
the city unions as we continue
to figure out how we can move
folks out of a place like FPD
and recognize the good work
that the sworn officers are
continuing to do or personnel
are doing in apartments.
With that, no additional
comments or questions?
I asked the clerk to call the
roll on amendment 40.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Strauss?
>> No.
>> Gondolas?
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> Sorry, yes.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Five in favor, four opposed.
Thank you, Madam and think you
for the robust discussion.
The motion carries and
amendment 40 is adopted.
We have one more amendment and
that is amendment 60 which has
been pulled out of the consent
package for consideration.
I will have Aly walk us through
and we will have the sponsor
speak to the amendment and we
will have a discussion for the
purposes given this is pulled
out, we want to have a robust
discussion here.
Thank you, councilmembers.
>> Aly, please take the weight.
>> Amendment 16 sponsored by
Councilmember Gonzàlez,
Councilmember Herbold and Chair
Mosqueda with Councilmember
Sawant and Councilmember
Strauss with $532,000 in the
patrol operation and Seattle
Police Department to require a
general direction in sworn
personnel.
>> Thank you very much.
I believe Councilmember
Herbold, are you going to speak
on this?
>> Yes, should I make the
motion?
>> Let's do that, could you
please move amendment 16?
>> Absolutey.
I moved the passage of
amendment 16 related to the
general reduction of sworn
control.
>> Okay thank you it has been
moved and seconded,
Councilmember Herbold, would
you like to address the
conversation?
[ Audio cutting in and out ] .
>> If it is appropriate and if
it is not but considering
Councilmember Lewis requested
that this amendment be pulled
perhaps it would be helpful to
hear from him the basis of his
request from the consent
package first.
That could be something to
respond to.
>> Councilmember Lewis, could
you?
Is this something you would like
to speak to?
>> Certainly, Madam chair.
I appreciate the opportunity to
do that.
I wanted to just pull this in
light of the letter we got this
morning, a letter that I have
seen an issue with from the
human resources department from
the labor relations unit
regarding order of layoffs and
this counsel proposed
preferences on layoffs, I wanted
to remove this particular
amendment so we can have a
discussion as a counsel around
strategy to try to structure
this to maximize our chances at
getting the kind of proposed
layoff strategies from the
executives and other partners
that do labor policy in the city
to make sure that we can have a
strategy that focuses on
maintaining the diversity of
the department and prioritizing
layoffs based on template
history.
I would cite in 2019 from
looking at the annual report
from the office of the
accountability office on
sustained complaints, there
were 125 sustained complaints
last year against the 56
individuals in the department.
There are certainly ample amount
with complaints that I think
all of us agree and a lot of
the protesters in the streets
and people demanding reform
have agreed that officers with
complaints should be the folks
who should go first if we are
going to be completely
reconfiguring our police
department.
I wanted to raise this because
while some of the issues in
this letter and comments from
the executive yesterday, I do
not want to go to the rhetoric
of it, some of which I think
many of my colleagues responded
to a believe this morning as
being offensive to the
practices of this counsel and
what we are trying to do,
avoiding the rhetoric, one
thing we cannot get around
unfortunately are some of the
rules.
There is a specifically
delineated four steps of the
order in which people are laid
off.
The only reason they bring it up
as if we are not able to
successfully set up a strategy
out of order or if we are not
successful in our effort to be
able to have some consideration
for the diversity of the
department, we would
functionally be losing officers
I think on the wrong end of
where we would like to see the
officers leave.
We had one of the most diverse
hiring classes of sworn
officers.
A lot of those officers are in
field training, status or some
other type of status that would
make them more susceptible to
being the first targeted in a
layoff unless a new strategy is
put in place.
I think and setting up our per
visas, to set up a bargaining
strategy, we need to be
cognizant of us trying to get
the officers on the other end,
officers who have been in the
department a lot longer rather
than officers on the front and
who are coming in with
experience and backgrounds that
I think we want to see more in
the department.
I wanted to flag this for
discussion because this is one
of the per visas that would
cure this issue up more in
terms of this dispute we are
having as a counsel with the
out of order layoffs and just
noting part of the overall
issue is we do not have a lot
of leeway to be too
prescriptive with how the
executive will implemen these
cuts.
We need to be mindful that some
of these per visas may be
implemented that we may not
want to see how they impact on
the department.
I wanted to keep that up for
more discussion and that is the
nature of my concerns.
>> Thank you Councilmember
Herbold, turning it to you for
a response and an outline for
what is in amendment 16.
>> Thank you so much.
As it relates, I want to
perhaps touch a little bit on a
different element of the memo,
that is a part of the memo
where they make abundantly
clear that there are no
guarantees that we will realize
savings in 2020.
To that, my response is we
know, that is why we are
proposing not a cut that
provides those.
We understand the negotiation
might take longer than we would
like.
We are uniquely aware because
the legislative department and
the five councilmembers set up
are in a position of being able
to drive the scheduling of
those discussions.
That is the reason why number
one, you don't have before you
proposed cuts, you have
providers and number two, we
are spending proposal for 2020
does not depend on resolution
of bargaining these layoffs in
2020.
We have developed this proposal
in a way that is very cognizant
of the risks.
Though, the risks described in
the labor relations department
memo, I think again, we are not
unfamiliar with them that I
think the comfort around the
risk level might be a little
different than the executive
has because I think our
commitment to what it is we are
trying to accomplish, hopefully
in collaboration with the
executive and we have also been
asking these same questions of
our law department, the
questions that the labor and
the memo addresses.
In the break, I went back and I
watched part of the press
conference from yesterday.
I think this is relevant to
this question of these proposed
reductions of the sworn
personnel and I am really
saddened that in the press
conference, the chief said she
believed we are trying to run
her department. Every single
one of the provisos that reduced
spending for whether or not it
is specialized units or this
one in particular, there is
language that specifies the
counsel acknowledges the chief
may realize the production
proposed differently from what
the Council is proposing.
These provisos are
recommendations for how to
realize reductions in a way
from the advice we have received
that make it more likely, we
will be successful in
bargaining.
As it relates specifically to
the question around the out of
order layoffs, again, our
request of the chief to propose
to the public service commission
, an order that is not
according to the highest first,
our request, submit that to the
decision-making body, is based
on, my understanding, that we
are aligned.
We do not want to make reduction
from the newest hired first.
I am really confused why the
chief is asked directly, will
she try?
Will she try to submit this
request to the Public Safety
Civil Service Commission? Her
response seems to be it is out
of my hands.
Because, I believe we need to
make an effort to accomplish
through these discussions what
are our aligned interests and
our interests are maintaining
the diversity that the
department has gained over the
last couple of new recruit
classes.
I am still optimistic.
We have begun sort of scoping
out text what this request
would look like, what it would
contain, what would make it
more likely to be successful
and if we are in a situation
where the executive is not
doing the legal analysis, I know
the Council will work to do the
legal analysis and share that
with the executive as well.
>> Thank you very much,
Councilmember Herbold.
I see Councilmember Strauss's
hand and Council President of
the chair of our labor
relations 50 effort, if you
might have comments.
I did not want to skip over you.
Councilmember Strauss, go
ahead.
>> Thank you my colleagus
have made important points.
I will restate we do not want
to make reductions to the most
recently hired class.
What we know are the officers
hired within the last 3-5 years
have been hired into the
reformed culture of our Seattle
Police Department.
What I heard yesterday is it is
too hard to make out of order
layoffs because it has to be
done on an individual basis.
What I am hearing loud and
clear from Mike colleagues and
across the city is we want this
hard work to be done.
It's important to do this hard
work so we can change the way
we are doing policing to a way
that reflects the communities
we serve.
Thank you, chair.
>> Very well said.
Thank you, Councilmember
Strauss.
If you had a comment, I wanted
to make sure.
>> Really quickly, I
Councilmember Herbold covered
it well.
Thank you for those comments.
I could not agree more.
I think just to sort of
summarize here that the reality
is is that we were very
deliberate about making sure
amendment 16 was requested of
and inclusive of the prophecies
in our labor relation contacts
that need to unfold over the
next two months.
Those issues and assumptions
are baked into amendment 16.
Just because it's a process
that has to be undertaken and
just because that may be
cumbersome is not a reason to
forgo its.
The fact of the issue of this
out of order petition, the
income percent, really raises
the question for me about if
there is a intent to pursue
layoffs of the Seattle Police
Department regardless of
whether it's 2020 or 2021.
What's the difference between
now and then?
Is it less cumbersome because
it's 2021 or not?
I think the reality is this is
our first opportunity to
demonstrate a meaningful
commitment to those who are
asking us to reduce the size of
the police department. This is
an opportunity for us to
demonstrate we are willing to
begin the process through this
rebalancing package.
Understanding the biggest
question will be in front of us
for 2021.
That begins in seven weeks.
Those of us who are members of
the committee also understand
our obligations to accept
parameters and move this
forward.
That is consistent with what
the full counsel wants and what
our constituents want.
I know we are committed to
doing that.
I just want to make sure that
folks understand we are not
pursuing amendment 16 with the
recognition that these are
issues they are not
insurmountable issues.
Whether or not there is a
desire to overcome those issues
is a fundamentally different
question and I think what we
heard yesterday, unfortunately,
is that there is not a strong
interest in pursuing a phase I
approach a potential layoffs
with 2020 which leaves me to
worry about whether that
position will change or remain
the same and the conversations
related to 2021.
I will end my comment and I
appreciate the opportunity to
add more context.
>> Thank you are there
additional comments or
questions?
We have Councilmember Sawant
and Councilmember Pedersen and
Councilmember Lewis.
Councilmember Sawant, go ahead
.
>> I will just say what is
being shared here should not
come as a surprise to anyone
but this is what I expect from
the other administrations.
This is what I expect from the
police department and police
officers.
As a counselor, I'm not saying
anybody is saying this but we
need to put it this way, if we
accepted there is no guarantee
as we are defunding the extent
of the councilmembers to take
the funds from the police
department to community needs
that this will happen in 2020,
then none of the budget
amendments we have voted on
today and approved, they will
not have any effect and which
again is why my office and the
budget movement believe the
Council should cut the funds,
due to defunding now so that
labor relations needs to deal
with it after the fact.
Clearly, if they are given the
opportunity to discuss it, they
have no desire to do this in
any way.
I'm talking about the labor
relations department.
I think that this argument also
really enforces the points
which is that we cannot wait
for them to agree because they
will never agree.
We have to bring the full force
of the movement on the street
against the police officers and
against the labor relations
department and say this is what
we are demanding and what we
need to make a dent against
police violence.
If you will be in our way,
then, we will be fighting
against you.
You are on the wrong side of
history.
By that measure, the city
Council should be defunding.
Even if you do something smaller
, which you have done, they
will try to support it but I
don't think it should be that
small.
You will come up with the same
obstacles. Thank you
>> Thank you very much.
I think I saw Councilmember
Pedersen and Lewis.
Councilmember Pedersen, please
go ahead .
>> Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
I will be supporting this
amendment.
I want to take this as an
opportunity to explain to my
constituents why.
This is the largest item in
terms of positions in HPD.
Bear with me.
I have received over 35,000
emails including 2000 from my
constituents and Seattle
District 4 about the police
accountability following the
police killing of George Floyd
in Minneapolis.
The police response protest in
Seattle and racism throughout
our nation.
I am grateful so many engaged
comes that humans have taken
the time to contact my office
with their grief, outrage and
tough questions about police
accountability and budget.
While the communications are a
variety of views, I see common
ground rethinking and revamping
effective and equitable public
safety means as we strive to
have healthy communities.
I feel we have the urgency of
this.
This is a historic opportunity
and we cannot go back.
As we reimagine public safety,
we must develop community
organizations to prevent crime
and achieve healthy
communities.
I support the mayor and city
Council with the process.
Let's bring more groups to the
table from the leaders of the
everyday March to the leaders
of the urban league and police
commission.
Together, we can make more
progress.
There is another perspective on
how to view these changes
today, fiscal responsibility.
Our city government department
including our police are
spending more money than they
are receiving.
That is why we are here to
rebalance our 2020 budget.
We also have a large budget
deficit next year.
SPD has a budget, SPD has spent
their entire overtime budget.
Some reductions for SPD are
necessary both this year and
next year.
Regarding the new recruits to
the police department amendment
16, I would rather reduce
positions through attrition
instead of letting go of new
progressive talents.
As my colleague said, this is a
purview of the police chief to
decide how to handle these
reductions.
The city council has limited
tools on how to impact any
department.
We can reduce or increase the
budget at certain high-level
lines with the city charter and
labor contracts to not allow
the Council to unilaterally
make targeted personal
decisions.
Instead, we can make pointed
suggestions on where to cut.
I have confidence our chief
Carmen can manage these budgets
we are making today.
After we make these, I believe
it's vital for the chief to
provide a report to city
council so we can hear exactly
how she will redeploy officers
and what the impact will be on
response times.
Ideally, response times do not
get worse.
Instead, police would respond
to fewer types of cause to
noncriminal cause, we can send
other professionals who are not
armed but we need to see if
that is--we need to see details
and the general public deserves
to see those.
I will bring forward an
amendment Monday and make sure
we will get a report on
response times.
To the residents of my
districts, these rebalancing
amendments will seem too big
and will seem too small, not
enough.
After much consideration, I
believe these are significant
down payment toward bigger
changes as we will use our fall
budget process to craft a more
thoughtful plan for community
safety that is sustainable.
There are constraints and labor
law and regarding the labor
issues I look forward to a
complete reworking of the
bargaining agreement with
police officers so that we can
reduce excessive costs to
taxpayers and fixed the
disciplinary system.
Even as the city council
reallocate dollars, there will
be many police officers and we
need to make sure their labor
contract is fair and effective
for Seattle.
The police officers listening,
I appreciate the good work that
so many of you do. At the same
time, you are asked to do too
much.
You are put into complex
situations that others from our
community may be better
equipped to handle.
You are part of a system born
out of racism and despite
progress on reforms, that
institutional racism of police
department here and across the
nation continues to have a
negative impact on people of
color.
By rethinking what public
safety means, by the centering
black, indigenous and people of
color, we can see this historic
opportunity to disrupt
institutional racism and
achieve real community safety.
In addition to the important
budget actions, and introducing
a resolution this Monday to
support the national effort to
pass the George Floyd justice
and policing act, that is HR
7120 introduced by Karen Bass,
Democrat from California and by
our own Congresswoman.
This bill addresses many
concerns raised by protesters
who are authorized by federal
law such as the need to
restrict qualified immunity for
police officers across the
nation.
Today, we are focused on
putting things here in Seattle.
I am hopeful that both the
mayor and the city Council have
been acting in good faith and
with good intentions on these
complex issues.
I believe we are both
appropriately exercising our
authority granted by the people
under our city charter.
This is a classic and
appropriate policy.
Our two branches of the
government are simply
considering and weighing
different factors with limited
information on the dramatic
changes we are going to make.
Let us see common ground, we
want to reimagine public safety
and we are both dedicated to
public service striving to
respond to these unprecedented
moments.
Will be counsel go further than
the mayor?
Certainly.
Precisely because we care about
people, we want them to have
confidence in their local
government.
People expect us to liberate,
debase and sometimes disagree
but the people do not want us
to divide or demonize.
I did not want to dismantle the
fbric of our government.
The real enemy is the person
that has five months left in
the White House.
Let's stop sniping at each
other at City Hall.
Let's disagree respectfully,
seek common ground and solve
problems for Seattle.
Thank you.
>> Councilmember Pedersen,
thank you for those incredible
words and for your perspective
on where you are coming from
regarding this amendment. I
want to thank you for your
heartfelt analysis and a
standing ovation.
I appreciate you speaking up on
these issues.
I know there are many of us who
have conclusions as individuals
throughout this process over
the last few months.
It's illuminating to hear where
you're coming from on this
amendment and the overall
proposals in front of us.
Thank you for sharing that.
I appreciate your words.
Councilmember Lewis, thank you
for waiting.
>> Thank you so much.
I appreciate the Council
colleagues with a longer
conversation.
I think this is a really
important discussion we need to
have in queuing up with the
next stages along the process.
I think the point Councilmember
Strauss made earlier, I think
part of the issue is some of it
is a matter of digging into
doing hard work.
I know there has been an
acknowledgment on the part of
the executive side to pursuing
out of order layoffs which will
be hard and all of us signed up
to do what is right, not to do
what is easy.
Usually, that involves doing
things that are hard.
I acknowledge that.
I think some of this goes to
whether the rules will be in
such a place that they will be
able to accommodate it.
My hope is that they will.
I appreciate how the responders
have queued this up to have
this conversation.
I will be voting for amendment
16 just to clarify.
I want to make sure we are
centering that we have hard
work ahead of us and that we
really need to make sure those
common goals we have which as a
Council and executive, having a
diverse police department and
the city and we all need to be
kind of moving in the same
direction.
I think we, as a counselor
making a big statement that
that is a priority of hours
that we need to reevaluate how
we do public safety in a way.
This is an important first step
and many more to come.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Lewis.
I appreciate you continuing
this on what motivates us with
shared commonality between the
various councilmembers through
these important steps.
I do not see anybody else
raising their hands.
Councilmember Juarez, I do not
want to speak over you.
I do not see any additional
comments.
Will you call the roll on
amendment 16?
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes .
>> Gonzalez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> I.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Night in favor, none oppose.
Thank you very much. Madam
parts, thank you for separating
us through this conversation
especially Aly for maintaining
remains on this discussion.
The Council colleagues on the
viewing public, thank you for
the details and heartfelt
conversation analysis and for
your votes today.
We have gone through our votes
on this proposed amendment
package in front of us.
We will continue to have
conversations on Monday, August
10th. Aly, I am looking at you
to affirm that is correct.
We will not be moving this but
it will instead be in front of
us for consideration if there
is no objection.
Is that correct, Aly?
>> Yes.
Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
This will be in front on
Monday for final action for
consideration of the full
council meeting that afternoon.
On behalf of all of central
staff, what we hope to achieve
on Monday morning is to
reconcile the amendments over
the last week or to fill in
some blanks.
There will be technical
amendments. I think it was
amendment 52 that was held for
Monday.
Sounds like one or two others.
We will have a short window to
turn the bill around for the
committee and Council.
If there are ideas floating
out, we need to know as soon as
possible.
Ideally, no new ideas.
[ Laughter ].
>> We had a robust conversation
on counsel and our team.
We want to thank you for your
work and turnaround.
No objections, this will be
held until August 10th.
The meeting beginning right
after Council briefing on
August 10th.
The bill will be held until the
August 10th meeting.
Just to reiterate what Aly
said, we will vote on this on
the 10th and needs to be
turned around for full council.
Ideally, we have gotten your
amendments and suggestions
minus the one amendment.
Okay.
I know it's 4:22.
I do anticipate the next
conversation will be relatively
quick. I think we can assume at
least an hour? I do not know if
you need to pass this on to
your housemates, family,
partners, make sure they are
aware and get us done before
6:00 like last Friday.
Before that, I do not ask for
this to be a very contentious
conversation because there has
been few amendments.
We do have items three. Madam
clerk, will you please read
item 3 into the record?
>> I three counsel Bill 119818,
1091 [ Captioner cannot get
audio -- ] allocations with
2020-2025 CIP positions with
qualified positions--of the
city Council discussion and
possible amendment.
>> Thank you very much.
Again, this is our 2020
rebalancing package discussion
counsel Bill 119818, would you
like us through, Aly, amendment
27?
>> Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
Counsel build 119818 is a bail.
The title allows for
modification to position.
Both this council bill 119818
and previous 81 new type V are
modified in the budget.
Just for the public's
understanding of why this
amendment is included as an
amendment to this bill.
Amendment 27 sponsored by 25
Councilmember Gonzàlez,
Councilmember Morales and
Councilmember Juarez and
Councilmember Sawant would
transfer--from the Seattle
Police Department to the human
services Department.
>> Thank you very much, Aly.
I will go ahead and move
amendment 27 to be adopted.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Herbold.
Councilmember Herbold, would
you like to speak?
>> Sure.
This team is currently housed
in SPD and they are responsible
for providing support to
victims of sexual a will,
domestic violence and
vulnerable populations such as
victims or child abuse.
This amendment would move those
workers out of SPD and into HSD.
It does not change who the
people are or the work they are
doing, just moving positions
into the Department of human
services.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Herbold.
Are there questions or comments
on amendment 27?
Councilmember Strauss, go ahead
please.
>> Thank you and thank you for
the introduction.
You may have answered my
question.
Many of the people in the
victim support team are victim
advocates are really well-
trained and know the business
in which they are conducting.
What I heard from you just now
is that these people will be
retained.
It's simply a command structure
change, they will no longer be
in SPD command structure and
they will be doing the good
work they do, it that correct?
>> That is correct.
I want to clarify as well, this
will not limit their ability to
work with SPD when appropriate
as advocates just like there
are victim support advocates in
apartments who work directly
with SPD to assist the victims.
Moving those employees out of
one department into another
does not change who those
people are.
It does not change the work
they are doing and does not
limit their ability to continue
to work when appropriate with
SPD on behalf of their clients.
>> Think you.
Looks like that answered the
question from Councilmember
Strauss.
Great, okay excellent.
Any additional questions or
comments?
thank you Councilmember Herbold
for walking us through this.
I am excited to support this.
Please call the roll on
amendment 27.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> I.
>> Strauss?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> Yes.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Nine in favor, none oppose.
Thank you, amendment, the
motion carried and the
amendment is adopted, amendment
27 will be included.
I believe that is it for that
element.
Is that correct comic Aly?
>> That is correct.
>> I am not moving any bill at
this moment out, correct?
>> Correct.
>> I am just catching up with
my script.
Are we going to go ahead and go
into resolution.
We are on the agenda item
number four.
Let's have the clerk read
agenda item number 4-7 into the
record, please.
>>.
>> Resolutions 159 adopting the
advised policies of five of the
general fund--[ Inaudible ]
2018 family's education
preschool amending the
implementation and evaluation
adopted by 25 807 and ratifying
hot--822 going into the 2020
budget the annual federal fund
appropriation to the Seattle
Department of transportation
such as the ordinance 124796
moving to Seattle [ Inaudible ]
agenda-seven 1591 of exception
to the level of general fund
support for the--economic
circumstances for the city
council.
[ Inaudible ] all for
discussion and possible vote.
>> Thank you so much.
Aly, why don't you go ahead and
orientate us for technical
pieces and provide the backbone
to the 2020 rebalancing package
as a whole recognizing there
was another bill that was sent
down from the executive bill.
Go ahead and we will get
started.
>> Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.
The next items as we have
described are a part of the
package that are necessary to
move forward with other changes
and proposals when counsel Bill
one 192 five and other pieces
of legislation included.
We included some but not all of
the legislation on the today's
committee discussions.
The remaining will be on the
agenda for the consideration on
Monday morning along with
counsel those 119825824 and 818
that have been discussed
previously.
These next four pieces will be
briefly described and I think
the plan is to have these so
they can go to the Council
Monday afternoon.
For the first two items four
and five, I will ask my
colleague Brian to walk you
through those to describe the
item briefly and for the first
item, there is one technical
amendment before taking action
on the bill.
>> Thank you, Aly.
Thank you Brian, did you are
joining us .
>> [ Inaudible ] the resolution
is 31952.
I would revise the policies for
the reserve son fund and
specifically the policies
related to the permissible uses
for real estate or revenues.
This is to relieve pressure on
the general fund by allowing
great revenues to fund broader
segments of the debt service.
Currently, the financial
policies allow to take the
service for public safety
facilities as well as other as
in state law.
The revised policy that will be
adopted by this resolution
would expand uses to cover debt
service for the West Seattle
Bridge, payment of remaining
debt service prior to 2020 for
capital projects and a new
depth service for capital
projects issued during the next
two years in 2021 and 2022.
The revised policies create
limitation on revenues used for
death service.
Lastly, there is one technical
amendment in your packets for
consideration.
Policy 12 state the city
intends to maintain $5 million
and ending balances of the
accounts to guard against and
functions.
Due to the revenue decreases
this year, the executives
propose rebalancing with a
ending balance of slightly more
than $3 million.
The amending policies failed to
revise policy 12 with respect
to the ending balances.
Amendment number one will allow
the city Council to authorize
appropriations and sinking
below the $5 million target if
that city experiences functions
by proclaimed emergencies,
natural disasters or public
health emergencies.
The amendment states when the
ending fund balances sink below
the target, they will seek to
restore them as quickly as
possible.
That concludes my remarks.
>> Thank you very much.
To get this in front, I moved
they adopt resolution 31952, is
there a second?
>> Second.
>> It has been moved and
seconded that the recommended
option.
Councilmembers as you just
heard, there is a amendment in
front of us.
I will go ahead and move the
amendment that we can have the
amendment.
Moved amendment one as
presented on the agenda and
described by Brian.
>> Second.
>> Thank you, not a president.
It will adopt one--a sponsor of
this is the shared budget, I
will give you a quick overview,
[ Inaudible ] the amendment is
technical and it allows us to
use the end balance to use
decreased below 5 million views
caused by the public health
emergency.
Thank you, central staff for
catching this correction that
needed to be included.
That the technical and our
effort to amend our financial
policy is with emergency
situations such as this when
the balance make shrink below 5
million.
The balance proposal will take
to around 3 million and
existing financial policies
state the re-ending ballots
must be maintained at least 5
million.
Thank you for this collection.
Any questions?
Okay.
I'm not seeing any questions or
comments.
Thank you again to central
staff for catching this needed
correction.
I am pleased.
Please call the roll on
adoption of amendment one.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Gonzalez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> Yes.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes .
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> I.
>> Nine in favor, not opposed [
Inaudible ] are there any
further comments of the
resolution being amended?
Any comments on the resolution
as amended?
Hearing none.
Let's do this again, could you
please call the roll on the
resolution as amended?
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Gonzalez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> Yes .
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Nine in favor, not opposed.
>> Thank you, the motion
carried and the committee
recommendation that the
resolution adopted this amended
the amount adopted.
We will send this to the August
10th Seattle meeting for final
consideration.
We have read item number five
and for the record, Aly, went
you like to summarize this or
will that be Brian?
>> Thank you, chairman.
I will walk you through this.
>> Thank you very much.
Counsel Bill 119823 would amend
the family's education
preschool and promise for
implementation and evaluation
plan by attaching an addendum
number two.
Number two what a temporary
authorize up to $1.3 million in
personal expenses from the
departments 12 programs for--as
you have heard and prior budget
committee meetings, as part of
the adoption [ Inaudible ] of
the 2 million, 1.3 provides
úbirth programs which covers
coaching, training and
professional development
services to early education
providers.
The addendum to the
implementation plan is necessary
because two of the programs
served are not currently
included in the implementation
program and be is one of became
serving children at birth which
addresses serving children at
age 3. In compliance with the
original ordinance, I did see
the recommendation of the
oversight committee regarding
the temporary change and the
committee voted to have these
costs.
Lastly, if approved, the
addendum expires at the end of
the year.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
I moved the committee
recommended passage of counsel
Bill 119823. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> It has been seconded.
I do not have anything else to
add. Are there any additional
comments or questions?
Councilmembers, not seeing any.
Thank you so much, Brian for
the summary.
Let's call the roll Madam clerk
on counsel Bill 119823.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Strauss?
>> .
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez.
>> Yes.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Nine in favor, none opposed.
>> Thank you, the motion
carries and the committee
recommendation that the bill
passed will be sent to the
Council meeting for final
consideration.
All right, we are on item
number six.
It has been read into the
record.
I see Aly.
Do you want to walk us through
item number six?
>> Thank you, yes.
Counsel Bill 119882 will have
the minimum fund for the
Seattle Department of
Transportation required by the
Seattle Ravine.
The city appropriate $40
million a year adjusted for
inflation from the general for
spending in order to continue
selection that allows for the
city to suspend this requirement
by three fourths counsel vote
when there is a determination
that economic or financial
conditions prevent the Council
from appropriating the minimum
allocation.
Disability clears the funding
that the COVID-19 emergency
prevents the city from making
the minimum funding allocation.
This is necessary in order to
report counsel Bill 119825 that
would reduce 2020 general fund
appropriation with $10 million.
That is below the amount of
living.
>> Think you.
College, I moved the committee
passage of counsel 119822.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you, it has been
seconded that they recommended
passage of the bill.
It has been described as
central staff, I have no
additional comments.
Any additional questions or
comments?
Councilmember Sawant, please go
ahead .
>> Item number seven, these
resolutions lift the required
minimum investment in the
department of transportation.
This is being done as an
accounting exercise to swap the
funds to allow the city to have
the best priorities.
I would be entirely supportive.
However, that is not the reality
. The reality is this year, the
bear has chosen to cut other
than supporting to increase
revenues in order to make sure
there were none.
When the Council was voting on
the Amazon tax in July, my
office proposed an amendment to
increase those business taxes
to govern all of the budget
shortfalls so that men would be
needed.
Unfortunately, at that time, no
other councilmembers forced
that amendment.
As a result, they are forced
with a budget including legally
required in order to make all
of that happened but it clearly
represents starting the budget
which will invest a little into
this part.
I will be voting no on these.
The majority of the
councilmembers agreed with me
and not that I expect that but
it will mean the majority of
the Council increases a big tax
to eliminate the need for
budget cuts.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
Any additional questions or
comments?
okay.
I was not aware there was any
concern over this. Aly, are
there any additional comments
you have or information on this
piece?
>> I do not have anything to
add.
I believe I have my colleagues
on the line to have perhaps
more background on these
specific bills related, I will
note that if these items do not
pass, it may need more
certificate changes may be
necessary to 119825 that may
delay action.
I would have to follow up with
you that.
I just wanted to note that.
>> Thank you very much.
Did you have anything to add?
>> Central staff, I wanted to
clarify that the move Seattle
included the requirement so
regardless of the messaging
throughout, if the Council does
not take this action to find
and make this declaration and
we were to make the changes to
reduce it to us., we would not
be able to collect about $100
million of property tax in 2020
went.
>> Thank you for the
clarification. No additional
comments or questions.
Please go ahead, excuse me,
Councilmember Juarez go ahead.
>> I was not going to share but
since they brought up the
question, we did have a
response but I would just add
this is one of the technical
pre-resolutions modifying
financial policies to align
with the rebound budget as you
know our discussions with
Parks.
It provides an exception to the
level of general fund report
required to go to Seattle Parks
and rec due to the accident
economic circumstances as you
all know by a three-quarter
vote of the city Council.
Park and rec's general fund
supports a total of 101 million
in 2020 or well over that.
My understanding is this is a
one-time exception based on the
COVID-19 emergency.
>> Please go ahead,
Councilmember Juarez.
I'm sorry .
>> Did I speak?
Oh.
So, anyway, I see I support
this because this is a one-time
exception based on the COVID-19
emergency.
I want to thank the executive
and the other folks and the
central staff& The information
so we could make an intelligent
decision on this particular
amendment timing resolution,
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
>> Thank you for the
clarification.
I see Tracy, good to see you.
>> I want to confirm what
Councilmember Juarez just said
which it is a one-time 2020
only action.
Frankly, the only [ Inaudible ]
[ Audio cutting in and out ]
in parts unless you want to go
through that exercise, that's
your only alternative to
approving this alternative,
councilmembers.
>> Excellent, thank you for the
clarification and from our
central off Parks.
Appreciate it.
Okay, I'm not seeing questions.
I feel comfortable with that
clarification that has been
shared by the chair and.
Madam clerk please call the
roll on counsel 119822.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> .
>> Eight in favor, one opposed.
>> Thank you, the motion
carries and the committee
recommendation that the bill
passed will be sent to the
August 10th Seattle Council
meeting for final consideration.
We are on our last agenda item.
I will turn into central staff
to walk us through resolution
13951.
>> Thank you resolution 31951
will offer the city to produce
a fund to support for the
Metropolitan Park district in
2020 due to the economic
substances caused by COVID-19
as Councilmember Juarez
described.
The mayor proposed deduction in
federal funds support to the
park and the result of making
the needs of the fund
allocation required by the
agreement.
This bill would allow for the
one time suspension of that
bill.
That requires of the general
fund to support the Seattle
Parks and rec with a baseline
amount of support adjusted
annually with translation in
2020, that was one of $5
million.
The mayor's 2020 rebalancing
package would provide nearly
$82 million.
>> Thank you, Aly.
I will put this bill in front
of us resolution 31951.
I move that resolution 31951
two be considered for adoption.
I moved that--31951--thank you
very much.
Recommend adoption and
resolution 31951. It has been
described by central staff.
I don't have any additional
comments.
Any additional comments from
our chair or anyone else?
Okay, hearing none.
Thank you. Madam clerk, will
you please call the roll on the
recommendation of the committee
adopt resolution 31951.
>> Councilmember Pedersen?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Sawant?
>> No.
>> Councilmember Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Gonzàlez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Herbold?
>> Yes.
>> Councilmember Juarez?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Lewis?
>> I.
>> Councilmember Morales?
>> I.
>> Chair Mosqueda?
>> I.
>> Eight in favor, one
opposed.
>> Thank you, the motion
carries and the committee
recommendation of the of
relations be adopted will be
sent to the August 10th for
final consideration.
That brings us to the end of
the long day and it's not even
5:00.
I want to thank for your time
and all of your work you have
put into this.
It has been a robust
conversation that will continue
on Monday.
We do have another Council
meeting I'm sorry, another
committee meeting at 10:00 a.m.
on Monday, August 10th. Public
comments will be taken at the
beginning at 8:00 a.m.
I appreciate the robust
conversation we had today.
For the good of the order, I
was the anyone.
Go ahead, Councilmember Sawant
.
>> I appreciate that.
I wanted to thank members of
the Council staff for their
help in preparing the amendment
from my office today and all of
this month.
The truth is the city council
central staff have been working
last night until midnight at
least and this is far from the
first time this has happened.
This was Thursday night in
preparation for Friday's
committee meeting that
indicates over weekends.
I wanted--director of central
staff, Patty, Harry, and eager,
Lisa,, Greg Doss, Yolanda, Jeff
Sims, Freeman and Calvin Chow
who are the people I know and
have worked directly on the
budget amendments and I want to
thank the central staff. They
have worked long hours on the
budget and we have not won any
of the progress the moments
without their help.
I appreciate their work.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Sawant.
I want to echo your
appreciation for all of our
central death and the I.T.
staff, communication staff,
clerk staff and the individual
officers.
We have had a lot of
conversation about the
amendment that will continue
Monday.
I will repeat those thank you
is on Monday as we get close to
wrapping up with the selected
budget committee process as we
look at the rebalancing process
and continuation of our
department that started in
June.
There has been a lot of really
important conversations today
that we will wrap up on Monday,
August 10th and with the
leadership in the afternoon
with the final vote.
I'm not seeing any additional
hands.
Or comments.
Great, we will have more for
conversation and thank you on
Monday, as we wrap up the final
vote in friends, colleagues, I
sent a calendar to you on the
bills and resolutions in front
of us at the selected budget
committee meetings at 10:00
a.m.
Take a look at that in
anticipation of the agenda.
Thanks again to Patty and Amelia
and everybody actually on the
clerk side who have been
helping to make sure we have
the information in front of us.
We do appreciate all of your
work.
We have made it possible to
follow along and have robust
conversations remotely.
We will, I want to think--10:00
a.m., sign up start at 8:00
a.m.
We have reached the end of our
agenda.
Colleagues, we will see you on
Monday, August 10th at 10:00
a.m.
With that, this meeting is
adjourned.
>> Thank you! Bye.