>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
IT IS OCTOBER 17, 2017. THIS IS
OUR BUDGET MEETING.
IT WILL COME TO ORDER AND 9:30
ON THE..
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HARRELL.
WE ARE DEALING WITH
IDENTIFICATION DELIBERATIONS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE NEW
TO THIS, THE MAYOR OFFERED HER
BUDGET, THEN WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK
AT IT LAST THURSDAY.
COUNCILMEMBERS PROPOSED THEIR
OWN IDEAS ON WHAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET,
AND SO, OUR WONDERFUL COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF TOOK THOSE FORMS,
AND TOOK A LOOK TO SEE HOW MANY
OF THESE THINGS CAN WE FUND,
HOW MANY OF US ARE LOOKING AT
SIMILAR ITEMS, AND SO TODAY, WE
ARE DOING HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS,
AND I CAN TELL EVERYONE WHO HAS
EARS, THIS IS THE BIG ONE FOR
US THIS YEAR.
THERE'S NO DOUBT IN EVERYONE'S
MIND THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
HOMELESS ARE STRUGGLING ON OUR
STREETS.
WE SEE MORE EVEN THOUGH WE ARE
GETTING MORE PEOPLE OFF THE
STREETS.
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE
ISSUES, SO HOW WE FUND IT AND
PROVIDE PERSON CENTERED
INITIATIVES IS THE SUBJECT OF
THE DAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE
WHO IS HERE, ALY PENNUCCI,
TRACI RATZLIFF, JEFF SIMMS, TOM
OUR BUDGET HEAD.
YOU HAVE ALL DONE TREMENDOUS
WORK.
BRIAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
EVEN THOUGH WE ONLY HAVE TWO OF
US APPEAR, AT 10:17, CITY HALL
IS GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
GREAT WASHINGTON SHAKEOUT.
IT'S AN EARTHQUAKE DRILL.
IT'S A STATEWIDE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRACTICE WHAT WE LEARNED IN
THIRD GRADE.
DROP, ROLLOVER, AND HANG ON.
ABOUT 10:13, LINDA, WOULD YOU
MAKE SURE YOU SIGNAL ME?
I WILL KEEP AN EYE ON THE
CLOCK, BUT IF I HAVEN'T
RECESSED BY ABOUT 10:13, LET US
KNOW.
LET'S SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE.
OFFICE OF HOUSING.
IS THAT OUR FIRST PRESENTATION?
AND THEN WE WILL GET INTO
HOMELESSNESS, AND HUMAN
SERVICES.
WE WILL RECESS ROUGHLY AROUND
NOON, AND THEN WE WILL RECESS
UNTIL 2:00.
2:00, WE COME BACK TO ORDER.
PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE AT THE
END OF THE DAY.
FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PROVIDE
COMMENT, WE ARE DOING THAT AT
THE END OF THE DAY TO DAY, THE
END OF THE DAY TOMORROW, AND
OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS
AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE IS
TUESDAY, THIS COMING TUESDAY
THE 22nd AT 5:30.
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR THE
RECORD.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE.
>> TRACI RATZLIFF, COUNCIL
CEMTRAL STAFF.
>> ALY PENNUCCI, COUNCIL
CEMTRAL STAFF.
>> BEFORE YOU WENT UP ON THE
SCREEN HERE, YOU HAVE THE
INFORMATION WE HAVE PROVIDED
RELATED TO THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
PROPOSED BUDGET 2020.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE 2020
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING IS REPLETE WITH
ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
$55 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL
FUNDING OVER THE 2020 PROPOSED
BUDGET.
$23 MILLION OF THAT INCREASE IS
IN THE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND
SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM.
$32 MILLION OF THAT INCREASE IS
FOR THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAM.
AS WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM
THE EXECUTIVE COMMERCE OR SALES
PROCEEDS AND THE USE OF THE NEW
SALES TAX ACCOUNT FOR THE
MAJORITY OF THESE ADDITIONS.
WE WILL PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON
THESE PROPOSED USES THIS
MORNING.
MOVING TO PAGE 1 OF THE
PRESENTATION IN YOUR MEMO, THE
FIRST NOTABLE CHANGE IS IN THE
2020 PROPOSED BUDGET.
$22 MILLION OF FUNDING FROM THE
STATE SALES TAX FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO SUPPORT THE CAPITAL
COSTS TO DEVELOP 175 NEW UNITS
OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THIS WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF AN $18
MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION
FUND, AND THE USE OF $4 MILLION
OF REVENUE FROM THE STATE SALES
TAX IN 2020.
FUNDING IS ANTICIPATED TO BE
ALLOCATED THROUGH 2019.
NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY
PROCESS WILL BE COMPLETED THIS
DECEMBER.
IN 2021 AND BEYOND, THE
REVENUES GENERATED FROM THE
SALES TAX WILL BE USED TO PAY
THE $1.8 MILLION IN DEBT
SERVICE ON THAT BOND, AND $2.2
MILLION TO FUND THE ONGOING
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE
OPERATION OF THESE PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS.
THOSE COMMITMENTS WILL BE MADE
FO 20 YEARS.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, THE
PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD INCLUDE
$270,000 FOR THE HEATING OIL
CONVERSION PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM WILL HELP AN
ESTIMATED 75 LOW-INCOME
HOMEOWNERS CONVERT THEIR
HEATING SOURCE FROM OIL TO A
SUSTAINABLE HEATING SOURCE,
SUCH AS ELECTRIC HEAT.
ASSISTANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE AS
A GRANT, AND WILL LIKELY
INCLUDE OTHER FUNDS FROM THE
CITY TO COVER THE TOTAL COST OF
CONVERSION, WHICH IS ESTIMATED
$10,000-$15,000 PER HOME.
IN ADDITION, FUNDS CAN BE USED
TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS ENROLLED IN THE CITY
LIGHTS UTILITY PROGRAM, WHO
LIVE IN HOMES HEATED WITH OIL,
AND WHO MIGHT NEED TO MITIGATE
THE HIGHER COST.
THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A
$120 PER YEAR ASSISTANCE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS.
ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT A., AND MY
BIGGEST ISSUE, IS HOW OUR
SYSTEM IS WORKING TOGETHER.
IF WE HAVE A UTILITY DISCOUNT
PROGRAM THAT IS A HEATING OIL
CONVERSION PROGRAM, IT SOUNDS
LIKE A PARALLEL.
HAVE YOU HEARD, AND THIS IS
WHERE I WAS POINTING AT DUSTY,
SAYING HOW ABOUT YOU
PARTICIPATE?
WHAT IS THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT DOING WITH SEATTLE
PUBLIC UTILITIES TO MAKE SURE
THE SYSTEM IS FUNCTIONING?
SO AN INDIVIDUAL LOOKING FOR
HELP CAN GO TO A ONE-STOP SHOP
RATHER THAN HAVING TO LOOK
THROUGH THE WEBSITE, OR TRY TO
FIND OUT WHAT MIGHT BE
AVAILABLE?
>> REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK WITH
YOU ON THAT BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW HOW THEY HAVE PEOPLE
ACCESSING THAT INFORMATION,
WHETHER IT'S ON THE PHONE OR
THE WEBSITE, --
>> AND I KNOW WE'VE DONE GOOD
WORK WITH METRO TRANSIT ORCA
PASSES, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO
SIMPLIFY THIS FOR INDIVIDUALS
TO BE ABLE TO SAY, RATHER THAN
FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS
STRUGGLING WITH FINANCES, IT'S
COMPLICATED, BUT TO THE EXTENT
THAT WE CAN DO THIS ONE-STOP
SHOP APPROACH, AND ESTABLISH
WHO IS IN CHARGE.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO GET
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
>> I WAS GOING TO ADD, WE CAN
FOLLOW UP TO FIND MORE DETAILS.
I KNOW, DURING THE DISCUSSIONS
FOR THE EDUCATION LEVY, THIS
CAME UP IN TERMS OF HOUSEHOLDS
WHO WERE ACCESSING ASSISTANCE
FOR CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL
PROGRAMS, AND OTHER SERVICES
THE CITY PROVIDES IN TRYING TO
CENTRALIZE THE ARRAY OF
SERVICES THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
WE CAN LOOK INTO WHAT THEY'VE
DONE, OR WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING
AND FOLLOW UP.
>> THEY MAY HAVE DONE IT, AND I
JUST HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT I
THINK IT WOULD BE TO EVERYONE'S
ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO BRING
THIS INTO ONE SYSTEM APPROACH,
SO AN INDIVIDUAL CAN GO OKAY, I
QUALIFY FOR THIS.
I HEARD YESTERDAY,
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN BROUGHT
THIS TO MY ATTENTION, THAT IN
NUMBER OF THE NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO OUTREACH,
ACTUALLY HELP IDENTIFY AND
CONNECT INDIVIDUALS WITH THE
SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE,
THEY DIDN'T KNOW SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT THE CITY HAS TO
OFFER, SO THAT STRUCK ME AS
BEING A PROBLEM THAT COULD BE
READILY SOLVED AND WOULD
BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY GREATLY.
THANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD.
THOSE TWO ITEMS, CENTRAL STAFF
AT THIS POINT HAS NOT
IDENTIFIED ANY ISSUES WITH
THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES.
WHERE MOVING ONTO
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES WHERE
WE HAVE SOME ISSUES TO RAISE
FOR YOU.
MOVING TO PAGE 2 OF YOUR MEMO,
THERE IS $25 MILLION IN REAL
ESTATE EXCISE FUNDING FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE 2019
NOFA PROCESS.
IN 2018, HOUSE BILL 2019 WAS
PASSED GIVING CITIES AND
COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO USE
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX REVENUES
TO SUPPORT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS PROJECTS.
THE PROPOSED 2020 PROJECT
UTILIZES AUTHORITY TO
APPROPRIATE $5 MILLION ANNUALLY
IN 2021 THROUGH 2025 TWO
DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY
WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE 2021
AND 2022 PROPOSED BUDGETS NEXT
FALL.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS STATED THAT
THEY INTEND TO LET OH MAKE
FUNDING COMMITMENTS IN THIS
YEAR'S NOFA TO REFLECT FUTURE
APPROPRIATIONS.
YOU MIGHT ASK, HOW IS IT
POSSIBLE WE MAKE THOSE FUNDING
COMMITMENTS THIS YEAR, AND NOT
HAVE THE APPROPRIATIONS IN THIS
YEAR?
THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS, AS
WE FREQUENTLY NOW AS IT RELATES
TO THE DEVELOP MEANT OF HOUSING
PROJECTS, WHEN A PROJECT GETS A
FINANCING COMMITMENT FROM THE
CITY, IT'S USUALLY 18, 24, 36
MONTHS BEFORE THEY BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION.
WE NEED TO START GETTING THE
CITY'S FUNDING REIMBURSED FOR
THEIR COST, SO THAT'S WHY WE
COULD MAKE A FINANCING
COMMITMENT THIS YEAR.
JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT
THAT.
>> WE ALSO LEVERAGE FUNDS
SIGNIFICANTLY.
WHEN WE ARE FIRST IN, OTHER
PROVIDERS, OR GRANT AGENCIES
ARE MORE INCLINED TO SUPPORT
THESE PROJECTS.
IS THERE ANYTHING HERE WE
SHOULD KNOW THAT THE MAYOR HAS
OFFERED?
AND I AM THINKING -- I KNOW MY
COLLEAGUES ARE REALLY
INTERESTED IN THIS, AND WHAT
THE OPTIONS ARE.
IS THERE ANYTHING WE SHOULD BE
CONSIDERING THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE MAYOR OR ANY ALERTS
YOU HAVE FOUND SO FAR, WHERE
PEOPLE SAY, I DON'T WANT TO DO
THAT?
>> I THINK ONE THING THE
COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO
CONSIDER IS THE USE FOR
AUTHORIZATION PURPOSE ONLY IS
IN PLAY UNTIL JANUARY 21, 2026.
THE ABILITY TO SPEND THESE
FUNDS IS LIMITED ONLY BY
FUNDING COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE TO TRANSPORTATION AND
UTILITY PROJECTS.
WE ACTUALLY USE IT FOR MORE
THAN THAT.
WE USE THEM FOR PARKS PROJECTS,
FOR EXAMPLE.
ONE OPTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
COULD CONTINUE IS TO USE THE
POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF R.E.E.D..
THAT WOULD COME AT THE EXPENSE
OF OTHER PROJECTS, LIKELY
PARKS PROJECTS, BUT THERE IS
OPTIONS THERE.
>> I JUST GOT THE STINK EYE
FROM MY GUY ON THE LEFT.
>> THERE'S A POSSIBILITY TO
REALLOCATE DOLLARS FOR THIS
LIMITED TIME PERIOD.
I THINK A PROPOSAL PROPOSALS TO
DO THAT.
I'VE GOT TO TELL THE TRUTH.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR
IS THAT KIND OF INFORMATION AND
TRADE-OFF BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, AND I GOT
HER BACK ON PARKS AND R.E.E.D.
FUNDING, AND ALL THINGS IN
DISTRICT 5, BUT THROUGH THE
NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, IF YOU
CAN IDENTIFY WHERE MONEY COULD
BE USED, WE ARE TAKING
SOMETHING ELSE.
>> WE CARRY RESERVES.
THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR ONE
YEAR IN PARTICULAR TO TAP INTO
SOME OF THOSE RESERVES FOR A
ONE-YEAR REALLOCATION OF
R.E.E.D..
THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO US TO
BE IN VIOLATION OF POLICIES.
THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT WOULD
NOT REQUIRE HAVING TO CUT PARKS
PROJECT, BUT THAT WOULD REDUCE
THE RESERVE.
JUST ONE POTENTIAL OPTION.
WE WILL HAVE FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO MERCER
PROPERTY.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, THANK
YOU FOR JOINING US.
WE ARE ON PAGE 3 OF SIX.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SETUP.
WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO PAGE
THREE OF THE MEMO, AND THE
DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM EXTENDS
THROUGH PAGE 5. THE 2020
PROPOSED BUDGET DIRECTS ALMOST
HALF OF THE REVENUES FROM THE
SALE OF THE MERCER PROPERTY TO
SUPPORT HOUSING PROJECTS.
THIS INCLUDES ADDING $21
MILLION TO THE OFFICER OFFICE
OF HOUSING LOW INCOME FUND TO
SUPPORT A ONE-TIME INVESTMENT
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
PROJECTS, AND A $6 MILLION, ONE-
TIME INVESTMENT FOR AN
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOAN
PROGRAM.
FOR THE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM, OF THE
$15 MILLION, $11 MILLION WOULD
BE DEDICATED TO ACQUIRING LAND,
POTENTIALLY FROM SOUND TRANSIT
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
$1 MILLION WOULD BE USED TO
SUPPORT THAT LAND ACQUISITION
FOR STAFFING AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS.
FENCING, TRASH PICKUP, THAT
SORT OF THING.
$3 MILLION WOULD BE DIRECTED TO
FUND AN EMPLOYEE SUPPORTED
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM.
THE INTENT IS TO LEVERAGE
WORKERS WITH INCOMES BETWEEN
80,000 OR 80% OF AMI AND 100%
AM I. THIS WOULD BE A DEPARTURE
FROM THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER HOMEBUYER
ASSISTANT PROGRAMS OH
ADMINISTERS THAT ARE TYPICALLY
FOCUSED ON SERVING HOUSEHOLDS
AT OR BELOW 80% OF AMI.
>> WOULD YOU EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT
WHAT WE ANTICIPATE HERE?
ARE THERE PARTNERSHIPS ALREADY
IDENTIFIED?
ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT HAS
RAISED THEIR HAND AND SAID, WE
WILL DO THIS IF YOU WILL PUT IN
THIS $1 MILLION OR $3 MILLION?
>> WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH
PARTNERSHIPS HAVING BEEN
IDENTIFIED TO DATE.
I DON'T THINK THE EXECUTIVE HAS
REALLY STARTED THAT PROCESS.
I THINK THEY ARE LIKELY WAITING
TO SEE IF THE COUNCIL CARRIES
THIS PROPOSAL FORWARD OR NOT,
BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY
EMPLOYERS JUMPING IN TO MATCH
THESE FUNDS, SO FAR.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN HAS A
QUESTION.
>> THE HOME WOULD ONLY BE
PURCHASED IN SEATTLE, SO THIS
COULD BE A PARTNERSHIP WITH A
COMPANY ANYWHERE IN THE REGION,
AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE WANTED
TO PURCHASE A HOME IN SEATTLE,
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THE OTHER
WAY AROUND FOR A SEATTLE
EMPLOYER WHO WANTED TO FUND
THEIR EMPLOYEES BUYING A HOUSE
OUTSIDE SEATTLE.
>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING.
THAT IT WOULD BE SUPPORT
HELPING PEOPLE TO BECOME
HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
>> TO BE CLEAR, I THINK THE
INTENT OF THE CITY'S MONEY
WOULD BE TO SERVE PEOPLE UNDER
80% AMI.
IT MAY BE THAT THE EMPLOYER
WOULD PROVIDE THE FUNDING THAT
GOES TO PEOPLE ABOVE 80%.
THAT'S OUR PRELIMINARY
UNDERSTANDING.
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, I
THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY, SO ALL
OF THE DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN
IRONED OUT IN TERMS OF THE
STRUCTURE OF THIS PROGRAM.
>> OKAY.
I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT
THE EXECUTIVE HAS BEEN THINKING
AND WORKING ON WITH THIS,
WORKING WITH HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, OR TONY TOE'S
ORGANIZATION.
IS THERE AN ENTITY WE ARE
LOOKING AT TO EXPAND?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY NOW IF
YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT I AM
INTERESTED IN WHAT THEIR
INTENTIONS WERE BECAUSE I'M NOT
SEEING HOW THIS WILL WORK.
>> HAPPY TO GET THOSE DETAILS
AS WE CAN.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MOVE ON TO
ADUs?
OR DID YOU HAVE MORE?
>> NOTHING ELSE ON THAT PIECE.
FOR THE 80 YOU LOAN PROGRAM,
THE LOAN FUND WOULD PROVIDE LOW-
COST LOANS UP TO $150,000 TO
HOMEOWNERS WHOSE INCOMES ARE AT
OR BELOW 120% OF AMI, TO CREATE
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, ADUs,
FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD, WHICH
WOULD BE RESERVED FOR RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT OR
BELOW 80% OF AMI.
I WILL SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THIS PROGRAM IN A MOMENT.
IN ADDITION TO THIS $21 MILLION
PROPOSED OH BUDGET, THE 2020
PROPOSED BUDGET DIRECTS $41.7
MILLION FROM THE MERCER SALE TO
FINANCE GENERAL TO CREATE A
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND.
THAT'S INTENDED TO ACHIEVE
MULTIPLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE
MIXED-USE AND MIXED INCOME
PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE HOUSING.
THIS COULD ALSO INCLUDE
ACQUIRING AND PRESERVING
EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AS IDENTIFIED IN THE MEMO UNDER
OPTION A, COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD
DIRECT SOME OR ALL OF THESE
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS OTHER
COUNCIL PRIORITIES.
SOME OF THE OTHER FUNDING COULD
BE DIRECTED FOR INCREASED
FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT APPLY TO THE 2019
NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY
THAT THE OFFICE OF HOUSING HAS
ISSUED.
TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW, IN TERMS OF THE
DETAILS FOR SOME OF THE NEW
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE YET TO BE
DEVELOPED, IT'S A POLICY
CHOICE FOR THIS COUNCIL TO
DETERMINE, IF YOU WANT TO TEST
A NEW PROGRAM, OR YOU COULD
REDIRECT SOME OR ALL OF THAT
FUNDING TO SUPPORT A SORT OF
ALREADY IDENTIFIED STRATEGY
WITH PROJECTS WHO HAVE
APPLICATIONS IN THE DOOR TODAY.
>> IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, WE
HELPED CREATE A PILOT PROGRAM
FOR FOLKS, LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS, TO MODIFY
POTENTIALLY DO A BACK YARD
COTTAGE, BUT MORE LIKELY MODIFY
THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR
CREATING ADDITIONAL LIVING
SPACE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DATA YET ON ANY
OF THOSE INVESTMENTS?
HAS THE PILOT PRODUCED ANYTHING
IT?
>> I'M GOING TO SAY MORE ABOUT
THE 80 YOU LOAN PROGRAM NOW, BUT
TO GET TO THE PUNCHLINE, NO
LOANS HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER
THE PILOT PROGRAM YET.
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING HAD TO
COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO GET
AUTHORIZATION AND CHANGES TO
THEIR HOUSING POLICIES TO
CREATE THAT PEACE IN THEIR
LOAN, IN THEIR EXISTING LOAN
PROGRAM, AND THEY JUST
CONTRACTED TO DO COMMUNITY
OUTREACH THIS FALL, SO THEY
HAVE NOT YET REALLY ISSUED, OR
UNDERSTAND THE ENTRANCE
INTEREST IN THAT PROGRAM.
I WILL COME BACK TO THAT IN
JUST A MINUTE.
FOR THE MERCER FUNDS IN
GENERAL, THEY ARE ONE-TIME
FUNDS, BUT THEY CAN BE
REDIRECTED IN A VARIETY OF
WAYS, LOAN PROGRAM
SPECIFICALLY.
COUNCILMEMBERS MAY WANT TO
LOOK INTO THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THE LAND USE
CODE DEVELOPED THE SUMMER FOR
OTHER PROGRAMMATIC WORK, LIKE
LOOKING AT STREAMLINING
PERMITTING, AND CRATING
PREAPPROVED PLANS, WILL
ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL IN
REDUCING COSTS, MAKING IT
EASIER FOR HOMEOWNERS TO ACCESS
FINANCING, AND WHAT THOSE RENTS
WOULD NEED TO BE TO SUPPORT
TAKING ON THE ADDITIONAL DEBT.
IN ADDITION, AS JUST DISCUSSED,
WE ARE STILL IN THE EARLY
STAGES OF IMPLEMENTING THE
SMALLER PILOT PROGRAM
AUTHORIZED THROUGH THE BUDGET
LAST YEAR.
TO DATE, NO LOANS HAVE BEEN
ISSUED, SO WE HAVEN'T LEARNED
ANYTHING YET FROM THAT PILOT TO
INFORM A BROADER PILOT, AND
THEN FINALLY, OUR RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT HAS NOT YET BEEN
COMPLETED ON THIS PROGRAM TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DETAILS
SHOULD BE.
WHAT ARE THE HOMEOWNER INCOME
LEVELS WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING
ON?
WHAT ARE THE RENTER INCOME
LEVELS WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING
ON?
WHAT IS THE INTEREST IN THIS
TYPE OF PROGRAM FOR HOUSEHOLDS?
BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO
DO IS PUT LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS
SORT OF TAKING ON MORE DEBT AND
PUTTING THEM AT RISK.
I THINK THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL
HAS BEEN THOUGHTFUL ABOUT
STRUCTURING A PROGRAM THAT
WOULD NOT DO THAT, BUT I DON'T
THINK WE HAVE COMPLETED THE
WORK YET TO REALLY KNOW WHAT
THE PROGRAMMATIC DETAILS NEED
TO BE TO SERVE THE POPULATIONS
THAT MAY BE A PRIORITY FOR THE
COUNCIL.
>> CAN I INTERRUPT REALLY
QUICKLY?
DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE FOR THAT?
I KNOW WE WORKED ON THIS LAST
YEAR.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WE HAVE TO
COMPLETE THE RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT, WE'VE GOT THESE OTHER
THINGS TO DO.
DO WE HAVE A DATE CERTAIN WHEN
THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO
COME BACK?
>> WE DO NOT.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS COMMITTED TO
COMPLETING A RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT ON WHATEVER PROGRAM
COMES THROUGH, IS APPROVED
THROUGH THE BUDGET IN EARLY
2020.
IN TERMS OF THE REGULATORY
CHANGES, THAT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED THIS SUMMER, AND THE
PROGRAMMATIC WORK IS ONGOING.
THE BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES, AS
WAS DISCUSSED YESTERDAY IN SDCI
BUDGET, THEY ARE ADDING AN A DU
NAVIGATOR POSITION TO HELP
HOUSEHOLDS NAVIGATE THE
PERMITTING PROCESS.
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALONG
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS IS,
RIGHT NOW, SOLICITING
INFORMATION FROM HOMEOWNERS,
AND ARCHITECTS ABOUT HOW TO
STRUCTURE A PREAPPROVED PLAN
PROGRAM, SO THINGS ARE IN THE
WORKS, BUT IT'S STILL A LITTLE
EARLY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE US TO KNOW
MORE ABOUT WHAT THE TIMELINE
IS.
THERE ARE OUTSIDE NONPROFITS
RIGHT NOW, DOING SOME
TREMENDOUS WORK ABOUT HELPING
CONNECT PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS
WITH A SMALL -- I'M THINKING
ABOUT THE BLOCK PROJECT RIGHT
NOW, WITH REX AND HIS TEAM, TO
GET A SMALL, AFFORDABLE, AND
SELF-SUSTAINING HOUSE, THE WAY
WE'VE WORKED PRETTY HARD TO BE
ABLE TO GET RAINWATER TO BE USED
FOR NON-POTABLE USES.
MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE SOLAR
PANELS TO REDUCE THE COST OF
ELECTRICITY IN THAT.
SO, THAT IS MOVING, AND I WOULD
REALLY LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT
ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE
HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY ARE
CONNECTED, AND THAT WE ARE NOT
STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
>> HERE AGAIN, THIS LOAN
PROGRAM WOULDN'T REALLY BE
ADDRESSING THE SAME POPULATIONS
THAT THE BLOCK PROJECT IS
FOCUSING ON BECAUSE THIS IS
LOANS TO HOMEOWNERS, WHO ARE
BETWEEN OR UNDER 80% OF AMI,
AND THE RENT RESTRICTION WOULD
BE AT OR BELOW 80% OF AMI, BUT
IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR MOST
HOMEOWNERS, IT IS LIKELY THAT
THE RENT WOULD BE A HOUSEHOLD
AT 80% AMI.
THEY COULD RENT TO LOWER
INCOMES.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
ONCE AGAIN, I WANT TO SEE IT
CONNECT.
ALL OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES WE
HAVE FOR TRYING TO INCREASE
HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
LIKE YOU SAID, THEY ARE FOCUSED
ON DIFFERENT POPULATIONS, BUT
IF WE HAVE ALL OF THESE
SEPARATE SILOS, PEOPLE ARE
CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN
DO.
WHAT'S ALLOWED, WHEN THEY CAN
GET STARTED.
SO, THE MORE WE'VE GOT CLARITY
AROUND WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES
ARE HERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE
REALLY HELPFUL NOT JUST FOR US,
BUT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
>> OKAY.
IN ADDITION TO THE POINTS JUST
MADE, THE PROPOSAL, AS I'VE
NOTED, WOULD PROVIDE UP TO
$150,000 TO BUILD AN A DU WITH
A 10 HIK YEAR RENTAL
RESTRICTION.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THIS IS A
HIGHER PER-UNIT INVESTMENT THAN
THE CITY TYPICALLY MAKES TO
SUPPORT OTHER HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES, SO FOR OUR DOWN
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, OR
WHERE WE ARE ASSISTING
DEVELOPERS FOR BUILDING LONG-
TERM AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES.
WE'RE TYPICALLY INVESTING
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 55 TO A
MAXIMUM OF $100,000 WITH
DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS THERE.
TYPICALLY, WHEN WE ARE
INVESTING IN RENTAL HOUSING,
WE'RE LEVERAGING THAT WITH
OTHER FUNDS WITH A 50 YEAR TO
75 HIK YEAR AFFORDABILITY TERM.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THE PROGRAM IS
DESIGNED FOR MULTIPLE GOALS.
IT IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
FLAVOR, BUT WHEN WE ARE LOOKING
AT HOW TO ALLOCATE LIMITED
RESOURCES, I THINK IT IS JUST
WORTH LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT
POPULATIONS THE PROGRAMS ARE
SERVING, AND CONSIDER WHAT THE
PRIORITIES ARE.
>> AND YOU NOTE HERE ON PAGE 4
OF YOUR EXCELLENT MEMO THAT ONE
OF THE GOALS IS AN ANTI-
DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY, SO DO WE
KNOW YET HOW THIS IS GOING TO
BE PRIORITIZED?
LET'S SAY THERE IS A FAMILY WHO
HAS LIVED FOREVER IN SOUTHEAST
SEATTLE, SO HOW DO WE
PRIORITIZE KEEPING THEM IN
PLACE, AND PROVIDING THEM THE
ASSISTANCE, SO THEY CAN
SUPPLEMENT THEIR PAYMENTS?
>> THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED
FROM THE EXECUTIVE TO DATE
DOESN'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF
DETAIL YET PRIORITIZED.
THEY DO HAVE AN INITIAL
PROPOSAL THAT WOULD PROVIDE
DIFFERENT TERMS FOR HOUSEHOLDS
BETWEEN 80% AND 120% OF AMI,
AND BELOW 80% OF AMI, BUT IN
THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED, THERE ISN'T A
PRIORITIZATION, IF WE HAD 500
FAMILIES COME IN TO APPLY, AND
WE COULD ONLY ISSUED 25 LOANS,
HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE?
I THINK I SORT OF MENTIONED
BRIEFLY IN THE OPTIONS, AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ SPOKE TO
THIS IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS,
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE IF
THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO KEEP
SOME OR ALL OF THIS MONEY
DIRECTED FOR THIS PURPOSE TO
PROVIDE SOME MORE DIRECTION ON
WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS, IN
TERMS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT
THE PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO
SERVE, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY
PUTTING A GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, FOR
EXAMPLE, ON PRIORITIZING OR
LIMITING THE PROGRAM TO ISSUING
LOANS TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE
LOCATED IN AREAS IDENTIFIED AS
AT HIGHER RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
OKAY COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND
THEN COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I SUBMITTED A FORM RELATED TO A
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE A
DU LOAN PROGRAM AS ALY
PENNUCCI HAS ALLUDED TO IN
RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.
I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT
LATER ON, BUT SOME OF THE
ISSUES AND QUESTIONS YOU'RE
RAISING, COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW
, ARE COMPLETELY WHY I VOTED TO
ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE
A SECOND LOOK AT HOW THE
CURRENT LOAN PROGRAM IS BEING
STRUCTURED AS A PILOT LOAN
PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STAY
FOCUSED ON MAKING IT A RIGHT
SIZED PILOT PROJECT, AND THAT
THE RIGHTSIZING IS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF MAKING SURE THAT IT
HAS THE INTENDED POLICY IMPACT
AND EFFECTS, WHICH IN MY MIND
ARE BOTH AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP, OR RENTER SHIP,
AND ALSO ANTI-DISPLACEMENT, SO
I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS ARE
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON IN TERMS OF
HOW ARE WE MEETING THESE REALLY
IMPORTANT GOALS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT AS COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN HAS BEEN WORKING ON
THIS ISSUE FOR MULTIPLE YEARS,
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE
POLICY GOALS AND OUTCOMES BEING
CENTERED AROUND BEING ABLE TO
PROVIDE WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES
AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAY IN
PLACE, AND AGE IN PLACE.
I GET NERVOUS ABOUT A PILOT
LOAN PROGRAM THAT MIGHT BE
MISSING THE WORK IN THAT
REGARD.
HOPEFULLY, WHEN WE GET TO ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, LAST BUT NOT LEAST,
WE WILL HAVE A BETTER
DISCUSSION AND CONVERSATION
AROUND AN IDEA, AND CONCEPT I
HAVE THAT HOPEFULLY, I WILL BE
ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS.
>> I WANT TO UNDERSCORE WHAT
YOU JUST SAID, AND I SUPPORT
COMPLETELY.
IF WE CAN PRIORITIZE STAY IN
PLACE AND AGE IN PLACE, THAT
WILL BE A SUCCESS.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ,I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND
I THINK ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION
IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.
I AM INTERESTED IN ALSO
EXPLORING IF THERE ARE BETTER
WAYS TO LEVERAGE THIS MONEY TO
ACHIEVE SIMILAR OBJECTIVES, AND
SO IF EVERYONE TAKES OUT THE
MAXIMUM $150,000 LOAN, THE $5.4
MILLION WOULD FUND 36 LOANS.
WHILE IT'S A REVOLVING LOAN
FUND, WITH EITHER 20 OR 30 HIK
YEAR TERMS, AND IF YOU SPREAD
THAT OUT, THAT'S ONE OR TWO
PROJECTS A YEAR ON AVERAGE, IF
WE TREAT IT THAT WAY, WHICH IS
A PILOT.
I GET IT, BUT IT'S PRETTY
MODEST.
I KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS
PREVIOUSLY, BUT PARTNERING WITH
A CONVENTIONAL, OR EVEN
NONPROFIT OR CO-OP LENDER TO
PUT SOME MONEY INTO A LOAN-LOSS
RESERVE FUND, AND MAYBE, SOME
MONEY TO BUY DOWN RATES SO IF
WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS MISSION
DRIVEN A BIT IN LENDING, AND
CAN MAYBE, DO MORE WITH LESS,
IT MAY BE IDENTICAL TO THIS,
BUT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I'M CURIOUS IF WE HAVE
KNOWLEDGE ON WHAT THOSE
PROGRAMS LOOK LIKE.
>> WE'VE HAD SOME INITIAL
CONVERSATIONS.
I THINK THERE IS INTEREST IN A
LEVERAGE FUND.
THERE IS SOME WORK THAT WAS
DONE IN PORTLAND, IN TRYING TO
DEVELOP A SIMILAR STRATEGY FOR
A SMALLER CITY INVESTMENT THAT
COULD BE LEVERAGED, SO I THINK
THERE IS OPPORTUNITY THERE
UNTIL THERE IS MONEY ON THE
TABLE AND AN RFP OUT, IT'S HARD
TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THE TYPE
OF PROPOSAL THE LENDER WOULD
COME BACK WITH, BUT I DO THINK
THERE IS OPPORTUNITY THERE.
FOR EXAMPLE, CRAFT THREE HAD
BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF
PORTLAND.
THEY HAVE SINCE GONE ON THEIR
OWN AND HAVE AN A DU LOAN
PROGRAM AVAILABLE IN PORTLAND
NOW.
YOU CAN SEE IT ON THEIR
WEBSITE.
THE TERMS ARE NOT IDEAL, AND
WOULD NOT BE EASY FOR LOW
INCOME HOMEOWNERS TO
PRACTICALLY PARTICIPATE IN.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE
CONVERSATION WE WILL HAVE, OR
WE COULD HAVE NOW IN TERMS OF
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ'S
PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF TRYING TO
TEST SOMETHING WITH A SMALLER
INVESTMENT, WITH A LITTLE BIT
MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER
WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, AS
WELL AS REALLY MAKE SURE THE
PROGRAM IS FOCUSED ON THE
COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES.
>> IF I MAY.
BEST PICTURE.
>> AND CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN
HAVING WITH ORGANIZATIONS IN
THIS SPACE, CRAFT THREE
PRIMARILY, THEY'VE INDICATED TO
US, IF THERE WAS A MINIMUM $2
MILLION INVESTMENT BY THE CITY
IN THIS SPACE, THEY COULD
POTENTIALLY LEVERAGE THAT UP TO
AN $8 MILLION OPPORTUNITY, SO
AGAIN IT'S A QUESTION OF HOW
QUICKLY DO WE WANT TO GO TO
SCALE, GIVEN WHAT I THINK IS A
WELL-INTENTIONED POLICY, BUT
ONE THAT FRANKLY WE DON'T HAVE
A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT IN TERMS
OF THE TWO POLICIES I SEE AS A
PRIORITY IN THIS SPACE.
ONE, ANTI-DISPLACEMENT, BEING
ABLE TO AGE IN PLACE, AND STAY
IN PLACE, AND TWO, PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS,
WHETHER IT IS THROUGH ONGOING,
CONTINUED OWNERSHIP, OR BEING
ABLE TO OFFER ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO NEIGHBORS
THAT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAVE
ACCESS TO THESE EXCLUSIVE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OWNS.
I THINK BECAUSE OF THAT, ALL OF
THOSE THINGS IN COMBINATION ARE
REALLY MOTIVATING MY PROPOSAL
THAT WE WILL DISCUSS LATER
TODAY.
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING REALLY
CLOSELY WITH FOLKS AT CRAFT
THREE AROUND HOW MUCH OF AN
INITIAL INVESTMENT, DOWN
PAYMENT IF YOU WILL, FROM THE
CITY, DO THEY NEED TO
POTENTIALLY MAKE A SIGNIFICANT
ENOUGH IMPACT FOR US TO HAVE
THE DATA WE NEED TO EVALUATE,
AND CONTINUE TO SCALE THIS
IMPORTANT PROGRAM UP, TO REALLY
TRULY MEET THE POLICY GOALS.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY,
JUST TO ADD, IS THAT I DO
CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
POTENTIAL UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES IN THE RACIAL
EQUITY CONTEXT.
WHEN I WAS FIRST BRIEFED BY THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE, I WAS TOLD A
RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT WOULD BE
DONE, AND DURING BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS, DURING ONE OF
THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS I THINK
LAST WEEK, I WAS TOLD IT WAS
NOT THE CASE, SO I AM
DISAPPOINTED, AND CONCERNED
BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE A
MISREPRESENTATION OF A PRETTY
CLEAR QUESTION THAT I ASKED
AROUND, WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WAS EVEN AN CONTENT OR WORK
BEING DONE TO DO A RACIAL
EQUITY TOOLKIT ANALYSIS ON THIS
PARTICULAR POLICY.
NOT ON THE OVERALL A DU POLICY
PERIOD, BUT ON THE FINANCING
LOAN PIECE IN PARTICULAR, AND I
FEEL LIKE I WAS GIVEN
INFORMATION THAT WAS INACCURATE
IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT
CONVERSATION, AND SO BECAUSE OF
THOSE TWO THINGS, I AM
MOTIVATED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE AGAIN RIGHTSIZING THIS, AND
WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE
DOING THE GROUND-LEVEL WORK
AROUND FINANCING, AND
CAPITALIZING THESE PROJECTS TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO
MEET THE INTENDED AND STATED
GOALS.
>> IF I CAN REPEAT WHAT I HEARD
YOU SAY.
WE WANT THE RACE AND EQUITY
TOOLKIT ON THIS PARTICULAR
PROJECT ITSELF, NOT JUST
GLOBALLY.
THEN FOCUS ON PRIORITIZE FOR
AGING IN PLACE AS WELL AS
STAYING IN PLACE.
ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT A
GEOGRAPHIC AREA?
>> I THINK A RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT, HAD IT BEEN DONE,
WOULD HAVE PROVIDED US GRANULAR
DETAIL ON WHICH GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WE
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING.
I DRAW THE ANALOGY OF THE WORK
WE DID AROUND THE PRIORITY
HIGHER ORDINANCE, WHERE WE
FOCUS ON ECONOMICALLY
DISTRESSED SUBCODES TO
PRIORITIZE WHO FROM THOSE
Z.I.P.
CODES ARE GOING TO HAVE MAXIMUM
ACCESS TO PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
THAT ARE LIVING WAGES.
IT'S THE SAME THEORY OR
PRINCIPLE I THINK WE SHOULD BE
APPLYING HERE.
PART OF THE REASON WE CAME UP
WITH THAT CONCLUSION WAS
BECAUSE THERE WAS A FOCUS ON
RACIAL EQUITY, AND SO I THINK
THAT DOING THE RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT WILL LEAD US TO BE ABLE
TO IDENTIFY WHAT GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WE
COULD AND SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZING IN TERMS OF ACCESS
TO THIS LOAN PRODUCT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING SO CLEAR
ABOUT THAT.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO
ADD, COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A BIG
CHUNK OF MONEY COMING IN FROM
THE SALE OF THE MERCER PROJECT.
WE'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH
SOME OTHER ITEMS THERE.
WE DON'T ACTUALLY EVEN HAVE THE
MONEY YET.
IT WILL HOPEFULLY COME IN THE
NEXT FEW MONTHS.
I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT, AND
THE COMMITMENT FROM THE MAYOR
TO ESSENTIALLY EARMARK A BUNCH
OF THIS MONEY FOR INNOVATIVE
PROGRAMS, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT
THE REALITY OF THE TIMING IS
THAT A LOT OF THESE PROGRAMS
JUST ARE NOT FULLY VETTED, SO
THAT'S A CHALLENGE WE FACE ON
THIS PROGRAM, AND FRANKLY A
SUBSEQUENT NUMBER, SO I THINK,
FOR ME, AS WE WORK THROUGH THE
BUDGET, FIGURING OUT HOW WE
APPROPRIATELY DEAL WITH THAT,
YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T FAULT THE
MAYOR FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS
BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENING RATHER
RAPIDLY, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT WILL REPEAT ITSELF IN THE
NEAR FUTURE, SO WE HAVE THIS
SINGLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SOMETHING GOOD WITH THIS MONEY.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CONTINUES TO HAVE
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON
THESE DECISIONS, AND SO HOW WE
SAID SOME OF THIS MONEY ASIDE,
IF IT'S A CONCEPT THAT'S BEING
DEVELOPED, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
AS IT GETS DEVELOPED, THERE ARE
STILL MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN.
IF THERE IS THINGS WE CAN FULLY
VET OURSELVES DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS, AND SET UP, MAYBE IN
COLLABORATION, THAT'S GREAT.
IF THERE'S THINGS WE ARE GOING
TO NEED MONTHS OR YEARS TO WORK
THROUGH, WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE
WHAT THE BALANCE IS FOR HOW
MUCH WE WANT TO SET ASIDE
VERSUS IMMEDIATE INVESTMENTS.
>> I THINK YOU'VE ARTICULATED
THAT BALANCE WELL.
ANOTHER ASTUTE OBSERVATION BY
OUR FRIEND COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
I DO WANT TO SAY I WANT TO SEE
SOME THINGS ON THE GROUND.
IF WE HAVE TO TAKE A PILOT, AND
MAKE IT SMALLER, AND SEE HOW IT
GOES, AND TEST IT, THAT'S
GREAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT
THIS FORWARD SO WE HAVE
MULTIPLE YEARS.
IT MAKES ME QUIVER, HAVING MORE
STUDIES, AND THEN AT THE END OF
THAT, SAYING WE HAD A STUDY,
BUT NOW IT'S OLD, AND WE HAVE
TO START OVER.
SOMEWHERE, WE WANT THIS BALANCE
WHERE WE HAVE CLEAR GOALS.
LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO
THAT.
>> CHAIR BAGSHAW, IF I COULD
ECHO SUPPORT FOR YOUR
SENTIMENT.
I HOPE THAT MY PROPOSAL IS
ACCEPTED IN THE SPIRIT THAT
IT'S INTENDED, WHICH IS NOT TO
CAUSE UNDUE DELAY OR CREATE
ADDITIONAL BURDEN, BUT TO
REALLY MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS
FINANCING -- ANYBODY CAN BUILD
ADUs AND DADUS NOW, SO LONG AS
THEY DON'T PURSUE SUBSIDIZATION
BY THE CITY, BUT WHEN WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT A PROGRAM THAT'S
GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE
DEVELOPMENT, AND THE BUILDING
OF AN A DU, DADU UNIT, I THINK
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO
MAKE SURE WE GET THAT RIGHT,
AND THAT WE ARE USING VERY
LIMITED TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN A
WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET
THE GREATEST GAIN IN TERMS OF
THOSE TWO POLICY GOALS THAT I
HAVE IDENTIFIED.
I THINK IT'S INTUITIVE, BUT WE
DON'T QUITE KNOW YET BECAUSE
THE ANALYSIS HASN'T BEEN DONE,
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING
TO STRUGGLE THE MOST BEING ABLE
TO ACCESS THIS PROGRAM WITHOUT
SUBSIDIZATION ARE GOING TO BE
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE
OF COLOR, AND OUR AGING
COMMUNITY.
I REALLY WANT US TO BE VERY
INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE
ABOUT HOW WE SET UP THIS PILOT
AS IT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED,
TO MAKE SURE WE ACCOMPLISH
THOSE GOALS.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A PRIORITY
FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND
BECAUSE IT'S A PRIORITY FOR THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT WE DON'T
END UP IN A SITUATION IN WHICH
THERE WILL BE UNDUE DELAY, IN
TERMS OF MAKING THIS FINANCIAL
PRODUCT AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO
NEED SUBSIDIZATION.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD
CONVERSATION.
I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLEAR.
>> AND A VERY NICE TRANSITION
TO DISCUSSING THE BUDGET
ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROMOTES
BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS.
WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT NUMBER
FIVE, WHICH WOULD BE A PROPOSAL
TO MODIFY THE INVESTMENT FOR
THE A DU LOAN PROGRAM?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IS A
SUPPORTER OF THIS PROPOSAL.
IT WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSED $6
MILLION INVESTMENT FOR THAT
PROGRAM TO A $2.5 MILLION
INVESTMENT.
I'M SORRY, REDUCING IT BY $3.5
MILLION, AND PROVIDE REPRISAL
ON THOSE FUNDS UNTIL THE
PROGRAMMATIC DETAILS ARE FULLY
DEVELOPED.
I WILL SUGGEST TO YOU THAT AS
IT RELATES TO ALL OF THE
PROPOSED CHANGES THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO BE CONSIDERING OVER
THE COMING WEEKS, WE HAVE
MULTIPLE TOOLS TO IMPOSE UPON
THE EXECUTIVE OUR WISHES AS IT
RELATES TO MORE OR LESS POLICY
GUIDANCE WITH THE SPENDING OF
THOSE FUNDS FOR GOALS AND
EXPECTATIONS, TO HOLDING BACK
FUNDS, SO WE GET WHAT WE NEED
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THESE
PROGRAMMATIC GUIDELINES UNTIL
SOME MONIES GET RELEASED.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF TOOLS THAT
WE CAN USE TO INFLUENCE THE
EXECUTIVE'S WORK ON THIS.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
>> THE CONCEPT REALLY IS NOT TO
RELEASE THE BALANCE OF THE $3.5
MILLION, BUT TO REDIRECT THE
$3.5 MILLION OF THE TOTAL $6
MILLION AND TWO ADDITIONAL
EFFORTS HELPING THE CITY MEET
ITS GOALS OF ANTI-DISPLACEMENT,
AND INCREASED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STOCK.
ONE WOULD BE TO REDIRECT
DOLLARS TO THE EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, AND THE
SECOND WOULD BE TO FUND SOME
COORDINATION WORK BETWEEN THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING, AND THE
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST FOR
HOUSING STABILIZATION AND
COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, AS WELL.
IN THE SAME PROGRAMMATIC BUCKET
OF SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES AND
THEIR ABILITIES TO ACCESS
COMMUNITY ASSETS BY WAY OF
HOMEOWNERSHIP, BUT RECOGNIZING
THAT, BASED ON OUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH CRAFT THREE,
WE THINK THAT $2.5 MILLION SEEMS
TO BE ABOUT THE RIGHT SIZE, IF
WE ARE TRULY DOING A PILOT
PROJECT THAT CAN BE PRETTY
SIGNIFICANTLY LEVERAGED BY AN
ORGANIZATION, LIKE CRAFT THREE,
WHICH IS A CFI COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTION.
REALLY, CD FIS CAN USE THAT TO
$.5 MILLION TO LEVERAGE
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, AND GET US
GREATER RESULTS AT A SCALE THAT
WILL HELP US BETTER EVALUATE IF
WE ARE HITTING THE MARK.
>> WELL DONE.
WE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE A BREAK.
WE ARE HAVING OUR WASHINGTON
SHAKEOUT EARTHQUAKE DRILL IN
JUST A FEW MOMENTS.
I AM GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE
TAKE A RECESS RIGHT NOW.
THE ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE WILL
HAPPEN AT 10:17.
>> NOT AN ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE.
>> THE ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE TEST.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> THE ACTUAL PRETENDING OF AN
ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE.
>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 10-
MINUTE RECESS.
I SUGGEST WE BE BACK AT 10:25,
SO DON'T GO TOO FAR.
IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH
EVERYBODY, WE ARE AT RECESS FOR
12 MINUTES.
>> OKAY, VERY GOOD.
WE'RE GOING TO START BACK UP ON
PAGE 5 AND SIX.
>> CORRECT.
>> GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT'S 10:26.
WE HAVE JUST CONCLUDED OUR
EARTHQUAKE DRILL.
THERE WAS NO EARTHQUAKE, BUT WE
ALL PRACTICED DROP, COVER, AND
HOLD.
WE'RE BACK, OUT OF RECESS.
WE WILL CONTINUE WHERE WE LEFT
OFF, WHICH I THINK WAS PAGE
FIVE OF SIX OF YOUR MEMORANDUM.
WE WILL START ON PROPOSED
ACTION ITEMS.
>> STARTING AT NUMBER ONE, THIS
IS A PROPOSAL FROM
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA THAT
WOULD ADD FUNDING FOR THE AND
OFA PROJECTS.
THIS WOULD REDIRECT $28 MILLION
FROM THE MERCER PROPERTY SALES,
PROCEEDS, AND FUND HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT HAVE SUBMITTED
PUZZLES IN 2019 NOFA.
>> HIS THIS AN EXCHANGE FOR THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE MAYOR
HAS MADE FOR THIS MONEY TO GO
INTO NOFA PROJECTS?
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF
ADDITIONAL NOFA MONEY, I
THOUGHT GOING INTO 2020.
>> SHE'S ADDING ANOTHER $46
MILLION BETWEEN THE SALES TAX
AND THE R.E.E.D..
OF THIS PROPOSAL AND FORWARD,
IT WOULD ADD ANOTHER $43
MILLION.
>> OVER AND ABOVE THE $46
MILLION THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING?
>> YES.
YOU WOULD GO FROM $91 MILLION-
$134 MILLION OF MONEY FOR THE
NOFA, BUT IT WOULD BE
REALLOCATING SOME FUNDS THAT
WERE DESIGNATED FOR ANOTHER
PURPOSE AS RELATED TO THE
MERCER PROCEEDS, FOR EXAMPLE.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS
THE MONEY CAN BE SLICED AND
DICED, BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE
TO TAKE MERCER PROCEEDS, AND
REALLOCATE THEM FROM OTHER
PROPOSED PURPOSES, AS WELL AS
POPPING UP THE R.E.E.D.
ALLOCATION BY ABOUT $3 MILLION
A YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS TO GET
YOU THE ADDITIONAL MONEY.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?
>> NOPE.
>> LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER
TWO.
THIS IS ALSO SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA FOR
$100,000 TO IMPLEMENT THE
AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING AND
COMMUNITY PREFERENCE PLANS.
THESE ARE PLANS AND POLICIES
THAT WE ACTUALLY APPROVED IN
THE MOST RECENT HOUSING FUNDING
POLICIES THAT WE ADOPTED IN THE
SPRING.
THIS FUNDING WOULD HELP WITH
HOUSING PROVIDERS WHO ARE
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THOSE
POLICIES AND PLANS.
>> I HAD SOME NOTES HERE FROM
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IF YOU
WOULD BEAR WITH ME FOR A MOMENT
ON HER ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE.
SOME STATEMENTS THAT SHE WANTED
TO MAKE IS THAT THERE ARE MORE
PROJECTS READY FOR FINANCING
THAN FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH
THE CITY'S CURRENT NOFA, AND
SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WE
DIRECT SOME OF THESE FUNDS TO
BE USED FROM THE MERCER SALE TO
A DU FINANCING PILOTS,
HOMEOWNERSHIP, AND THE EMPLOYER
RESOURCE PROGRAM, AND STRATEGIC
SITE ACQUISITION, SO THAT IS
FROM COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER
THREE.
THIS IS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT TO TAKE
$20 MILLION FROM THE MERCER
PROPERTY PROCEEDS, AND USE IT
TO FUND DEPTH SERVICE TO FIND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS $20 MILLION WOULD PROVIDE
A PARTIAL YEAR DEPTH SERVICE
PAYMENT FOR THE $500 MILLION
BOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT DO YOU
WANT TO SPEAK?
>> WE KNOW IN THE MAYOR'S
BUDGET PROPOSAL THIS YEAR,
THERE IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL
INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THAN USUAL BECAUSE OF
INCIDENTAL ONE-TIME FUNDS, AND
THE NATURE OF THE CRISIS IS
SUCH THAT WE NEED THIS KIND OF
INVESTMENT EVERY YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEHIND IT.
>> PLEASE GO TO ITEM 4.
>> ITEM 4 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL TO ADD
$20,000 TO THE REDEVELOP AND
COST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS IN LITTLE SAIGON.
>> I AM WORKING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, WHO IS
PROLONGING HER EARTHQUAKE
PREPARATION, SO SHE IS STILL
UNDER THE DESK, BUT WE ARE
WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE
INDIAN SERVICE CENTER TO LOOK
AT SOME ADDITIONAL
PREDEVELOPMENT COSTS.
THIS GETS TO THE HEAD OF THE
DISPLACEMENT ISSUE NATIVES AND
ALASKAN NATIVES ARE SEEING.
YOU MAY RECALL IN 2018, IN THE
EARLIER BUDGET, WE PUT ABOUT
$100,000, SO THIS JUST CONTINUES
THAT PROJECT.
THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNITY
SUPPORT FOR IT.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH --
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL, WE
WERE ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR ABOUT
THE HOUSING PROJECT IN LITTLE
SAIGON.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUST
MENTIONED IT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING
EXTRA?
>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE SOME
COMMENTS.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HARRELL FOR RECOGNIZING THAT.
I WANTED TO ADD THAT WE MET
WITH THE SEATTLE INDIAN SERVICE
COMMISSION EARLIER THIS YEAR
REGARDING THEIR EFFORTS TO
EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN
LITTLE SAIGON.
THE LITTLE SAIGON NEIGHBORHOOD
HAS EXCELLENT ACCESS TO
TRANSIT, AND PROXIMITY TO
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
WE WANT TO ENSURE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD REMAINS VITAL AND
AVAILABLE TO FAMILIES THAT ARE
LOW INCOME.
I AM VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT
THIS COUNCIL ACTION TO APPROVE
FUNDING FOR PREDEVELOPMENT WORK
FOR THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
HARRELL FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
>> WE HAVE DONE FIVE, SO SHALL
WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM?
I THINK THIS INCLUDES JEFF.
>> ONE THING ABOUT THE
HOUSING.
I HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF
PAPERWORK ON THE HOUSING PEACE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
COMMUNITY ON A PROJECT IN THE
CENTER DISTRICT WITH THE MT.
ZION REDEVELOPMENT, I THINK.
WHEN I MET WITH THE MAYOR
DURING PREDEVELOPMENT TALKS, I
ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING
TO BE IN THERE.
I AM A LITTLE MURKY ON THE
ISSUE OF THEY BELIEVE THERE IS
A POT OF MONEY TO FUND, BUT
HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED IT BETWEEN
$75,000 AND $155,000 OF ONE-
TIME FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE MT.
ZION HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
PREDEVELOPMENT PLANNING.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR LOW-
INCOME AND SENIOR HOUSING
PROJECTS, SO I HAVE BEEN
ASSURED THAT IT WILL BE FUNDED,
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS IN
THE BUDGET, SO I AM TRYING TO
SEE THAT.
I AM PUTTING EVERYONE ON NOTICE
THAT I WAS TOLD, BY MISTER
NOBLE, THAT THEY WANT TO FUND
IT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE
TO DO ANYTHING ADDITIONAL.
>> I BELIEVE YOU WILL.
TOM, I THINK YOU CAN BACK ME UP
ON THIS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS
SOME MONEY IN RESERVES,
TARGETED FOR THE PROJECT, BUT
IT MEETS AN APPROPRIATION, SO
IT WILL NEED COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION TO PROVIDE THE
APPROPRIATION.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WILL BE FORTHCOMING.
TANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE NEW FACES AT THE TABLE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES?
>> JEFF SIMMS COUNCIL CEMTRAL
STUFF.
>> BRIAN GOODNIGHT COUNCIL
CEMTRAL STAFF.
>> THE CUE.
WE HAVE A MEMO FROM YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE IT.
TRACI RATZLIFF IS PART OF THIS,
AS WELL.
>> I AM.
>> JEFF?
>> I AM GOING TO TURN OUR
ATTENTION TO INVESTMENTS FOR
THE CITYWIDE HOMELESSNESS
RESPONSE.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE FIRST
SLIDE, WE ARE GOING INTO HUMAN
SERVICES A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF
THE MEMO.
WE BROKE THAT TABLE INTO TWO
SLIDES, AND AS YOU CAN SEE ITS
REPLETE WITH CENTRAL STAFF.
WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL
ON A FEW DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
FIRST, LOOKING AT THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW THESE
INVESTMENTS BREAK DOWN INTO
CERTAIN TYPES OF HOMELESSNESS
RESPONSE' TO SOMETHING LIKE
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OR
A SHELTER RESPONSE.
I WILL USE A DIFFERENT APPROACH
BECAUSE THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER
OF ONE-TIME INVESTMENTS THIS
YEAR, IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU SEE AT
THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE, AND
WHAT IS MARKED AS OTHER.
IT DESIGNATES A LOT OF THINGS
THAT ARE ONE-TIME FUNDING, SUCH
AS THE SEATTLE CITY HOUSING
AUTHORITY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PILOT, NAVIGATION TEAM FUNDING,
THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY START-UP
COSTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
IT'S THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE
TABLE ON THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR
MEMO.
YOU CAN SEE, OVERALL, THERE IS
JUST OVER $103 MILLION BEING
PUT CITYWIDE ACROSS 11
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS INTO A
HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE, AND
TODAY, WE'LL BE TALKING NOT
ONLY ABOUT THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL, BUT ALSO
INVESTMENTS IN SEATTLE PUBLIC
UTILITIES, AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION.
LET'S GO TO THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
AS I SAID, I WANTED TO BREAK
THIS DOWN INTO AREAS THAT ARE
NEW OR EXPANDED PROGRAMS.
THERE ARE OTHER, NEW
INVESTMENTS THAT REFLECT THINGS
LIKE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS
OR CONTRACT INFLATION COSTS,
AND OTHER TECHNICAL CHANGES,
BUT WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS TABLE
ARE THE PRINCIPAL NEW OR
EXPANDED INVESTMENTS.
THE FIRST OF WHICH, OVERALL
ADDS UP TO AN $8.3 MILLION
INVESTMENT ABOUT THE 2020
ENDORSED BUDGET.
$6.5 MILLION OF THAT IS ONE-
TIME FUNDING.
THE FIRST ITEM, LOOKING AT THE
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB IS A ONE-
TIME CAPITAL FUNDING FOR A
CLINIC. THESE ARE FUNDS THAT
WOULD COME FROM THE STRAIGHT
VACATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONVENTION CENTER.
NEXT, YOU WOULD SEE THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IS LISTED HERE.
WE WOULD BE MAKING TWO
POSITIONS PERMANENT IN THE
PROPOSED BUDGET.
THOSE WERE ADDED IN THE MIDDLE
OF THIS YEAR.
WE WILL GET TO THAT IN MORE
DETAIL SHORTLY.
THE NEXT THREE ITEMS ARE THE ON-
SITE NURSES, THE NURSE LINE,
AND A JAIL SHELTER.
THEY ARE ALL INVESTMENTS WE ARE
GOING TO DISCUSS THIS COMING
FRIDAY.
IT MIGHT BE MONDAY.
AS PART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INVESTMENTS, SO WE WON'T BE
GOING INTO DETAIL HERE ON THOSE
ITEMS.
THE LAST FOUR ARE ACTUALLY
ITEMS THAT FULL BE IN GREAT
DEAL RELATED TO ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION, AND GOING, AND
PROVIDING NUANCE TO THOSE
INVESTMENTS.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO SOME
BACKGROUND PIECES.
THE CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB IS A
CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
IT'S TO PUT IN A HEALTH CLINIC.
THE OTHER THREE ITEMS, AS I'VE
MENTIONED, ARE GOING TO BE
DISCUSSED LATER.
LET'S LOOK AT THE NAVIGATION
úTEAM.
YOU HAVE, ON PAGE THREE OF YOUR
MEMO, TABLE 2, YOU CAN SEE THIS
IS A WRITE-DOWN OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM FUNDING AS IT
IS ORGANIZED BY DEPARTMENT, AND
THE NUMBER OF FTE THAT ARE
LOCATED IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAVIGATION
TEAM.
OVER THIS LAST YEAR, THERE WAS
AN EXPANSION OF THE NAVIGATION
TEAM IN THE LATE SPRING WHERE
WE ADDED FOUR ADDITIONAL FTE IN
THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THE MAJORITY OF THAT OR TWO OF
THOSE POSITIONS WERE FUNDED WITH
FUNDING THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED
TO EXPAND OUTREACH AND MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES.
TWO OTHER OF THOSE POSITIONS
WERE FUNDED WITH ONE TIME UNDER
SPEND, SO THE PROPOSED BUDGET
PROVIDES $326,000 TO MAKE
PERMANENT, THOSE TWO NEW
POSITIONS.
>> CAN YOU SLOW DOWN JUST A
SECOND?
THIS WAS LAST YEAR.
WE HAD TWO POSITIONS EXPANDING
FOR OUTREACH FOR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, OR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
AND THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS
WERE DOING WHAT?
>> THEIR POSITIONS CALLED FIELD
COORDINATORS.
THEY HANDLE THE ASSESSMENT OF
AN AMERICAN KAMPMANN, LOOKING
AT THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUES, IF THEY ARE AN
OBSTRUCTION OR AN HAZARD.
THOSE SAME PEOPLE WILL ALSO
COORDINATE IF THERE IS A
CLEANUP OPERATION.
THEY COORDINATE ALL OF THE
LOGISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
CLEAN UP.
THOSE OTHER TWO POSITIONS THAT
WOULD BE MADE PERMANENT BY THE
PROPOSED BUDGET.
>> DO THOSE FIELD COORDINATORS
ALSO IDENTIFY PLACES FOR PEOPLE
TO GO?
WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT PEOPLE
AND ENCAMPMENTS, AND WE HAVE TO
SAY, YOU'VE GOT TO GO, BUT WE
HAVE A PLACE FOR THEM, WHERE
THEY CAN BRING THEIR
POSSESSIONS, THEIR PARTNERS,
AND THEIR PETS?
>> THAT'S NOT THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF THE FIELD GRENADA
POSITIONS.
THEY DO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO
COMMUNITY SUPPORT TEAMS, AND
BIKE PATROL OFFICERS, IF
SOMEONE IS ENCOUNTERED THAT HAS
ASKED FOR STORAGE OF THEIR
BELONGINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT,
BUT THE PRIMARY WORK IS EITHER
THROUGH THE TWO-SYSTEM
NAVIGATRS, WHO WERE ALSO PART
OF THIS MIDYEAR EXPANSION, OR
WORK CONDUCTED BY IN THIS CASE,
A CONTRACTED AGENCY, EVERGREEN
TREATMENT OUTREACH PROGRAM.
THEY HAVE OUT OUTREACH WORKERS
THAT ARE WORKING BOTH IN
ADVANCE, AND WHEN THERE IS A
CLAIM GETTING 72 HOURS
NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL.
THAT'S WHEN THAT TEAM IS
ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVICES,
AND CONNECTING PEOPLE TO
SHELTER.
>> JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
SO THE FIELD COORDINATORS ARE
CONTACTED THROUGH REACH?
>> THE FIELD CORDWAINERS ARE
DIRECT HSD EMPLOYEES.
THERE IS CURRENTLY TWO
ADDITIONAL THAT WOULD BE MADE
PERMANENT BRINGING THE TOTAL TO
SIX.
>> I JUST HEARD NO TO MY RIGHT.
THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS.
ARE THOSE THE ONES IN REACH
THAT ARE EXPANDING THE OUTREACH?
>> NO.
THE SYSTEM NAVIGATORS THAT I
MENTIONED ARE ALSO DIRECT HSD
EMPLOYEES.
REACH IS A CONTRACT.
MAYBE, I AM MISSING DURING THE
QUESTION.
IT'S A CONTRACT HSD HAS WITH
THE REACH PROGRAM FOR EIGHT
INDIVIDUALS TO BE DOING
OUTREACH SERVICES.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THINK
MY READ OF THE BUDGET IS THERE
IS NO PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
OUTREACH SERVICES CONNECTED
WITH THE NAVIGATION TEAM.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET MAINTAINS THE STATUS QUO
INVESTMENT OF OUTREACH SERVICES
RELATED TO, AND DIRECTLY
CONNECTED TO THE SWEEPS WORK
THAT THE NAVIGATION TEAM DOES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> JEFF, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
ALREADY CLARIFIED, BUT REACH
IS NO LONGER JOINING THE SWEEPS.
THEY PROBABLY DO SOME PRE-SWEEP
OUTREACH, STILL, I THINK, BUT
THEY SEND A VERY CLEAR
STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THEY ARE
NOT PARTICIPATING.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT.
REACH IS NO LONGER, OR AT LEAST
NOT FREQUENTLY PRESENT WHEN
THERE IS A CLEANUP OF AN
AMERICAN KAMPMANN. REACH DOES
NOT COME TO THE SITE ON THAT
DAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING.
INSTEAD, THEY FOCUS THEIR WORK,
IN SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE AN
AMERICAN KAMPMANN BEING GIVEN
72 HOURS NOTICE, THAT IT WILL
BE REMOVED, THEIR WORKERS, THEY
ARE LIKELY OFTEN INTERACTING
WITH A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS IN
ENCAMPMENTS, PURPOSELY MAKING
SURE THEY ARE THERE 72 HOURS OR
MORE IN ADVANCE TO CONNECT
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE INTERESTED
WITH SERVICES, AND BEFORE THE
CLEANUP OPERATION WOULD TAKE
EFFECT.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> TALKING ABOUT THOSE CLEANUPS
AND THE PRESENCE OF THE SYSTEM
NAVIGATORS, AND REACH IS
HELPFUL.
INFORMING THE BROADER
CONVERSATION AROUND THE
NAVIGATION TEAM HAS BEEN A LOT
OF WORK BY THE CITY AUDITOR'S
OFFICE, MAKING A SERIES OF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
RECENT DATA RELEASED RELATED TO
THE NAVIGATION TEAM, LOOKING AT
THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO
ENTER INTO A SHELTER AS A
RESULT OF THESE ACTIONS.
PARTICULARLY WITH THE CITY
AUDITOR'S WORK THERE HAS BEEN
46 RECOMMENDATIONS OR AREAS FOR
FURTHER FOLLOW UP THAT HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED.
WHILE SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN
FULFILLED, THERE ARE OTHERS,
AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE A
DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY I WOULD
CHARACTERIZE COMPLETED VERSUS
NOT COMPLETED FROM WHAT THE
AUDITOR WOULD LOOK AT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT
EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF
ENHANCED SHELTER BEDS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE, THERE HAS BEEN STEPS
TAKEN THERE AT NOT BEING AN
AUDITOR.
I CAN SAY THAT'S BEEN A
FULFILLED RECOMMENDATION WHERE
THE AUDITOR MIGHT HAVE TO SAY,
THAT HASN'T MET THE METRIC WE
ARE LOOKING FOR, BUT THERE'S A
GOOD NUMBER IN PROGRESS.
THERE'S AROUND 10 OR SO THAT I
THINK YOU WOULD CLASSIFY AS
HAVING NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO.
A GOOD NUMBER THAT ARE EITHER
IN PROGRESS, OR THE STATUS IS
UNCLEAR.
SOME OF THOSE IN PARTICULAR ARE
THE STAFFING PLANS.
THAT'S WHY THAT RELATES TO THIS
ISSUE HERE.
THE AUDITOR IDENTIFIED THE NEED
TO GO IN AND ASSESS WHAT IS THE
RIGHTSIZING OF THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, AND THAT IS WORK THAT HAS
NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED, DESPITE
BEING ASKED FOR IT A FEW
DIFFERENT TIMES.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AT THIS
TIME, NO FURTHER WORK IS TAKING
PLACE RELATED TO THIS, THAT THE
EXECUTIVE TENDS TO NOT DO ANY
MORE ANALYSIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
AS I THINK FOLKS KNOW, I HAVE A
PARTICULAR KEEN INTEREST IN
THIS.
I REALLY RESPECT THE WORK OF
THE CITY AUDITOR.
THEY HAVE DONE A NUMBER OF
REPORTS.
THEY HAVE WORKED IN A WAY THAT
IS ITERATIVE WITH THE EXECUTIVE,
BOTH ISSUING RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECEIVING THE EXECUTIVE'S
RESPONSE TO THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN
FURTHER RESPONDING ON THE
EXECUTIVE'S RESPONSE, SO THE
EFFORT HAS BEEN STRUCTURED IN
SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS INTENDED
TO BE COLLABORATIVE, AND ONE OF
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, GIVING
THE EXECUTIVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO IDENTIFY WHAT IMPROVEMENT
LOOKS LIKE.
WHILE BEING BOUNDED BY THE
GOALS OF THE CITY AUDITOR AS IT
RELATES TO THE 46
RECOMMENDATIONS.
I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT THERE
ARE SEVERAL ITEMS THE EXECUTIVE
HAS INDICATD THEY HAVE NO
INTENTION OF ADDRESSING.
AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO
THE STAFFING MODEL ASSESSMENT,
IT IS DEFINITELY THEIR
PREROGATIVE TO PROPOSE A
STAFFING STRUCTURE THAT THEY
DESIRE, BUT WE HAVE ASKED FOR
SOME ANALYTICAL WORK TO BE DONE
SO THAT WE CAN PLAY OUR
RIGHTFUL ROLE AS BUDGET MAKER,
AND POLICYMAKER, AS IT RELATES
TO THAT.
WE HAVE NOT ASKED THEM TO
CHANGE THE STAFFING MODEL.
WE HAVE ASKED FOR A STAFFING
ASSESSMENT.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS, AS THE
AUDITOR STATES, THE STAFFING
CONFIGURATION MIGHT HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THE NAVIGATION TEAM'S
ABILITY TO MEET OUR SHARED
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, AND SO THIS IS ANALYTICAL
WORK THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT
TO EXERCISE OVERSIGHT, AND
TRANSPARENCY IN WHAT I HOPE IS
OUR SHARED DESIRE FOR CONTINUED
IMPROVEMENT.
I AM NOT SITTING HERE,
DICTATING WHAT OUR OUTCOMES
SHOULD BE.
I AM SEEKING TO WORK WITH THE
EXECUTIVE IN DESIGNING WHAT
THOSE OUTCOMES ARE, AND COMING
UP WITH A STRUCTURE FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEM.
I HOPE COUNCILMEMBERS WILL TAKE
A LOOK AT THE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IN
PARTICULAR, TAKE A LOOK AT THE
ONCE THE EXECUTIVE HASN'T
FOLLOWED UP ON.
I THINK JEFF CAN PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, YOU'VE
BEEN A STALWART ON THIS IN THE
LAST 10 YEARS.
EVEN IN YOUR PREVIOUS ROLE, YOU
WERE ADVOCATING FOR THIS.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT, ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT THE FEBRUARY 2019
REPORT?
OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES FROM
HIM?
>> THERE HAVE BEEN A SERIES OF
THEM.
THE INITIAL REPORT CREATED THE
FRAMEWORK FOR THEORY OF CHANGE,
AND SET OUT SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS THEY
WANTED HSD AND THE EXECUTIVE TO
REPORT ON.
THERE HAVE BEEN QUARTERLY
REPORTS, BOTH FROM THE
EXECUTIVE AND FROM THE AUDITOR.
AS I DESCRIBED IT, IT'S NOT JUST
ONE REPORT AND YOU ARE DONE.
IT'S ITERATIVE WORK JIVING THE
VARIOUS ENTITIES WORKING
TOGETHER ON THE NAVIGATION TEAM
TOWARDS CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT
TOWARD OUR SHARED OBJECTIVES
FOR THAT BODY OF WORK.
>> GOOD.
JEFF, IN YOUR MEMO, AND THE
WORK I KNOW YOU'VE IDENTIFIED
SOME OF THE AUDITORS
RECOMMENDATIONS, AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ALL OF THIS PULLED
TOGETHER ANY PLACE THAT THE
PUBLIC COULD SEE?
SO IT WOULD BE EASY TO SEE THE
ORIGINAL NAVIGATION REPORT?
AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IS
SUGGESTING, THERE HAVE BEEN
RESPONSES AND RESPONSES TO
THOSE RESPONSES, BUT CAN WE GET
THAT ALL TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE
FOR REVIEW?
>> THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN A
SINGLE DOCUMENT, BUT ALL OF
THEM ARE ACCESSIBLE.
THE THREE DIFFERENT REPORTS ARE
ON THE CITY AUDITOR'S WEBSITE,
AND THE RESPONSES HSD SUBMITTED
OUR CLERK FILES, AND AT VARIOUS
POINTS, RATHER THAN ADDRESSING
ALL 46 AT ONCE, THEY HAVE
RESPONDED TO A CERTAIN BODY OF
THOSE 46 ITEMS.
I DO KNOW THE CITY AUDITOR'S
OFFICE IS GOING TO, AS USUAL, A
SUMMARY REPORT THAT WILL LOOK
AT ALL 46, GIVE A RED LIGHT,
GREEN LIGHT, YELLOW LIGHT,
ACCOMPLISHED OR NOT.
I CAN PUT TOGETHER A SIMILAR
DOCUMENT.
I WOULD SAY AROUND A QUARTER
HAVE BEEN MET.
ABOUT A QUARTER, HAVE NOT YET
BEEN MET OR ARE NOT YET BEING
WORKED ON, AND ABOUT HALF OF
THEM WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
DISCUSSION OR INTERPRETATION AS
TO, HAVE THESE BEEN MET?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY
HELPFUL.
WE KEEP POINTING TO THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
WORK DONE THIS YEAR BY BOTH THE
EXECUTIVE AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
AS WE LOOK AT THE REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE, HOW THAT
TIES TOGETHER, BUT IF PEOPLE
COULD AT LEAST LINK WHAT HAS
BEEN WRITTEN IN THE RESPONSES,
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU.
>> BARRING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ON THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, AS I MENTIONED THERE ARE
FOUR MORE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE
PRESENTED IN THE HST BUDGET,
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THOSE
INTELLICHEF IDENTIFICATION.
AT THIS POINT, WE WILL TURN IT
OVER TO BRIAN TO COVER THE
INVESTMENTS AT SEATTLE PUBLIC
UTILITIES.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SPU MANAGES A SUITE OF PROGRAMS
KNOWN AS CLEAN CITY PROGRAMS
THAT ADDRESS ISSUES, SUCH AS
LITTER, ILLEGAL DUMPING,
GRAFFITI.
THOSE ARE ALL FUNDED WITH
GENERAL FUND RESOURCES.
FOUR OF THE QUEEN CITY PROGRAMS
RELATE TO HOMELESSNESS.
THREE WERE STARTED AS PILOTS IN
2017.
THE FOURTH BEGAN AS A PILOT IN
2018.
TABLE 3, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON
PAGE THREE OF THE MEMO AND IS
BEING DISPLAYED AS SLIDE NUMBER
SIX, SHOWS THE FOUR PROGRAMS
WITH THEIR 2019 ADOPTED, 2020
ENDORSED, AND 2020 PROPOSED
BUDGETS.
THE FIRST THREE PROGRAMS
ENLISTED, THE INCOME IN TRASH,
LITTER ABATEMENT, AND SHARP
COLLECTION.
THOSE BEGAN AS PILOTS IN 2017
AND BECAME PERMANENT PROGRAMS
WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2019
BUDGET.
THE 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR
THOSE PROGRAMS MAINTAINS
CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS, AT THE
INCREASES THAT YOU SEE IN THE
TABLE SIMPLY REFLECT INCREASES
IN DISPOSAL COSTS.
THE FINAL PROGRAM IN THE LIST,
THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE OR RV
REMEDIATION PROGRAM BEGAN IN
2018, AND IS STILL IN PILOT
PHASE CURRENTLY.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED TO
DOUBLE THE SITES FROM AN
AVERAGE OF SEVEN TO 14.
A PROXIMALLY $300,000 OF
INCREASED COST IN THE PROGRAM
WOULD SUPPORT ADDITIONAL
CONTRACTOR COSTS AND WOULD
SUPPORT A TEMPORARY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
POSITION.
AS WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE
DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS, THE
PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO ADDS
$100,000 IN THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT AND $200,000 IN FAS
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
PROGRAM.
>> CAN YOU REMIND ME?
I APPRECIATE HOW CLEANER THINGS
ARE.
BUT WE ALSO ARE LOOKING AT WAYS
TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE RVs, SO
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE MOBILE
PUMP OUTS.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS
FUNDED IN PARTICULAR?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON
THAT.
IT HAS NOT BEEN FUNDED.
JEFF KNOWS.
>> DID WE EVER GET AN ESTIMATE
ON WHAT THAT WOULD COST?
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE.
>> WE CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS
FOR SPU, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO
TRACI RATZLIFF.
>> MOVIE ON TWO PARKS, THE
PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET INCLUDES
$113,000 FOR SHOWER SERVICES,
FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
THIS IS THE SAME AMOUNT
INCLUDED IN THE 2020 BUDGET, SO
THERE IS NO INCREASE TO THAT
AMOUNT.
SHOWER SERVICES ARE CURRENTLY
PROVIDED AT FOUR COMMUNITY
SERVICES.
AS MY MEMO ON PAGE 4 INDICATES,
SPR STATES THAT THERE ARE
CHALLENGES TO PROVIDING
SERVICES AT THESE CENTERS,
INCLUDING SAFETY CONCERNS,
DAMAGE TO FACILITIES, AND
ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE DEMANDS
THAT THEY ARGUE EXISTING
RESOURCES DO NOT COVER.
THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT IF
THERE IS A DESIRE TO EXPAND
SERVICES TO ADDITIONAL
COMMUNITY CENTERS, THEY WOULD
REQUEST SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING
TO DEAL WITH THESE UNSUPPORTED
COSTS, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE
STAFF TRAINING FOR HOW TO DEAL
WITH DE-ESCALATION, MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES, HOW TO HANDLE
BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGENS, NEEDS
FOR REPAIR, MAJOR MAINTENANCE
RELATING TO INCREASED SHOWER
USAGE, AND THEN TOWEL SERVICE.
THE ONGOING ANNUAL COST FOR
FUNDING THESE ACTIVITIES RANGES
ANYWHERE FROM $125,000 TO
$225,000.
THAT COST WOULD BE IN ADDITION
TO ANY ADDITIONAL COST
ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANDING THE
SHOWER USAGE TO OTHER COMMUNITY
CENTERS.
>> DID I UNDERSTAND IN THE LAST
WEEK, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO
TOLD ME THE INTENTION WAS TO
OPEN THOSE OTHER THREE SITES
THAT THE EXECUTIVE HAD APPROVED
IT?
>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION.
I THINK THERE WAS A PRESS
STATEMENT THAT CAME OUT FROM
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, SIGNALING
THAT INTENT.
BUT I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED ON
HOW THEY CAN BOTH SAY THAT THEY
NEED ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, TO
DO THAT, BUT ALSO ANNOUNCE THAT
THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE SO.
>> LET ME FOLLOW UP AND FIND
OUT IF THAT'S TRUE.
ALL OF THE INTERACTIONS I'VE
HAD WITH THE EXECUTIVE IS THAT
WE NEED MORE RESOURCES FOR AN
EXPANSION.
POCKETS ON THE PARKS DEPARTMENT
WEBSITE.
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
LOOKING INTO THIS.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAD COME
UP IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS
ASKING FOR TOWEL, LAUNDRY
SERVICES.
I SUGGESTED THAT BEFORE WE DID
THAT, WE LOOKED INTO
DISPOSABLE, SMALL TOWELS THAT
ARE COMPOSTABLE, BUT ARE ALSO
QUITE EFFECTIVE.
WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT THAT
WOULD COST, MAKING THAT
AVAILABLE BECAUSE I AM NOT
SUGGESTING IN ANY WAY THAT WE
OFFER TOWEL SERVICE FOR
EVERYONE WHO COMES INTO THESE
FACILITIES BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE
WHO ARE SWIMMING NOW TO BRING
THEIR OWN TOWEL AND SWIMSUIT,
BUT MAKING SOMETHING AVAILABLE,
NOT AT EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE.
>> I THINK WE WILL TALK ABOUT
YOUR PROPOSED ADD LEADER.
JEFF WILL MOVE ON TO ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION ISSUES.
>> THANK YOU.
WE ARE ON PAGE 8 NOW?
>> PAGE 4. SLIDE EIGHT ONLINE.
THE FIRST NEW INVESTMENT WE
WILL TALK ABOUT, OR EXPANDED
INVESTMENT, WOULD BE THE
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PILOT PROGRAM.
IN MARCH 2018 IS WHEN THIS
PROGRAM WAS STARTED.
IT PROVIDES HOUSING SUPPORT TO
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON THE
WAITLIST FOR HSA HOUSING, BUT
HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THEIR
HOUSING VOUCHER.
IT'S PROVIDING SHORT-TERM
SUPPORT UNTIL THEY RECEIVE THE
LONG-TERM SUPPORT.
ALTHOUGH INITIALLY THE ESTIMATE
WAS THAT THE $2 MILLION INITIAL
INVESTMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT
TO HOUSE ALL OF THOSE FAMILIES
FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF THE
PILOT, IN OCTOBER 2018, A
LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS
FOLLOWING THE CREATION OF THE
PILOT PROGRAM, THE SEATTLE
HOUSING AUTHORITY CHANGED SOME
OF ITS POLICIES IN RECOGNITION
OF INCREASING RENTS, AND
CHALLENGED THE CREATION AND
UTILIZATION OF VOUCHERS IN THE
CITY.
THAT BASICALLY MEANT THE
VOUCHERS, MORE MONEY WAS GOING
INTO EACH VOUCHER AND THUS
THERE WERE FEWER AVAILABLE.
THAT EXTENDED THE AMOUNT OF
TIME THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE
BEEN ON THE WAITING LIST,
HOPING FOR THEIR SEATTLE
HOUSING VOUCHER TO BECOME
AVAILABLE.
IN TOTAL, THIS PROGRAM HAS
SUPPORTED 143 HOUSEHOLDS.
71 OF THEM HAVE EXITED THE
PROGRAM, SO FAR.
74 ARE CURRENTLY RECEIVING
RENTAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES.
THE EXECUTIVE ESTIMATES THAT
AFTER DECEMBER 2020, AN
ADDITIONAL 40 OF THE 74
CURRENTLY RECEIVING SERVICES
ARE STILL GOING TO REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL HOUSING SUPPORT.
THIS INVESTMENT IS PROPOSED IN
THE 2020 BUDGET.
IT WOULD SERVE ALL OF THESE
FAMILIES THROUGH 2020.
AS I SAID, THAT'S 74 FAMILIES
NOW, COMING OFF OVER THE COURSE
OF THE YEAR, AND AT THE END OF
2020, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE 40
FAMILIES NEEDING CONTINUOUS
ASSISTANCE.
THE EXECUTIVE ESTIMATES RIGHT
NOW THAT APPROXIMATELY NINE OF
THOSE FAMILIES ARE LIKELY TO
REQUIRE ASSISTANCE INTO 2022.
AND OVERALL, YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT, AT THE END OF THE MONEY
THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AT THIS
POINT, YOU WOULD HAVE FAMILIES
THAT HAVE BEEN ON THIS RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PILOT FOR
APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS ON
THIS WAITLIST.
A KEY ITEM TO NOTE IS THAT WHEN
THE PILOT WAS CREATED, FAMILIES,
BEING OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ENROLL, WERE ASSURED THAT
THEIR RECEIPT OF HOUSING
ASSISTANCE ON THE WAITLIST
WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL THEY
RECEIVE THEIR VOUCHER.
THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE
$515,000 ONE-TIME INVESTMENT
THAT WE SEE IN THE BUDGET.
LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT OPTIONS
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT
TO INVEST THE $515,000 PROPOSED
BY THE MAYOR TO CONTINUE
SUPPORTING THESE FAMILIES THAT
ARE CURRENTLY ON THE WAITING
LIST.
OF COURSE, THAT WOULD RESULT IN
HOUSING INSTABILITY OR
POTENTIAL HOMELESSNESS FOR
THOSE FAMILIES.
RECOGNIZING AS A SECOND OPTION,
RECOGNIZING THAT MANY OF THESE
FAMILIES ARE LIKELY TO REQUIRE
ASSISTANCE BEYOND 2020, YOU CAN
ALSO LOOK AT INCREASING THIS
ONE-TIME FUNDING AMOUNT TO
ENSURE THAT THESE FAMILIES
WOULD CONTINUE TO RECEIVE
FUNDING FOR THEIR RENTAL
ASSISTANCE FOR A LONGER PERIOD
OF TIME, AND THERE IS A LOT OF
WAYS THAT AMOUNT CAN BE
CALCULATED, OR THE COUNCIL
COULD TAKE NO ACTION, AND
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED AMOUNT.
>> I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> IT'S MORE OF A NEW ISSUE
THAT HAS BEEN RAISED AS IT
RELATES TO THE MAYOR'S EFFORT
TO CREATE THE STOPGAP.
WE UNDERSTAND THROUGH THE
ADVOCACY COMMUNITY THAT THERE
ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
PROGRAM ON THE UTILIZATION
RELATED TO THE RATE OF
VOUCHERS, AND THERE IS AN
INTEREST IN TRYING TO EXPAND
RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR A
SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE ON THE SECTION WAIT LIST.
THAT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE STUCK IN
OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES SYSTEM.
WE SHOWED A 30% DECREASE OF
INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS.
HOWEVER, THE PRESENT
INVISIBILITY OF UNSHELTERED
PEOPLE SEEMS TO BE JUST AS HIGH
SUGGESTING THERE MAY BE MORE
FOLKS ENTERING HOMELESSNESS FROM
HOUSING INSTABLE POSITIONS, AND
THESE PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE THE
SAME BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES THAT DEVELOP FROM
THE TRAUMA OF LIVING
UNSHELTERED.
SPECIFICALLY, DATA FOR PEOPLE
WHO LIVE ON FIXED INCOMES, SUCH
AS FEDERAL DISABILITY CAN'T
AFFORD MARKET RENT, BUT DON'T
NEED OR QUALIFY FOR THE HIGH-
LEVEL SUPPORTS OF PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, AND THOSE
FOLKS ARE ALSO GETTING STUCK IN
THE SHELTER SYSTEM, SO THERE IS
THIS IDEA THAT THERE MIGHT BE A
BENEFIT SERVED FROM TARGETING
SPECIFICALLY DISABLED RESIDENTS,
WHO ARE ON THE WAITLIST, AND
THAT THERE MIGHT BE A NEED TO
CREATE A SECOND FILTER OF THOSE
FOLKS ON THE WAITLIST TO FIND
PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY WHO ARE
DISABLED BECAUSE AGAIN, A LOT
OF THESE PEOPLE ARE LOSING
THEIR HOMES DUE TO A BENEFIT
CLIFF.
THE RESULT OF HIGH AND RAPIDLY
INCREASING LOCAL RENTS, AND
STAGNANT FEDERAL BENEFITS.
SO THERE IS A PROPOSED HOME FOR
GOOD PILOT PROJECT THAT WOULD
HOPEFULLY WORK WITH THE MAYOR'S
HA SAY SECTION 8 WAITING LIST
PROJECT TO BASICALLY PROVIDE A
SHALLOW AND ONGOING RENTAL
SUBSIDY TO SEATTLE RESIDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES, WHO ARE
LIVING ON $1000 A MONTH OR LESS
THROUGH A FEDERAL DISABILITY
SOURCE, AND WHO ARE EITHER
CURRENTLY HOMELESS OR WERE
HOMELESS, AND ARE AT RISK OF
BECOMING HOMELESS AGAIN BECAUSE
OF THAT BENEFIT CLIFF OR RENT
GAP.
>> WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?
>> IT WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO
WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW, BUT
IT'S TARGETED TO A PARTICULAR
DEMOGRAPHIC OF PEOPLE ON THE
SECTION 8 WAITING LIST.
>> DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON
THAT, JEFF?
>> I CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
CONTEXT.
THE HA SAY PRAYER TO US AS
INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS OR WHOSE INCOMES
ARE BELOW 30% OF THE AREA
MEDIAN INCOME FOR THEIR
VOUCHERS, SO OVERALL, THE WAY
THE PROGRAM WORKS IS, THERE'S A
LOTTERY FOR WHEN THEY OPEN THE
WAITLIST, WHICH THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, IT'S USUALLY YEARS IN
THE OPENING OF THE WAITLIST.
THERE'S A LOTTERY, AND YOU ARE
RANDOMLY ASSIGNED A NUMBER.
HSA IS PRIORITIZING WITHIN THE
HOMELESS OR THOSE WITH 30% AREA
MEDIAN INCOME.
EFFECTIVELY, THIS WOULD BE A
PROPOSAL, IT SOUNDS LIKE, TO
PRIORITIZE RENTAL ASSISTANCE
FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL ON THAT
WAITLIST.
IN THIS CASE, WITH THE PILOT
ALREADY IN EFFECT, ON THE SET
UP OF THE PILOT, A GOOD AMOUNT
OF ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH WAS
DONE TO NARROW DOWN THE LIST. I
DON'T EXACTLY RECALL THE NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE WAITLIST
TO BEGIN WITH.
IT WAS MORE THAN 1000.
BECAUSE YOU CAN BE ON THE
WAITLIST FROM ANYWHERE IN THE
COUNTRY, NOT JUST FROM SEATTLE,
YOU CAN CALL FROM FLORIDA, AND
PUT YOURSELF ON THE WAITLIST TO
GET INTO IT, SO THEY NARROW IT
DOWN TO ONLY PEOPLE RESIDING IN
SEATTLE AT THIS TIME, SO THOSE
ARE SOME FACTORS I THINK WOULD
PLAY WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD HAS RAISED, IN TERMS OF
HOW TO PRIORITIZE, AND
IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS, AND THE
TYPES OF SUPPORT WE WOULD BE
LOOKING AT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO
BELABOR THE POINT RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO COME
THROUGH THE FORM B PIPELINE IN
THE FUTURE.
iPAD SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS AS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS HAD
WITH FOLKS WORKING IN THIS
SPACE.
I JUST WANTED TO TAKE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SIGNAL MY SUPPORT
FOR THE OVERALL CONCEPT OF A
HOME FOR GOOD PILOT PROJECT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSAILY
TIED WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE
SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AND ARE ON A
WAITLIST.
I THINK THE ISSUE MIGHT BE
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, IN JUST
SORT OF THE CONCEPT OF WHAT
WOULD A RENTAL SUBSIDY PROGRAM
FOR SEATTLE RESIDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES, WHO ARE ON A
FIXED INCOME, LOOK LIKE?
WHAT WOULD THE PILOT PROJECT
LOOK LIKE FOR THAT SEGMENT OF
THE POPULATION?
I THINK THE CONVERSATION REALLY
FLOWS FROM THE POLICY IDEA OF
THE STORY THAT WAS WRITTEN IN
CROSS CUT RECENTLY BY DAVID
CARMEN RELATED TO DWIGHT
WILLIAMS, WHO FOUND HIMSELF ON
A BENEFIT CLIFF AFTER HAVING
SUCCESSFULLY ENTERED INTO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN
QUICKLY FOUND HIMSELF BACK OUT
LIVING IN THE STREETS AFTER
PLAYING BY THE RULES BECAUSE HE
MADE MORE THAN WHAT HE NEEDED
TO IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR
LOWER RENT, SO THE MORE YOU
MAKE, THE HIGHER YOUR RENT GOES
UP, NECESSITATING ADDITIONAL
INCOME FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY BE
ABLE TO MAKE THE RENT TO STAY
IN THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT, SO HOPEFULLY, WE CAN
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS
AS A COUNCIL TO ADDRESS THAT
PARTICULAR ISSUE.
>> GREAT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS INTEREST
IN THIS.
>> WE WILL TURN TO THE NEXT
ISSUE.
IT'S ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR MEMO.
THIS IS RELATED TO THE SAFE
WORKING PILOT.
THIS ITEM WAS INCLUDED IN THE
2019 ADOPTED BUDGET.
THIS PILOT PROGRAM WAS.
IT WAS INITIALLY ENVISIONED AS
$250,000 THAT WOULD SUPPORT A
LARGE PARKING LOT FOR VEHICLES,
NOT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, IN
WHICH THEY CAN BE LOCATED,
RECEIVE CASE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES.
IT HAS MORPHED INTO EXPLORING
THE USE OF A LARGE NUMBER OR
SOME NUMBER OF SMALL PARKING
LOTS, OR A FEW SPACES AT FAITH-
BASED INSTITUTIONS.
SO FAR, THE FUNDS HAVE
SUPPORTED A CONTRACT WITH THE
URBAN LEAGUE TO PROVIDE
OUTREACH SERVICES IN CASE
MANAGEMENT, AND HAVE EXPANDED
THE NUMBER OF SPOTS AT A CHURCH
ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THEY HAD TWO IN OPERATION, NOW
AT SEVEN.
IT SUPPORTED AN ADDITIONAL FIVE
PARKING SPOTS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR OTHER
CHURCHES INTERESTED IN -- I
SHOULDN'T SAY CHURCHES.
THEY ARE FAITH-BASED
INSTITUTIONS.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT TYPE
OF INSTITUTION THEY ARE.
THEY ARE EXPLORING THE
POSSIBILITY OF ALSO ADDING SOME
SITES THAT WOULD RECEIVE
SERVICES THROUGH THE URBAN
LEAGUE CONTRACT.
THAT WOULD BRING THE NUMBER OF
SPACES TO AROUND 23, IF ALL OF
THOSE INSTITUTIONS WERE TO
ENTER INTO THE PROGRAM, BUT AT
THIS POINT, THEY HAVE NOT DONE
SO, AND WE'RE INTO SEPTEMBER,
SO I AM NOT CLEAR ON WHERE THE
STATUS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS
ARE.
THE GOAL WOULD BE TO IDEALLY
HAVE GOTTEN TO 30 SPACES, IS
WHAT THE EXECUTIVES PUT OUT,
USING THE FUNDS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE.
THIS INVESTMENT TAKES, BECAUSE
THE PROGRAM DIDN'T START UNTIL
ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH 2019, IT
TAKES SOME OF THE UNDERSTAND
FROM THE PROGRAM, ABOUT
$125,000, AND REINVESTS IT INTO
THE PROGRAM NEXT YEAR, SO NOT
ONLY WOULD THERE BE THE
$250,000 CONTINUING, BUT THE
MONEY THAT WAS NOT USED THIS
YEAR WOULD ALLOW THE EXPANSION
OF THE PROGRAM ABOVE WHERE IT'S
AT CURRENTLY, OR TARGETED TO BE
AT CURRENTLY.
>> GREAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT I
APPRECIATE HUMAN SERVICES AND
THE EXECUTIVE FUNDING THIS.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
THIS WAS SOMETHING YOU STARTED
WORKING ON 10 YEARS AGO WITH
OUR ROAD TO HOUSING, AND
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAS TAKEN
US A LONG TIME.
WE NOW KNOW THERE ARE SOME
EXAMPLES IN OTHER CITIES THAT
SEEM TO BE WORKING RELATIVELY
WELL WITH PLACES WHERE PEOPLE
CAN COME IN AT THE END OF THE
DAY.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO
HAS A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE
WILL PROBABLY GET TO AT
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS THEY ARE
WILLING TO BRING IN CARS OVER
THE EVENING, AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT PEOPLE CAN BE OFFERED
SOMETHING WITHIN THE
INSTITUTION, WHETHER IT'S A
SHOWER OR BATHROOM, JUST MAKING
IT -- YOU KNOW, NOBODY SHOULD
BE LIVING IN THEIR CAR.
UNTIL WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING
FUNDED AS WE WOULD LIKE, WE ARE
STILL GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE
LIVING IN THEIR CARS.
I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE DOING
THIS, AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE,
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE NEED A
HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN 30
PARKING SPACES.
THIS IS A GOOD START, BUT IT'S
NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM.
>> OKAY.
>> I WILL WALK THROUGH SOME
VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT ARE
POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO THE
COUNCIL.
FIRST, FUNDING THIS INCREASE,
MOVING THE ONE-TIME FUNDS INTO
THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR.
EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF FUNDING, EVEN IF THE
INCREASE IS NOT PROVIDED, THE
PERFORMANCE SO FAR INDICATES WE
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE
RESOURCES REPLETE ALREADY TO
REACH THAT GOAL OF 23 OR 30
PARKING SPOTS JUST BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'TBEEN ABLE TO GET TO
THAT POINT THUS FAR.
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE --
SORRY, I AM CONFUSING THE OTHER
OPTION.
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO
REDUCE THE AMOUNT.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE PAPER.
FIRST WOULD BE TO NOT INCREASE
FUNDING FOR THE PILOT,
ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING ANOTHER
YAR FOR THEM TO OPERATE, AND
SEE WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE, AND
BRING ONLINE SOME ADDITIONAL
PARKING SPACES.
THE SECOND WOULD BE TO REDUCE
THE PROPOSAL.
GIVEN THAT IT ONLY EXPENDED
$125,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR AND
IS ONLY SUPPORTING SEVEN OR
REALLY FIVE ADDITIONAL PARKING
SPOTS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS
ALREADY IN PLACE, OR THE
COUNCIL COULD NOT TAKE ACTION.
>> IS A 250,000 DESIGNED TO PAY
THE INSTITUTION FOR SOME
ASSISTANCE?
OR IS THIS ALL GOING INTO THE
CONTRACTOR?
LOOKING FOR SPACES.
>> THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDS
SUPPORT THE CONTRACT WITH THE
URBAN LEAGUE TO PROVIDE CASE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, WHICH IS
THE GOAL OF THIS PILOT.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN THEIR
VEHICLES, AND IT'S A POPULATION
NOT UNLIKE OUR POPULATION IN
RVs.
THE ABILITY TO CONNECT THEM
WITH SERVICES, THEY ARE
TYPICALLY MORE OPEN TO THAT.
IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE
WITH ENHANCED SHELTERS, TINY
HOME VILLAGES, TO GET THEM
MOVED INTO HOUSING MORE
QUICKLY.
THE FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS,
EACH WOULD BE LOOKING AT A
DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT IN TERMS
OF HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS THEY
PROVIDE, AND WHAT THE
CONDITIONS OF UTILIZING THAT
SPOT ARE.
>> VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> JEFF, DO YOU HAVE CLARITY ON
HOW THE ROUGHLY $125,000 THIS
YEAR WAS SPENT?
>> PRIMARILY FOR THE CONTRACT
WITH THE URBAN LEAGUE.
THEY PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED THE
PARKING OF FIVE ADDITIONAL
VEHICLES AT OUR REDEEMER
LUTHERAN CHURCH.
>> ARE WE PAYING OUR REDEEMER
TO DO THAT?
IN THE PAST, THE FUNDING
ALLOWED FOLKS' FAITH
INSTITUTIONS, TO DO SOME
CAPITAL PROJECTS IF THEY NEEDED
TO PUT INDOORS, OR SECURITY
THINGS, BATHROOMS, OR WHATEVER.
ALSO, THE CASE MANAGEMENT.
>> THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE
CASE.
IF YOU HAVE TO PUT ON A KEYPAD,
THEY COULD GET ACCESS TO A
BATHROOM.
THAT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE.
THAT CONTINUES TO BE AVAILABLE.
SOME OF THE INSTITUTIONS CAN'T
OFFER PARKING SPACES, BUT I CAN
CONFIRM THAT.
>> $125,000 SOMETHING THEY'VE
BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH THEIR
CAPITAL NEEDS FOR A WHILE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD LARGELY
JUST BEFORE THE CONTRACT.
NOW IT'S AT SEVEN VEHICLES?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, AND I
BELIEVE DOING MORE TO ENGAGE
OTHER FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS.
>> SO IT'S INCLUDING RECRUITING
WORK, AND TRYING TO FIND NEW
HOMES.
>> THE WAY I READ WHAT IS LAID
OUT HERE IS THE $125,000 IS
FUNDING NOT JUST THE ADDITIONAL
SEVEN, BUT AN ASPIRATIONAL
ADDITIONAL 23 BY THE END OF
THIS YEAR.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO TRANSFER
AN UNDER SPEND OF $125,000.
TO ME, WHAT THAT SAYS IS THEY
ARE ANTICIPATING $125,000, THAT
THEY ARE PLANNING TO SPEND FOR
2019, IS NOT JUST FOR THAT
SEVEN, BUT THE ADDITIONAL 30.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
YES.
IF THE FOUR INSTITUTIONS THEY
ARE SPEAKING WITH NOW WERE TO
BRING ONLINE THERE ADDITIONAL
PARKING SPACES, WE WOULDN'T
QUITE GET TO THE GOAL OF 30.
THERE CONTINUES TO BE OUTREACH
TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS, AND MORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GOAL OF
GETTING TO 30 BY THE END OF
THIS YEAR.
THOSE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COME
ON TODAY, OBVIOUSLY, SO IF IT
CAME ONLINE IN DECEMBER, THE
COST WOULD VARY, BUT IT'S IDEAL
TO BE AT 30 BY THE END OF THE
YEAR.
>> IF WE TRANSFERRED OVER THE
UNDER SPEND OF $125,000 FOR
2020, AND REMIND ME, NOT THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET, BUT
THE COUNCIL PROPOSED BUDGET,
WAS THERE FUNDS AVAILABLE?
>> $250,000 TO CONTINUE THE
EXISTING PROGRAM, WHICH --
>> SO NO EXPANSION WOULD BE
$375,000?
FOR $125,000 UNDER SPEND FROM
THIS YEAR, AND THE 2020 FUNDS?
>> THAT WOULD BE EXPANSION.
THE 2020 ENDORSED BUDGET HAS
$250,000.
IF THE OUTREACH EFFORTS ARE
SUCCESSFUL, THAT WOULD SUPPORT
APPROXIMATELY 30 PARKING SPACES
FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE YEAR.
IF YOU ADDED THE $125,000 IN
THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THAT WOULD
TAKE THE PROJECTED NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES TO MAYBE 40, 45.
>> OKAY.
MY LAST QUESTION IS, DOES THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET FUND
OVER AND ABOVE ENDORSED SPENDS
FROM 2020?
>> THE EXPANSION IS REALLY JUST
TAKING THE EQUIVALENT UNDER
SPEND FROM THIS YEAR.
I SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT
TECHNICALLY, IT'S JUST A LARGE
POOL OF ONE-TIME FUNDS THAT ARE
ALL PUT TOGETHER, AND THEN
UTILIZED IN A ONE-TIME WAY.
THERE'S NOT AN EXACT DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR.
I MOVED IT, BUT IT OBVIOUSLY
CORRELATES.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR KNOWING SO MUCH,
JEFF.
>> MOVING TO OUR THIRD ITEM ON
PAGE 5, THIS IS THE RELOCATION
OF TINY HOME VILLAGES.
COUNCILMEMBERS WILL RECALL AS
THE EXECUTIVE PRESENTED A WEEK
OR TWO AGO, THAT THE PROPOSED
BUDGET PROVIDES $1.3 MILLION
IN ONE-TIME FUNDING TO MOVE THE
GEORGETOWN AND MORSE LAKE TINY
HOME VILLAGES TO NEW LOCATIONS.
BOTH OF THESE VILLAGES
CURRENTLY HAVE A PERMIT THAT
ALLOWS THEM TO REMAIN WHERE
THEY ARE AT THROUGH MARCH 2020,
AT WHICH POINT IN TIME, THEIR
EXISTING PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
WHEN THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE
COUNCIL ABOUT THE AMOUNT THAT
IS CONTAINED IN THIS, I THINK I
USED THE WORD REPLETE RELATED
TO THE SAFE PARKING PILOT.
THERE WAS CONCERNS THAT THERE
WOULD BE MORE THAN JUST
EFFICIENT RESOURCES IN THE $1.3
MILLION ALLOCATION, SO A
BREAKDOWN IS PROVIDED IN YOUR
MEMO, BUT ALSO HERE IS THREE
MONTHS OF OPERATING EXPENSES
FOR THE EXISTING LOCATION.
THAT'S ACTUALLY ALSO IN THE
BASE BUDGET.
THERE WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE
ALLOCATION THERE.
THERE IS AT LEAST SOME EXTRA
AMOUNT OF FUNDING.
$177,000 WORTH.
THIS $101.3 MILLION ALSO
PROVIDES ABOUT $50,000 FOR EACH
ENCAMPMENT FOR RIPPING DOWN
ACTIVITIES AT THAT LOCATION.
THAT IT PROVIDES $516,000 TO
USE AS STARTUP COSTS FOR NEW
LOCATIONS.
THE PROPOSAL AS IT WAS DRAFTED
ACTUALLY PRESUMES THESE
VILLAGES WOULD BE MOVED TO
ENHANCED SHELTERS, A DIFFERENT
TINY HOME VILLAGE.
THAT WAS THE COST BASIS USED TO
ESTIMATE THESE NUMBERS.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
EXPENSIVE.
TYPICALLY, AN ENHANCED SHELTER
IN A TINY HOME VILLAGE, THEIR
COST PER BED IS VERY SIMILAR.
THEY ARE NOT DRAMATICALLY
DIFFERENT.
IN THIS CASE, THE ESTIMATED
COST FOR A SINGLE BED WAS A
LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT IS
CURRENTLY THE AVERAGE ACROSS
EITHER OF OUR ENHANCED
SHELTERS, OR OUR TINY HOME
VILLAGES, SO THERE'S ABOUT
$469,000 ABOVE OF ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TO MAINTAIN WHAT WOULD
BE THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDS.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR BASELINE,
HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO KEEP
THIS SAME NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSED IN THEIR TINY VILLAGE
RIGHT NOW, THIS PROPOSAL WILL
GIVE YOU ANOTHER $469,000 ABOVE
THAT.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT, AS WE LOOK
THROUGH OUR VARIOUS OPTIONS, AS
I MENTIONED, ALL OF OUR
OPTIONS, THE ABILITY TO
MAINTAIN THESE TINY VILLAGES
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
PERMANENT EXPANSION FOR THESE
VILLAGES WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY
AT.
BEFORE I GO TO OPTIONS, IS
THERE ANYTHING I CAN CLARIFY?
>> I DON'T THINK THOSE
QUESTIONS PARTICULARLY BUT FROM
A STANDPOINT OF WHAT WE KNOW
ABOUT THESE TINY HOME VILLAGES,
HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE TO FILL
IN THE GAPS, NOBODY THINKS THIS
IS WHERE PEOPLE SHOULD BE FOR
THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, BUT
I'VE HEARD ENOUGH CONVERSATION
HERE THAT THEY ARE SO MUCH
BETTER THAN LIVING IN A TENT OR
UNDERNEATH SOME TRUSSELL WHERE
PEOPLE ARE JUST BARELY GETTING
BY.
WE KNOW THEY ARE MUCH LESS
EXPENSIVE.
WE KNOW $3000 PER UNIT.
NOBODY WANTS TO SEE PEOPLE
LIVING THERE FOR EVER.
I WANT TO SEE A LOT MORE
AVAILABLE, SO WE CAN GET PEOPLE
OFF THE STREET, AND IF WE ARE
GOING TO BE REMOVING PEOPLE IN
TENTS, WE'VE GOT TO OFFER THEM
A 24/7 PLACE TO BE.
I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT
WE HAVE OUR ARMS AROUND HOW WE
CAN DO THESE TINY HOME VILLAGES
FASTER.
AND ACROSS THE CITY IN A WAY
THAT I BELIEVE EVERY ONE OF US
HOW WANTED TO SEE.
AND AGAIN, MANAGED BECAUSE SOME
HAVE BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN
OTHERS.
AND YET, IT DOES STRIKE ME THAT
SENDING $1.3 MILLION TO MOVE A
VERY FEW NUMBER OF PEOPLE
DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS MONEY WELL
SPENT.
I WANT TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE
GOING THIS.
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES WE CAN
RENEW ON-SITE?
AND AT THE SAME TIME EXPAND, SO
WE HAVE MORE OF THESE SITES
AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS TO ADD,
BUT JEFF, DID YOU WANT TO
FINISH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING?
>> CERTAINLY, I CAN.
THERE'S A VARIETY OF OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO COUNCILMEMBER
RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL.
THE ENTIRE $1.3 MILLION
INVESTMENT WOULD REQUIRE
PERMITTING ACTION.
EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THAT POINT
IS KIND OF LIKE A VARYING
LEVEL.
YOU COULD NOT CHOOSE TO
INCREASE THE OPERATIONAL FUNDS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO MAINTAIN
THESE NUMBER OF HOUSES, OR
SORRY, TINY HOME VILLAGES, JUST
ALLOWING THE BASELINE AMOUNT TO
PROVIDE $469,000.
YOU COULD CHOOSE TO PROVIDE
FUNDS TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION
OF ONE OF THESE INCUMBENTS, BUT
NOT THE OTHER.
AT THE VERY LEAST, YOU COULD
ESSENTIALLY TAKE NO ACTION,
ONLY REDIRECT THE ACCIDENTAL
ACCOUNTING OF $177,000.
BUT CAN I ASK YOU?
I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.
SOMETIMES, WITH NEIGHBORHOODS,
WE SAY, ONE YEAR, WITH A ONE
YEAR OPTION TO RENEW, PEOPLE
WILL BE GONE IN TWO YEARS FROM
THAT SITE.
HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING SIMILAR?
DO WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE
SIGHTS?
DO YOU KNOW?
>> THE NORTHLAND TINY HOME
VILLAGE IS ONE OF THE LOCATIONS
CITED UNDER OUR EXISTING
ORDINANCE, SO THAT COULD BE
RENEWED FOR ONE YEAR, AND IT'S
GOING TO BE REACHING THE END OF
ITS TOTAL OF TWO YEARS, AND AS
YOU ARE AWARE THERE IS
LEGISLATION BEFORE THE COUNCIL
THAT WOULD LOOK AT MAKING
CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS
AROUND THOSE INTERIM USE
PERMITS, AND THE RELOCATION OF
THESE TINY HOME VILLAGES, AND
THEN THE GEORGETOWN TINY HOME
VILLAGE HAS ACTUALLY ALREADY
REACHED THE END OF ITS CYCLE
AND HAS RECEIVED AN EXTENSION
OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT THAT
HAS ALLOWED IT TO EXTEND
OPERATIONS FOR ANOTHER SIX
MONTHS TO MARCH 2020.
>> AT LEAST GEORGETOWN HAS
RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT
FROM THE COMMUNITY TO STAY?
OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING?
>> I CAN CHARACTERIZE WHAT I'VE
HEARD ABOUT THE ADVISORY
COUNCIL.
THAT'S A BODY REQUIRED BY THE
EXISTING ORDINANCE RELATED TO
THESE TINY HOME VILLAGES.
THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE CROWD
LOCATION.
>> I APOLOGIZE TO YOU
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, BUT I DID
WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT JEFF WAS
SAYING.
>> YES, BUT YOU DO KNOW THE
BILL IS FROM SPONSORED BY MY
OFFICE, AND THE LAST TIME WE
HAD THE DISCUSSION ON THIS, I
THINK A WEEK AND A HALF AGO,
MISTER JASON JOHNSON WAS HERE
FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, AND THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE HAS SAID THEY WANT TO
CARRY OUT THE RELOCATION.
JEFF COLYER EXPLANATION WAS
VERY CLEAR AND HELPFUL, BUT WE
HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS
WHEN JASON JOHNSON WAS HERE,
AND REALLY, THERE WAS NO
EXPLANATION THAT WAS PROVIDED
AS TO WHY THE MAYOR'S OFFICES
INTENT TO SPEND $1.3 MILLION TO
RELOCATE WHEN THERE'S NO
COMPELLING REASON.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE PERMITTING
PROCESS.
IT'S A POLICY DECISION.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ISSUE A FAITH-
BASED PERMIT, AND YOU CAN ISSUE
IT FOR A SIX MONTH TEMPORARY
EXTENSION TO MAKE SURE A TINY
HOUSE VILLAGE DOES NOT HAVE TO
RELOCATE.
BUT THE REAL CHANGE THAT NEEDS
TO HAPPEN IS WHAT'S BEING
PROPOSED IN MY LEGISLATION,
WHICH IS TO FIRST OF ALL, ALLOW
EXPANSION, A CHANGE TO CITE THE
TINY HOUSE VILLAGES, BUT TO
REMOVE THIS LIMIT THAT AN
EXISTING TINY HOUSE VILLAGE CAN
ONLY APPLY FOR ONE EXTENSION,
MEANING THEY GET TO HAVE THE
PERMIT THE FIRST TIME, STAY FOR
A YEAR, AND THEN ONE MORE
PERMIT FOR ANOTHER YEAR MAKES
NO SENSE AT ALL.
THE HOMELESSNESS PROBLEM IS
ESCALATING.
WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR HUMAN
NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING CHILDREN
AND THE ELDERLY TO BE IN TENTS
OR ON THE STREET.
WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM A REAL
OPTION ON THE WAY TO PERMANENT
HOUSING.
THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGES HAVE
PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOW
SUCCESSFUL THEY ARE, EVEN IN
THE SHORT TIME THEY'VE BEEN IN
EXISTENCE.
FOR A MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT IS
COMPLETELY BEATING THE DRUM OF
EVIDENCE-BASED SOLUTIONS, I
FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE
WATCHING THIS SHOULD LOOK AT
THE SEATTLE CHANNEL VIDEO OF
THAT MEETING WHERE IT WAS JUST
GOING ROUND AND ROUND IN
CIRCLES WITH NO EXPLANATION FOR
WHY WOULD YOU SPEND OVER $1
MILLION TO RELOCATE A TINY
HOUSE VILLAGE THAT'S WORKING
WELL WHEN THERE ARE ACTUAL
POLICY SOLUTIONS TO MAKE SURE
WE EXTEND THE PERMITS.
RIGHT NOW, THE LEGISLATION IS A
LITTLE BIT RESTRICTED IN HOW
QUICKLY IT CAN MOVE FORWARD
BECAUSE ELIZABETH CAMPBELL HAS
APPEALED THE ANALYSIS, AND IT'S
NOW IN FRONT OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER, BUT WE EXPECT THIS
SITUATION WILL BE RESOLVED IN
THE COMING MONTHS.
IN THE MEANWHILE, THE COUNCIL
IS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS THE
LEGISLATION, SO THIS EVENING,
ACTUALLY AT 5:00 P.M., RIGHT
HERE IN CHAMBERS, WE WILL HAVE
A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
LEGISLATION, AND I EXPECT A LOT
OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS WILL BE
COMING INCLUDING TINY HOUSE
RESIDENCE THEMSELVES, WHO WILL
ONCE AGAIN, BUT HAVE BEFORE
GIVEN POWERFUL, MOVING, AND
DETAILED TESTIMONY AS TO WHY
THIS ACTUALLY WORKS, AND WE ALL
KNOW THE TINY HOUSES THEMSELVES
PROVIDE SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF
LOCKED DOORS, ELECTRICITY,
STURDINESS, HEATING IN THE
WINTER, AND A PLACE TO STORE
BELONGINGS.
FOR WOMEN, ESPECIALLY, IT'S
SAFETY FROM POTENTIAL SEXUAL
VIOLENCE ON THE STREET, AND IT
ALSO IS A MECHANISM AGAINST A
CRUSHING LONELINESS AND
ALIENATION WHEN YOU ARE
HOMELESS BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY
BECOME PART OF A COMMUNITY.
THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
FOR, YOU KNOW, AS A WAY TO
PREVENT THE DEMORALIZATION YOU
FEEL WHEN YOU ARE HOMELESS, BUT
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE
TINY HOUSE VILLAGE PROVIDES IS
A COMMUNITY WHERE YOU HAVE
CONSISTENT, AND DAILY CASE
MANAGEMENT.
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF ALL OF
THESE FACTORS THAT ALLOWS THE
TINY HOUSE VILLAGES TO HAVE,
PROBABLY AS FAR AS I KNOW, SOME
OF THE BEST STATISTICS IN TERMS
OF TRANSITIONS TO PERMANENT
HOUSING.
GIVING ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE,
IT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT CLEAR TO ME
WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT, AND AS
FAR AS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT
GEORGETOWN, THE LEHIGH IS HAPPY
TO GIVE YOU DETAILS ABOUT THIS,
AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ARE
HAPPY TO GIVE YOU DETAILS, BUT
THEY CONDUCTED A SURVEY OF
HOUSED NEIGHBORS IN THAT
LOCALITY, AND LEHIGH REPORTS
THAT 76% ARE SUPPORTING THE
TINY HOUSE VILLAGE AND SAY THE
RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN GOOD
NEIGHBORS, AND THAT THEY SEE NO
SENSE IN DISMANTLING IT, SO I
WOULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT
NORTHLAKE.
THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENCES IN
HOW TO RUN THE VILLAGES BETWEEN
LEHIGH ON THE ONE SIDE, AND ON
THE OTHER, BUT I WOULD NOT SAY
SOME HAVE BEEN RUN BETTER OR
WORSE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH
INFORMATION TO JUDGE ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.
THERE ARE VERY STRONG OPINIONS
FROM THE RESIDENTS THEMSELVES
OF ONE MECHANISM OVER ANOTHER.
THAT SHOWS ME THERE'S NOT A ONE-
SIZE-FITS-ALL, AND THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF AGENCIES WILLING AND
ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES,
AND RESIDENTS CAN CHOOSE WHICH
KIND OF MODEL, COMMUNITY
ORGANIZING MODEL WORKS FOR
THEM, AND THE LEGISLATION IS
IMPORTANT NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT
RESOLVES THE PERMITTING
PROBLEM, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF
THE CAPACITY WE HAVE.
LEHIGH HAS THE CAPACITY TO
OPERATE 10 ADDITIONAL VILLAGES,
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE
NICKELSVILLE, FAITH GROUPS,
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, WHO HAVE
EXPRESSED NOT JUST A
WILLINGNESS, BUT A PASSIONATE
URGENCY TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE
THESE NEW TINY HOUSE VILLAGES.
MAKING THE LAND-USE FLEXIBLE,
SO THESE APPROACHES CAN BE
CITED.
OBVIOUSLY, FUNDING IS THE NEXT
STEP, BUT ONE OTHER THING I
WILL SHARE IS FAITH LEADERS
HAVE MADE A VERY STRONG
STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THEY
SUPPORTED 43 FAITH LEADERS FROM
CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM, JEWISH, AND
BUDDHIST COMMUNITIES.
THEY'VE WRITTEN A LETTER
TOGETHER TO THE COUNCIL THAT
HAVE SAID THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR
THEM TO DO, AND FOR FAITH
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ON A
SHOESTRING BUDGET, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK IS
GOING TO WORK FOR THEM IN THE
SMALLER PLOTS OF LAND THAT THEY
HAVE, THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY
USABLE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON 18th AND YES,
SIR, THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGE
CONNECTED TO THE BAPTIST
CHURCH, LAND-USE -WISE, WHAT
LEHIGH HAS FOUND IS THE TINY
HOUSE VILLAGE THAT'S THERE IS
THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE, AND
DENSEST USE OF THAT PLOT OF
LAND BECAUSE THE SOIL HAS TEXAS
CITY, AND OTHER ISSUES.
IF YOU HAD TO BUILD A PERMANENT
STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
DIGGING THE FOUNDATION, THEN
ACTUALLY THE COSTS ARE VERY
HIGH.
THE POINT IS, AT THIS MOMENT,
THIS IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE
AND DENSEST USE OF THAT LAND.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER PLOTS OF
LAND THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
PUBLICLY OWNED OR OWNED BY
NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS THAT
COULD BE PUT TO USE
IMMEDIATELY, BUT CERTAINLY, I
THINK THE FIRST STEP IS THE DO
NO HARM APPROACH.
IF THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGE IS
WORKING, WHY DISMANTLE IT AND
USE MONEY ON THAT?
EXPECTED WE HIT ALL YOUR
POINTS?
>> YEAH, I THINK SO.
>> JEFF, YOU MENTIONED
ADDITIONAL PERMITTING WORK.
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
LEGISLATION TO ALLOW IT TO STAY
BEYOND THAT TIME?
>> THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS
OUTSIDE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
AND LESS AS COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT MENTIONED, THE
REQUIREMENTS ARE CHANGED AND
RENEWALS ARE MADE AVAILABLE,
THINGS LIKE THAT.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, THEY COULD
BE ISSUED A TEMPORARY USE
PERMIT ALLOWING A SIX ACRE
MONTH EXTENSION.
THAT'S BEEN DONE AT OTHER
LOCATIONS, AS WELL.
I COULD GET BACK TO YOU ON HOW
FREQUENTLY THAT'S BEEN DONE,
AND HOW MANY TIMES AT A
LOCATION.
>> BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, THOSE
OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.
IT'S A QUESTION OF MAKING THAT
CHOICE.
>> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
SOMETHING COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
SAID.
I'VE MET WITH A NUMBER OF THE
PASTORS.
THEY ARE WILLING TO HELP EXPAND
THE VILLAGES.
SOME WANT TO DO SMALLER AS
CONTRASTED TO LARGER.
TO A PERSON, THEY'D MANAGED THE
WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE
OPERATORS, RECOGNIZING THAT
HAVING SOME HELP LIKE WITH
LEHIGH AS AN EXAMPLE, IS VERY
HELPFUL WITHIN THE FACE
INSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE THE STAFF TO MONITOR IT
THEMSELVES, BUT THEY ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE VALUE TO THE
COMMUNITY, AND I'VE HEARD OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, SOME OF THE
BEST THINGS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN
DONE BY THE FAITH INSTITUTION
CONGREGATIONS ARE TO EXTEND THE
PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO BE ON
THEIR PROPERTY.
I THINK THERE IS MORE SUPPORT
FOR THIS THAN WE HAVE SEEN IN
THE PAST.
I HOPE WE CAN PULL THIS ALL
TOGETHER STRATEGICALLY, AND
THEN ALSO MAKE IT FASTER TO
PERMIT, AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
>> I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON AN
ITEM YOU RAISED, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
THE EXECUTIVE PROVIDED
RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS RAISED LAST TIME WITH
REGARDS TO THE RATIONALE FOR
WANTING TO RELOCATE SOME OF
THESE LOCATIONS.
WHEN JASON JOHNSON PRESENTED,
HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE
HIGHER COST, OR SOME
PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES AT
NORTHLAKE VILLAGE.
THE ACTUAL COST PER TINY HOME
FROM NORTHLAKE VILLAGE IS
ROUGHLY IN LINE WITH THE OTHER
SANCTIONING COMMENTS OR TINY
HOME VILLAGES WE HAVE.
IT'S NOT GROSSLY OUT OF
ALIGNMENT.
FOR YOU TO SEE A DIFFERENCE IS,
AS YOU NOTED AND HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE
PREVIOUSLY, TINY HOME VILLAGES
ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN
RELOCATING, MOVING PEOPLE INTO
PERMANENT HOUSING.
MANY OF THEM HAVE AN EXIT RATE
TO PERMANENT HOUSING THAT'S
GREATER THAN 40%.
HOWEVER, WITH NORTHLAKE
VILLAGE, THAT'S ONLY AT 11%,
WHICH IS A FOURTH THE RATE OF
MOST OF THE OTHER PERMITTED
VILLAGES.
THAT'S WHAT THE EXECUTIVE
PROVIDED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR
LOOKING AT NORTHLAKE AS COMPARED
TO GEORGETOWN.
>> RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT,
JEFF.
I WOULD SAY, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS
A LOWER POTENTIAL HOUSING THAN
OTHER MORE SUCCESSFUL TINY
HOUSE VILLAGES, IT STILL BEATS
THE OUT OF LIVING ON THE
STREETS, AND I'M QUOTING ONE
OF THE TINY HOUSE RESIDENTS, BUT
DESCRIBING HOW MUCH OF A
DIFFERENCE IT MAKES, AND IT WAS
A WOMAN.
AN OLDER WOMAN WHO WAS SPEAKING.
ABOUT WHAT A LIFELINE IT HAD
BEEN FOR HER, AND WHAT A
DEVASTATING EXPERIENCE IT WAS
FOR HER TO BE IN A CAR, TO HAVE
THE CAR STOLEN, AND THEN GOING
ON THE STREET.
IT JUST MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE
IN PEOPLE'S LIVES, SO I WOULD
SAY WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE
SUCCESS RATE IN RELATION TO
WHAT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES ARE.
AND ALSO, I DO THINK THE
OVERALL COST OF THE TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES, AND THE FACT THAT
THEY HAVE PROVEN AS A LIFELINE
SHOULD NOT, IN ANY WAY BE IN
QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME
DIFFERENCES ON THE GROUND IN
TERMS OF HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES
ARE OPERATING.
I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE
AGREEMENT ON EVERY SINGLE THING
EITHER.
I HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS.
HOWEVER, I DON'T WANT OUR
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
TO RUN TINY HOUSE VILLAGES
WHILE WE HAVE THIS CRISIS, TO
BE IN ANY QUESTION OR IN
JEOPARDY WHILE THOSE OTHER
QUESTIONS ARE BEING RESOLVED.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
NICKELSVILLE IS ONLY LOOKING
FOR A PERMIT, NOT -- THERE ARE
TWO ISSUES.
ONE IS WHETHER THE CITY WILL
PERMIT THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGE
TO BE CITED, AND THE OTHER IS
CITY FUNDS, SO I THINK WE
SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE TWO THINGS
SEPARATELY IN THE CASE OF
NORTHLAKE, AND SEE HOW IT WORKS
OUT, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING,
YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED TO
DISMANTLE THIS.
WHAT ELSE WILL WE DO?
IF WE ARE GOING TO SINK COSTS
INTO DISMANTLE IT, AND THEN
INCUR GREATER EXPENSES TO SET
UP ANOTHER TINY HOUSE VILLAGE,
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE IT'S
A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY OF DOING
IT, BUT I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE
RESIDENTS.
THEY THEMSELVES WILL BE THERE
TODAY, AND I'M SURE WILL BE
SHARING, SO I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO COME TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO.
>> SURE.
I WANT TO START FIRST BY SAYING
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
LEGISLATION REGARDING TINY
HOMES WARRANTS FURTHER
DISCUSSION, AND UNFORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS WITH
CPAC, I WON'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN THAT
DISCUSSION.
BUT I THINK THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY -- COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT YOU AND I MAY HAVE HAD
DISAGREEMENTS, BUT WE COULD
HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ON THIS
EARLY ON.
I WISH YOU AND I WOULD HAVE HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE FIGURE
IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THE
$1.3 MILLION.
DEPENDING ON THE ESTIMATES, THE
SHOWBOX COST IS $1.3 MILLION.
THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 300
UNITS OF HOUSING.
THAT WAS A MISSED MHA PAYMENT
FOR $3 MILLION-$5 MILLION.
AS WE TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
HOUSING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HIGHLIGHT THE MISSED
OPPORTUNITY, AS WELL.
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO NOT
WORKING TOGETHER.
I DO THINK HIGHLIGHTING THE
ISSUE OF TINY HOMES, WARRANTS
FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I ALSO
THINK HIGHLIGHTING WHERE WE
MADE MISTAKES ALSO NEEDS TO BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO.
SHALL WE CONTINUE?
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WAS
ALMOST NOT GOING TO SAY
ANYTHING.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IT WAS
A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR.
THE SHOWBOX HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH TINY HOUSE VILLAGES.
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT ON
THAT SITE WAS NOT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR A SHELTER FOR LOW-
INCOME PEOPLE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LUXURY
UNITS.
>> KEEP GOING, PLEASE.
>> WE WILL MOVED TO THE FOURTH
ITEM.
THIS IS ON PAGE 6 OF YOUR MEMO,
OR STILL ON THE SAME SLIDE.
THIS IS RELATED TO THE START UP
COST OF REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET PROVIDES $2
MILLION IN ONE-TIME COSTS FROM
THE MEGA BLOCK SALE, TO PAY FOR
THE START UP OF THE REGIONAL
AUTHORITY ON HOMELESSNESS,
WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED
MULTIPLE TIMES IN HOMELESSNESS
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WITHIN THAT $2 MILLION, THERE
ARE APPROXIMATELY $920,000 THAT
WOULD CLEARLY BE CATEGORIZED AS
ONE-TIME START-UP COSTS, LIKE
HIRING AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM.
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM SET UP, AND
SIMILAR TYPES OF COSTS.
THERE IS ALSO APPROXIMATELY
$1.1 MILLION IN COSTS THAT ARE
NEW THAT WOULD BE ONGOING.
WAY THAT AMOUNT WAS FORMULATED,
OR I SHOULD BE CLEAR SOME OF
THOSE COSTS COULD BE PAID FOR
WITH THE BASE HUMAN SERVICES
HSI, HOMELESS STRATEGIES, AND
-- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE I RIGHT
NOW.
WITH THAT BUDGET.
THE WAY THIS ANALYSIS
FORMULATED, I WANT TO POINT
COUNCILMEMBERS ATTENTION TO.
IT NOT ONLY POINTS TO THE COST
OF HIRING AN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, BUT MULTIPLE DEPUTY
DIRECTORS, AND A DIRECTOR OF
HUMAN SERVICES.
THEY ARE NOT CLEARLY SUPPORTED
IN THE HSI BUDGET CURRENTLY.
THOUGH THIS IS VERY MUCH A
CONCEPTUAL POSITION, THE WAY
THAT WAS CALCULATED WOULD
RESULT IF THAT WAS THE STAFFING
MODEL THAT ULTIMATELY RESULTED
AT THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
YOU WOULD HAVE AN EXECUTIVE TEAM
THAT WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES PER
EMPLOYEES.
IN A TYPICAL DEPARTMENT, YOU
WOULD HAVE ONE EXECUTIVE SERIES
STAFF MEMBER FOR 48 EMPLOYEES.
IF YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE CHIEF
OF STAFF, YOU WOULD HAVE ONE
FOR EVERY 16 EMPLOYEES.
FOR FURTHER CONTEXT, HST HAS
ONE EXECUTIVE SERIES FOR EVERY
55.
THE WAY THIS METHOD WAS
CALCULATED, AND THE PRESUMPTION
ABOUT THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE
SERIES STAFF FOR NEW STAFFING
COST WOULD HAVE, AT DEPARTMENTS,
LEADS TO A QUESTION ABOUT HOW
THOSE COSTS WERE CALCULATED,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THESE ARE
COSTS BEING PAID FOR BY
SEATTLE, BY KING COUNTY.
AND THE POTENTIAL THAT SEATTLE
WOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE
THOSE RESOURCES IN AN ONGOING
WAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I WILL BE BRIEF.
THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS REGIONAL
RESPONSE FOR THE LAST SIX
MONTHS, SETTING UP THE KING
COUNTY REGIONAL HOMELESS
AUTHORITY, SO IS THIS $2
MILLION INCLUSIVE OF THE $73
MILLION THE CITY IS ALREADY
KICKING IN, AND I BELIEVE THE
CITY OR THE COUNTY WILL BE
ADDING $55 MILLION?
IS THIS INCLUSIVE OF THE 73?
>> LET ME ANSWER THAT TWO WAYS.
YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT'S
DIFFERENT.
THE $2 MILLION IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE 73.
73, 76.
ACTUALLY PROVIDING RAPID
REHOUSING CONTRACTS.
THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE.
THIS IS A ONE-TIME AMOUNT.
THE AMOUNT OF THAT $73 MILLION,
THERE IS STAFFING COSTS WITHIN
THAT.
IT'S POSSIBLE SOME OF THOSE
EXISTING STAFF COSTS COULD BE
USED, OR THE SAME AT THE COUNTY
SIDE, TOO.
BUT THIS IS SEPARATE FROM THE
FIRST YEAR COSTS.
>> I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP.
DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH THE COUNTY
WILL BE PUTTING INTO THEIR
BUDGET, OR PROPOSING FOR START-
UP COSTS?
>> THEY ARE SPLIT.
GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY $1.7 MILLION
FOR KING COUNTY.
ABOUT $2 MILLION FOR SEATTLE.
THE PRIMARY AMOUNT IS $1.3
MILLION, AND ABOUT A HALF
MILLION DOLLARS IN ONGOING RENT.
>> IT ACTUALLY ISN'T CLEAR, AS
THE ORIGINAL ENTITY, SHOULD WE
AGREE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH IT,
THAT THOSE ONGOING COSTS FOR
STAFFING WON'T ACTUALLY BE
SPLIT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
COUNTY.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS TOLD US
PRETTY CLEARLY, THERE WILL BE
AN EXPECTATION TO WORK OUT, SO
IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY COVERING
THOSE COSTS.
THEY HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT
YET, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE
BRIEFINGS WE HAD STATE PRETTY
CLEARLY AN EXPECTATION THAT
THERE WOULD BE COST-SHARING FOR
THOSE ONGOING COSTS, SO GIVEN
THAT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE A
LOT OF SENSE TO SUPPORT A
BUDGET ACTION THAT PRESUMES WE
ARE GOING TO BE FULLY FUNDING
THOSE COSTS, SO I THINK OUR
BUDGET SHOULD REFLECT OUR GOALS
FOR THAT COST-SHARING MODEL.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT
MORE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MORE
ABOUT THIS, SO TODAY, WE HAVE
AN OVERVIEW.
I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS IN KING COUNTY.
I THINK THERE WILL BE BOTH A
CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE,
POTENTIALLY, AND ALSO MORE
ENGAGEMENT WITH SOUND CITIES.
WE ARE NOT THERE YET.
THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND
THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO START
JANUARY 1. I APPRECIATE
EVERYONE HANGING IN THERE.
>> GIVEN THAT THIS IS A
NEGOTIATION, I THINK WE DON'T
PUT OURSELVES IN A VERY GOOD
NEGOTIATION POSITION IF WE
FOLEY FUND SOMETHING WE WOULD
LIKE TO FUND PARTIALLY.
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
CAN YOU CONTINUE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE
ENTIRETY OF THE POINT ON ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION.
I THINK WE CAN SWITCH TO OUR
NEXT SLIDE.
BUDGET ACTIONS PROPOSED BY
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THE FIRST WAS PROPOSED, A
$900,000 OPERATION OF A NEW
TINY HOME VILLAGE, PRESENTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S LIKELY
SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED TALKING POINTS?
>> THAT WOULD BE ME.
I THINK SHE HAS POINTED OUT THAT
LEHIGH CURRENTLY HAS TINY HOMES
READY FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED THEM,
AND THIS WOULD HELP WITH SETUP
COSTS, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT
ALREADY TODAY, THERE IS A REAL
INTEREST IN GETTING A BIGGER
PROGRAM AVAILABLE, AND I
CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTING
THIS BUDGET ITEM.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE
IS AN ERROR ONLINE WHERE IT
SAYS $495,000.
THAT'S $900,000 TO START UP AND
OPERATE IT, WHICH WOULD BE
$350,000 IN ONE-TIME COSTS FOR
APPROXIMATELY 40 TINY HOMES,
AND $530,000 IN ONGOING
OPERATIONAL COSTS.
>> IS THAT AN ANNUAL FIGURE?
>> THE $900,000 WOULD NOT BE
ANNUAL.
IT WOULD BE A ONE-TIME STARTUP.
THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING
INSTITUTE WOULD BE DONATING
WHAT I IMAGINEARE THE TINY
HOMES FROM LICTON SPRINGS.
>> WITH THE $550,000 OF
OPERATING COSTS, WHAT'S
INCLUDED?
>> THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IN LINE
WITH THE SIZE OF AN AMERICAN
KAMPMANN OR SANCTIONED
ENCAMPMENT.
THAT WOULD BE CASE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, AND OTHER TYPES OF
SUPPORT PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS
IN A TINY HOME VILLAGE.
>> DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE -- I
DON'T WANT TO JUST SAY THE
LITTLE PORTER JOHNS, BUT MANY
HAVE BROUGHT IN SHOWERS.
WE'VE PROVIDED RUNNING WATER.
IS A PART OF THE OPERATING
COSTS, AS WELL?
>> IT WOULD BE.
ALL OF THE TINY HOME VILLAGES
TO MY KNOWLEDGE PROVIDE SHOWERS
AND BASIC HYGIENE FACILITIES.
TYPICALLY, THAT IS PROVIDED BY
LEHIGH.
THEY HAVE SUBCONTRACTED OR
OBTAINED THOSE FACILITIES TO DO
THAT, SO WE CONTRACT AS A CITY
WITH LEHIGH, WHICH THEN MAKES
SURE THOSE FACILITIES ARE
PROVIDED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS A REPORT ON
SITES FOR A PALLET SHELTER OR
TINY HOME VILLAGE ASSOCIATED OR
THE ASSOCIATED COSTS OF SUCH A
LOCATION.
THIS WOULD BE A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
IT WAS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> I'VE GOT A FEW COMMENTS FOR
HER.
YOU WILL REMEMBER, LAST YEAR,
SHE BROUGHT, ONTO OUR PLAZA
DOWN HERE, WHAT A PALLET
SHELTER LOOKS LIKE, AND IT'S AN
ALTERNATIVE TO A WOODEN TINY
HOME, BUT THEY ARE LESS COSTLY
AND EASIER TO TAKE APART, AS I
UNDERSTAND, AND THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN
THE NORTHWEST THAT HAVE SOME
MODELS, SO SHE WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE AN OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE PLAN THAT WOULD BE
DEVELOPED FOR ALTERNATIVES,
INCLUDING THIS PALLET PIPE.
>> THE NEXT ITEM --
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> AS FOR THE TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES, THAT ARE BEING
OPERATED BY LEHIGH AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, THESE ARE
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND
THE LUMBER IS OBVIOUSLY BOUGHT
IN THE MARKET, BUT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TINY HOUSES
IS DONE THROUGH VOLUNTEER
EFFORTS, SO CAN YOU FIND OUT
FOR MY OFFICE HOW -- WHO ARE THE
PROVIDERS?
THESE ARE COMPANIES THAT
MANUFACTURE THESE PRODUCTS FOR
SALE?
SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT,
FLAG THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN
HAVING VOLUNTEERS, AND YOU
KNOW, SCHOOL STUDENTS, COLLEGE
STUDENTS, STUDENTS ON
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS,
BUILDING THE TINY HOUSES.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> PLEASE, CONTINUE.
>> WE ARE ON OUR THIRD ITEM,
WHICH IS $10 MILLION $800,000
$10,800,000 PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> I SPOKE ABOUT THIS.
FOR THE MOST PART, I REALLY
WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING
BECAUSE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS
I CAN GIVE ON THE TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES, I THINK HEARING FROM
THE RESIDENTS, AND THE
PROVIDERS THEMSELVES IS
EXTREMELY CRUCIAL BECAUSE THE
STORIES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
SHARING WITH US ARE EXTREMELY
COMPELLING, AND IN ORDER TO
UNDERSTAND THAT IT REALLY MAKES
A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR
LIVES, AND OF COURSE, JUST IN
TERMS OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS,
THIS IS THE ACTION RATHER THAN
SPEND $1.3 MILLION IN THE
PROPOSED BUDGET TO RELOCATE TWO
OUT OF THE VILLAGES, WE WOULD
INSTEAD REDIRECT IT, AND AND
$10.8 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF
$12 MILLION TO OPEN 20 NEW TINY
HOME VILLAGES, AND ADDITIONALLY,
ADDING A PROVISION TO ENSURE NO
NEW FUNDS ARE USED TO RELOCATE
OR SHUT DOWN EXISTING TINY
HOUSE VILLAGES, AND JUST VERY
QUICKLY, DOING A COMPARISON
BETWEEN THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGES
IN THE WAY THAT WE HAVE SET
THEM UP WITH LEHIGH AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, TO THE PALLET,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AT LEAST I
THINK PALLET IS THE NAME OF THE
COMPANY THAT IT'S LIKE XEROX.
IT'S NOW BEING USED AS THE NAME.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, PALLET IS A
FOR-PROFIT COMPANY, AND I
BELIEVE IT IS A NONUNION
COMPANY, AND I WOULD URGE
COUNCILMEMBERS TO DISCUSS WITH
PROVIDERS LIKE SHARON LEE WHO
HAVE STUDIED THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO, AND DIVERGED
SHANLEY TO GIVE US A CHART,
COMPARING THE PALLET STRUCTURES,
AND THE WOODEN STRUCTURES, THE
TINY HOMES, AND AS FAR AS I
KNOW, THE WOODEN STRUCTURES
COME OUT AHEAD IN TERMS OF
STURDINESS, SOUND INSULATION,
COST-EFFECTIVENESS, AND ALL OF
THAT.
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS AGAIN
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
$1.2 MILLION TO FUND AN
ENHANCED SHELTER FOR HOMELESS
YOUTH.
>> THIS IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN PROGRESS BECAUSE THE ISSUES
ARE DIFFICULT.
WHAT THE YOUTH SHELTERS ARE
FACING IS THE LARGER PROBLEM OF
A LACK OF FUNDS FOR OUR
HOMELESS SERVICES, AND MY OFFICE
IS IN DISCUSSION WITH THE PS Ks
BOARD TO BRING KIDS OFF THE
STREETS, AND WITH THE
LEADERSHIP OF YOUTH CARE, WHICH
IS SORT OF TAKING OVER, BUT AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, PS CARES LOST
THEIR LOCATION BECAUSE THE
PROPERTY OWNER IS DEMOLISHING
THE BUILDING, AND IT'S LEADING
TO FURTHER DISPLACEMENT.
BUT HERE IS WHY WE FEEL THIS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO LOOK
INTO.
PS Ks OPERATES 1/6 OF THE YOUTH
SHELTER BEDS IN SEATTLE.
IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT
COMPONENT OF WHAT WE WILL LOSE
IF THEY DON'T REMAIN IN
OPERATION.
ALL PILGRIMS CHRISTIAN CHURCH
ON BROADWAY HAS AGREED TO RENT
THE SPACE TO MOVE THESE SHELTER
BEDS, BUT THE MOVE ITSELF WILL
REQUIRE SOME RESOURCES, AND
KEEPING PS Ks OPEN JANUARY
ONWARDS WILL REQUIRE WORK.
PS Ks HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS
TO MERGE INTO THE ORGANIZATION,
AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO RAISE AN
ADDITIONAL $1.2 MILLION OVER
THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS TO
FULLY FUND THE MOVE AND THE
OPERATION, SO THAT FUNDING IS
STILL NEEDED, AND THAT IS
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THIS BUDGET
AMENDMENT SPEAKS TO.
AND THERE ARE ALSO
ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS IN ORDER
TO KEEP THE SHELTER BEDS OPEN
BECAUSE AT THIS MOMENT, IT'S A
LITTLE BIT UP IN THE AIR, WHICH
AGENCY WILL END UP RUNNING THEM.
BUT DESPITE THOSE CHALLENGES, I
THINK IT'S ESSENTIAL WE DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE
SEATTLE DOES NOT LOSE THIS
PLACE FOR HOMELESS YOUTH TO GO.
WITH TALKED TO THEM THEMSELVES.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED SOME OF OUR
MOST ELOQUENT TESTIMONIALS,
ESPECIALLY FOR LGBTQ, AND
TRANSGENDER YOUTH IN TERMS OF
THE KIND OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THAT HAS
NO OTHER PARALLEL, SO MY OFFICE
WILL CONTINUE DISCUSSING WITH
THE AGENCIES, TO ATTEMPT TO HELP
RESOLVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
QUESTIONS.
IN THE MEANTIME, PURSUE THIS
BUDGET ACTION TO SEE IF WE CAN
ADDRESS THE FUNDING NEEDS.
I AM HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY
INFORMATION AS WE GET IT WITH
OTHER OFFICES.
>> THANK YOU.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, DO YOU
WANT TO DIVE INTO THIS ONE?
>> YEAH, THANK YOU.
I JUST HAD AN EMERGENCY NOTICE
HERE.
LET ME GRAB HERE WHAT I HAD.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS AND SHELTER PROGRAMS,
PUBLIC RESTROOMS ARE A
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE STOCKED AT A
MINIMUM WITH TOILETS, TOILET
PAPER AND SINKS TO PROVIDE
CLEAN, STOCKED LOCATIONS FOR
THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING OUR
SHELTERS.
TOILET PAPER IS PROVIDED AS A
UTILITY, YET THERE ARE NO
PRODUCTS FOR PEOPLE
ADMINISTERING MENSTRUATION.
WHAT I HOPE TO DO AS WE'VE SEEN
WITH COMMUNITY CENTERS, USING
SHOWERS, FOOD BANKS, AND
ENHANCED SERVICES OF MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS AND PAPERS, I AM
REQUESTING FUNDING OF MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED
THIS UTILITY.
I AM REQUESTING ABOUT $58,000
TO PROVIDE WOMEN'S HYGIENE
PROJECTS FOR ALL OF OUR
SHELTERS, AND MY GOAL SUNDAY,
HOPEFULLY, IS THAT WE CAN
REMOVE THE TAXES ON THESE
PRODUCTS, AND ALSO AT SOME
POINT, MOVE TOWARDS PROVIDING
DIAPERS, AS WELL.
>> WE WERE JUST WHISPERING
ABOUT THAT OVER HERE.
>> I HEARD YOU.
>> I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT
THAT AND LET MY COLLEAGUES
RESPOND.
>> VERY EXCITED ABOUT EXPANDING.
>> I THINK YOU MADE EVERYBODY
HAPPY UP HERE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.
>> ITEM 6 IS SUPPORTING LEGAL
SERVICES FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN
WHO CURRENTLY EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS.
THIS IS SUPPORTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> JUST REALLY BRIEFLY, THIS
IS A PRETTY MODEST INVESTMENT
FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS
DOING TREMENDOUS WORK WITHIN
OUR COMMUNITY.
LEGAL COUNCIL FOR YOUTH AND
CHILDREN, WHICH PROVIDES
CRITICAL LEGAL SERVICES TO
YOUTH WHO ARE AT RISK OF
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS OR
CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
THEY WORK CLOSELY WITH OTHER
TRUSTED ORGANIZATIONS IN
COMMUNITIES SUCH AS YOU CARE TO
MEET THESE NEEDS.
WE DID IN FACT RECEIVE A LETTER
OF SUPPORT FROM YOUTH CARE ON
SEPTEMBER 16, SIGNALING THEIR
SUPPORT OF SOME ADDITIONAL, OR
SOME PUBLIC DOLLARS TO SUPPORT
ALL CYC.
IN A NUTSHELL, THEY SERVE YOUNG
PEOPLE, AGES 12 TO 24 YEARS OLD.
THEY CONNECT INDIVIDUALS TO
SERVICES THROUGH THEIR
PROGRAMMING.
YOUTH ARE ELIGIBLE -- THIS
PROGRAM PRIORITIZES MINORS,
YOUNG PEOPLE, AND YOUNG PEOPLE
WHO ARE EXITING PUBLIC SYSTEMS
OF CARE, INCLUDING INPATIENT
MENTAL HEALTH, OR SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS,
CRIMINAL JUVENILE JUSTICE
FACILITIES, AND THE CHILD
WELFARE SYSTEM.
THE ATTORNEYS PROVIDING PEOPLE
WITH ADVICE OR IN COURT
ADVOCACY, MEDIATIONS AND
NEGOTIATIONS ON THAT YOUNG
PERSON'S BEHALF. THEY ARE ABLE
TO ASSIST WITH MANY TYPES OF
CIVIL LEGAL ISSUES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
EMANCIPATION, GENDER MARKER AND
NAME CHANGES, IDENTITY THEFT,
LANDLORD-TENANT ISSUES, PUBLIC
BENEFITS, CONSUMER AND MEDICAL
DEBT, FAMILY LAW, WARRANTS,
IMMIGRATION, AND WARRANTS THE
PROTECTION.
I HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION
ABOUT LCYC, BUT MY STAFF AND MY
OFFICE HAVE MET WITH STAFF AT
LCYC AND CAME AWAY VERY
IMPRESSED WITH THE SERVICE
MODEL THEY HAVE IN THIS SPACE,
PROVIDING AND MEETING THE LEGAL
COUNCIL NEEDS FOR YOUTH AND
CHILDREN.
ENTHUSIASTICALLY, THEY SUPPORT
AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE SOME
MODEST AMOUNTS OF INVESTMENT
FROM THE CITY TO HELP THEM
CONTINUE TO DO THIS WORK.
WE KNOW ONE OF THE -- WE KNOW
WE HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATELY
LARGE NUMBER OF USE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS OR AT
RISK OF EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
I THINK THIS IS A WISE
INVESTMENT FOR US.
IT WOULD BE COMPLEMENTARY TO,
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR SOME OF THE
NOVEL INVESTMENTS WE ARE MAKING
IN OUR FAMILIES AND EDUCATION
PRESCHOOL AND PROMISE LEVY, AS
WELL.
WE HAVE ABOUT A $7 MILLION
INVESTMENT THROUGH THAT LEVY
OVER THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS THAT
ALSO SUPPORTS STUDENTS AND
THEIR FAMILIES, WHO ARE HOUSING
UNSTABLE.
THIS IS A COMPLEMENTARY EFFORT
TO MEET THE NICHE NEED OF LEGAL
SERVICES THAT MIGHT EXIST FOR
YOUTH BETWEEN THE AGES OF 12
AND 24.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BUILD
ON THAT SLIGHTLY.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
MY ALSO OR MY OFFICE ALSO HEARD
FROM LINDA WHO GAVE A THUMBS UP
TO THE INVESTMENT SAYING IT
WOULD BE MONEY WELL SPENT, AND
WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL
BE HELPED.
>> I JUST WANT TO COMMEND LCYC.
THEY'VE BEEN DOING WORK IN THIS
SPACE FOR MANY YEARS WITHOUT
ANY SORT OF REAL MEANINGFUL
INVESTMENT FROM GOVERNMENT OR
THE PUBLIC, RELYING LARGELY ON
PHILANTHROPIC DOLLARS AND
PRIVATE DONATIONS.
THIS AN ATTEMPT BY THEM TO
DIVERSIFY THEIR PORTFOLIO OF
INVESTMENTS, AND BE ABLE TO DO
THAT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THEM
TO BRING THEIR PROGRAMS TO
SCALE, AND MEET THE VERY GREAT
NEED OF THE POPULATION, SADLY.
>> VERY GOOD.
>> PLEASE, CONTINUE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT AT THE
SAME TIME BECAUSE THEY BOTH
WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO EXPAND
HOMELESS SERVICES THAT FOCUS ON
OUR ALASKAN NATIVE AND INDIAN
NATIVE POPULATIONS.
THE OTHER COMES FROM
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND
WOULD BE FOR $374,000.
THE DIFFERENCE THERE OF THE
SMALLER NUMBER WOULD SUPPORT
THE RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM,
CURRENTLY OPERATED BY CHIEF
SEATTLE CLUB, AND ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF THAT, WHEREAS THE
LARGER FIGURE WOULD ENCOMPASS
NOT ONLY RAPID REHOUSING
SERVICES, BUT OTHER
INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
SUPPORTED AT THE CHIEF SEATTLE
CLUB SUCH AS DIVERSION, A DAY
CENTER, AND HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION CENTER.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, DO YOU
WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS FIRST?
>> YES, I WOULD.
FIRST, I ALSO WANT TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IN THE
LEGAL SERVICES FOR YOUTH AND
CHILDREN WHO ARE AT-RISK OR
HOMELESS.
I KNOW THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS
BEEN A PERSISTENT ADVOCATE AS
WELL AS COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
TO HELP YOU FIND STABILITY WITH
APPROPRIATE LEGAL SERVICES.
IN REGARDS TO ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN, AND WHAT WE ARE WORKING
WITH ON THE CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB,
AMERICAN INDIANS, AS YOU KNOW,
AND ALASKAN NATIVES REMAIN
DISPROPORTIONATELY AND
NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY
HOMELESSNESS.
10% OF THE REGION'S HOMELESS
COMMUNITY ARE AMERICAN INDIANS
AND ALASKA NATIVES THROUGHOUT
OUR COMMUNITY EVEN THOUGH OUR
COMMUNITY REPRESENTS LESS THAN
1% OF THE OVERALL POPULATION.
LET ME GET TO THE GOOD NEWS.
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB HAS
DEMONSTRATED A CONSISTENT TRACK
RECORD SERVING THE NEEDS OF
NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKAN
INDIAN NATIVES.
LAST YEAR, THIS IS REALLY
AMAZING AND TRANSFORMATIONAL.
THE ENTIRE CITY OF SEATTLE
DOUBLED THE NUMBERS OF
HOMELESSNESS AMERICAN INDIANS
AND ALASKAN NATIVES MOVING INTO
PERMANENT HOUSING, SO LET ME
SAY THAT AGAIN.
THE ENTIRE CITY OF SEATTLE
DOUBLED THE NUMBERS OF
HOMELESSNESS OF AMERICAN INDIAN
AND ALASKAN NATIVES MOVING INTO
PERMANENT HOUSING.
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB HAS AN 80 %
SUCCESS RATE OF MOVING HOMELESS
HOUSE HOLDS INTO PRIVATE
HOUSING.
THE REASON I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THIS EVEN MORE PARTICULARLY AS
A NATIVE AMERICAN PERSON WHO'S
BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE MY
WHOLE LIFE, AS THIS IS
TRANSFORMATIONAL AND
SUCCESSFUL.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN OUR
CITY'S HISTORY SINCE WE BEGAN
TRACKING, AND FUNDING
CULTURALLY RELEVANT NATIVE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN
REAL SUCCESS, SO I'M VERY PROUD
OF THE CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB, THE
SEATTLE INDIAN HEALTH BOARD,
UNITED INDIANS, AND MOTHER
NATION.
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB IS FULLY
STAFFED, AND IN DEMAND FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTPACES THE
CURRENT OUTPATIENT AWARD BUDGET.
TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING INSTABILITY FOR
AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA
NATIVES, THERE IS A BUDGET
REQUEST OF $1.2 MILLION THAT
WILL GO TOWARDS RAPID
REHOUSING, WHICH COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ WILL ALSO SPEAK TO.
$374,000.
THE DAY CENTER IS ABOUT
$724,000, AND DIVERSION IS
ABOUT $58,000.
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION IS
ABOUT $72,000.
I WANT TO END ON THE NOTE THAT,
AGAIN, I AM VERY PROUD OF MY
COLLEAGUES IN THIS CITY, IN THE
LAST THREE BUDGETS,
PARTICULARLY THE LAST TWO.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHOT.
YOU HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE IN
PASSING THESE BUDGET INCREASES.
I THINK, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE
CAN ACTUALLY HAVE SUCCESS, AND
WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD WONDERFUL
PHONE CALLS FROM TRIBAL
LEADERSHIP, THANKING US, AND
SAYING HOW DID YOU DO THIS IN
AN URBAN SETTING WITH THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, OR ANY
COUNCIL THAT YOU'VE MADE THE
DELIBERATE, CONSCIOUS DECISION
TO MAKE WORK WITH A DISPLACED
POPULATION.
THAT IS WHAT MY BUDGET ASK IS.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT
YOUR $374,000?
>> IT'S INCORPORATED IN THE
FULL SUITE OF INVESTMENTS
PROPOSED AN AGENDA ITEM 6 OR
EXCUSE ME AGENDA ITEM 7 THAT
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ JUST SPOKE
TO, SO I THINK SHE DID A
SPECTACULAR JOB OF OUTLINING
WHY ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN
THIS AREA IS STRATEGICALLY WISE
FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF MAKING
SOME MEANINGFUL IMPACT FOR THIS
POPULATION IN PARTICULAR, IN
THE SPACE OF ADDRESSING HOUSING
INSTABILITY, AND HOMELESSNESS.
I ADVANCED THE RAPID REHOUSING
ASPECT NOT BECAUSE I DON'T
SUPPORT THE REST OF THE
PACKAGE, I CERTAINLY DO, BUT
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON
OUR CONVERSATIONS THAT THE
INVESTMENTS RELATED TO RAPID
REHOUSING IN THE AMOUNT OF 374,
517, IS THEIR TOP PRIORITY AS
IT RELATES TO ALL OF THESE
DIFFERENT AREAS, SO TO THE
EXTENT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE
DIFFICULT DECISIONS AS PART OF
UR ENDORSED BUDGET PROCESS, I
WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO SIGNAL
THAT OUT OF THE FOUR ITEMS THAT
THEY ARE SEEKING TO RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR, I
WANTED TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE
BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE
HAVE IN OUR COMMUNICATIONS THAT
THE RAPID REHOUSING PORTION
APPEARS TO BE THE TOP PRIORITY
FOR COLLEEN AND HER
ORGANIZATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING
THAT.
I TOO HAVE SPOKEN WITH CHIEF
SEATTLE CLUB, AND I AM VERY
IMPRESSED WITH THE WORK THEY'VE
DONE ON ALL FRONTS, BUT YOU
ALSO KNOW THAT, STARTING IN
JANUARY, THEY ARE GOING TO BE
TAKING DOWN THAT LAST DAY
CENTER.
IT'S ALL PERMITTED THERE, AND
FUNDED.
THEY ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH 82 NEW UNITS AT THEIR
LOCATION, SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO
TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEIR
GOOD WORK, I WILL BE SUPPORTING.
COLLEAGUES, WE'VE GOT SOME
DECISIONS TO MAKE HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU LOOK AT
OUR SCHEDULE FOR THIS MORNING,
WE STILL HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF
ITEMS TO DISCUSS ON OUR
HOMELESSNESS UNIT.
THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET TO THIS
MORNING.
HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK WE'RE
GOING TO GET TO IT UNLESS WE
ARE ALL LIPS DOWN WITHOUT
LUNCH, SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST
THAT, WITH YOUR APPROVAL, THAT
WE ARE GOING TO ASK -- AMY,
THANK YOU FOR SITTING THROUGH
HERE ALL MORNING, TO PUT THAT
OFF TO THE VERY FIRST LINE ITEM
AT 2:00.
THAT MEANS ALLISON, I'M GOING
TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO ALERT
EDUCATION AND EARLY LEARNING,
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, THAT THEY WILL BE
PUSHED DOWN, PROBABLY STARTING
ABOUT 3:00.
I WOULD IMAGINE IT WILL TAKE
ABOUT THAT LONG TO GET TO.
I JUST WANT TO SEE, HOW DOES
EVERYBODY FEEL ABOUT THAT?
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE
CONTINUE ON THIS UNIT TO GET
THROUGH TO ITEM NUMBER 20, SO
ALL OF YOU AT THE TABLE, IF YOU
CAN HANG WITH US FOR ANOTHER
HALF HOUR, WE CAN COME BACK AT
2:00 TO PICK UP HUMAN SERVICES.
THUMBS UP?
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
WE ARE NOW UNDER UNSHELTERED
RESPONSE.
WE WILL KICK THIS OFF.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, YOU WILL
BE THE FIRST ONE.
JEFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU
WANT TO SAY?
>> NUMBER NINE IS ADDING
$273,000 TO ADD TO POSITIONS TO
RESPOND TO HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
IN NORTH SEATTLE, AND AS YOU
MENTIONED, THIS IS
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I KNOW YOU WON'T GIVE ME A
HARD TIME ABOUT THIS, BUT IT'S
NOT JUST DISTRICT 5 PICKETS
FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
EVERYONE ABOVE THE SHIP CANAL.
I WILL BE BRIEF WITH MY
PREPARED NOTES.
I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS,
EVERY BUDGET THAT I'VE BEEN
HERE.
NORTH SEATTLE HAS DOZENS OF
UNSANCTIONED HOMES HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION
TREATMENT.
THESE ENCAMPMENT CAN POSE
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
BOTH TO THE RESIDENTS AND
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
NORTH SEATTLE ALSO HAS A NUMBER
OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND NONPROFITS
WHICH DELIVER SERVICES, BUT
WHICH DO NOT HAVE SERVICES FOR
OUTREACH.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL FOR
PROVIDING A LOT OF FUNDS FOR
OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH
ORGANIZATIONS.
THIS ACTION WOULD ADD A FIELD
COORDINATOR AND SYSTEM
NAVIGATOR SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED
TO ASSESS AND CONDUCT OUTREACH
TO RESIDENTS OF ENCAMPMENTS
WITH THE GOAL OF CONNECTING
PEOPLE TO APPROPRIATE
RESOURCES, INCLUDING
NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED SERVICES AND
HOUSING.
THE TWO POSITIONS WOULD WORK
TOGETHER TO REACH OUT AND LINK
RESIDENTS IN NEED WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED SERVICES
AND/OR CITYWIDE SERVICES AS
NEEDED.
AS WE HEARD THIS MORNING, I
UNDERSTAND THE PRIMARY GOALS,
AND THE DUALITY OF BOTH THE
FIELD COORDINATE OR AND THE
SYSTEMS NAVIGATOR, AND I AM
HOPING IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO SEE THE NAVIGATION
TEAM CONTINUE TO RESPECT AND
WORK WITH THOSE THAT WORKED
TIRELESSLY TO SHELTER THE
UNSHELTERED, SO MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS THE
FIELD COORDINATOR, THE SYSTEM
NAVIGATOR, THE 2020 BUDGET
PROVIDES, AND I WON'T GO INTO
THE WHOLE $17 MILLION, THE WHOLE
LIST, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS,
$59 MILLION WILL BE SPENT TO
PROVIDE SHELTER OR PROVIDE
HOUSING, AND I DON'T SEE A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION DEDICATED
TO THE NORTH END MAC.
WHAT I AM MAINLY CONCERNED
ABOUT, AND NOW I WILL GET
DISTRICT SPECIFIC IS DISTRICT 5
IS CURRENTLY THE ONLY CITY
COUNCIL DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT
HAVE A YEAR-ROUND EMERGENCY
SHELTER AVAILABLE WITHOUT
REFERRAL, SO THAT IS MY MAIN
CONCERN.
IT'S THE CONCERN THAT I'VE
BROUGHT IN EVERY YEAR FOR THE
LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
HOWEVER LONG I'VE BEEN HERE.
THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THIS
PROPOSED ADDITION OF TWO NEW
POSITIONS, WHICH WOULD BE YET
ANOTHER EXPANSION OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE ISSUES THAT I KNOW WE
ARE GOING TO DISCUSS HERE A
LITTLE BIT MORE, AND THE ISSUES
WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER
TODAY THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD WAS FLAGGING WITH
REGARD TO THE CITY AUDITOR'S
SYSTEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO
STRIVE FOR CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT, AND SO I GUESS, I
AM WONDERING WHY WE NEED TO BE
FURTHER EXPANDING THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IN THAT
CONTEXT, AS OPPOSED TO, FOR
EXAMPLE, HIRING EXISTING
NAVIGATION TEAM AS IS
CONSTITUTED AND PRIORITIZE
RESOURCES, AS SUGGESTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE BODIES
NOW.
IF THEY ARE NOT DOING WORK
EQUITABLY AND ENOUGH, WHAT
PREVENTS THE CITY COUNCIL, IF
ANYTHING, FROM DIRECTING
RESOURCES ACCORDINGLY WITHIN
THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT?
WHY DO WE NEED AN EXPANSION?
WHY CAN'T WE JUST DIRECT THE
TEAM TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF
NORTH END AS ARTICULATED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU.
CAN I TAKE A CRACK AT THIS?
I THINK IT'S THE PERENNIAL
ISSUE THAT WE HAVE CONTINUALLY
-- IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH THE
NAVIGATION TEAM AND SERVICES
POSITIVELY, BUT AGAIN, I THINK
WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO THINGS.
A PERENNIAL ISSUE, WHERE WE
CONTINUE TO ASK FOR RESOURCES,
AND THEY ARE NOT BEING MET.
I DON'T IS A GOOD USE OF A
COUNCILMEMBER'S TIME COMING
ME, TO BE OUT IN ENCAMPMENTS
THAT ARE UNSANCTIONED, HELPING
REMOVE RVs, OR ANY OF THESE
OTHER PLACES THAT WE HAVE
PHYSICALLY HAD TO GO OUT,
INCLUDING ON AURORA.
WHAT I CLEARLY HEAR FROM THE
NAVIGATION TEAM WHICH WERE
PHENOMENALLY RESPONSIVE.
I WOULD CALL THEM AND THEY
WOULD CALL ME.
THERE ARE A LOT MORE
UNSANCTIONED OR THERE HAS BEEN
AN INCREASE IN UNSANCTIONED
CAMPS IN THE NORTH END, WHERE
THEY ARE JUST BEING IGNORED.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE HEARING NOT
JUST FROM CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE
CONCERNED, BUT FROM OUR SERVICE
PROVIDERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF
AURORA, THE EAST SIDE OF
AURORA, LAKE CITY WAY,
NORTHGATE, MIDDLEBROOK, AND I
THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS AN
EXPANSION OF PEOPLE MOVING
NORTH, AND A LACK OF RESOURCES,
AND I THINK MORE TELLING, AND
WHAT CONCERNS ME WITH OUR
DISTRICT IS GOING OUT TO AN
ENCAMPMENT WITH 27 TENTS OFF OF
I-5, AND WORKING WITH THE
NAVIGATION TEAM AGAIN, TO
UNDERSCORE FROM ME, FROM A
PERSONAL AND ELECTED POSITION,
THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES IN THE NORTH END.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ONE
POSITION OR TWO, BUT I DO HAVE
TO HIGHLIGHT, AND FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, THERE IS A NEED.
I AM OPEN FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT
THE COST OF THAT.
LOOKING AT THE AUDITOR'S REPORT
AGAIN, BUT AS AN ELECTED IN
DISTRICT 5, I FEEL IT'S MY
RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE WHAT I AM
EXPERIENCING, PARTICULARLY WHEN
I TALKED TO AURORA COMMONS,
NORTH HELPLINE.
THAT'S THE STATE OF WHERE WE
ARE AT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ IS COMING
FROM ON THIS.
THERE IS REALLY USEFUL
INFORMATION IN A LATE-BREAKING
MEMO THAT SENIOR DEPUTY MAYOR
MIKE LONG SENT TO US.
IT'S A JOINT MEMO FROM SEVERAL
DEPARTMENTS. THE LAST COUPLE
ATTACHMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS MEMO HAS SORT OF A HEAT
MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IS GOING.
AND GEOGRAPHICALLY SPEAKING
ACROSS THE CITY, AND THERE IS A
LOT OF FREQUENCY OF VISITS.
I HAVE BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR THE
USE OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM, NOT
TO BE COMPLAINT DRIVEN.
THE AREAS THAT GET THE MOST
COMPLAINTS HAVE THE LOUDEST
VOICES, ARE THE ONES WHERE
THERE IS A RESPONSE, BUT THAT
WORK BEING DRIVEN BY AN
ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES AT
THAT LOCATION, SO I AM A LITTLE
CONCERNED THAT A GEOGRAPHIC
FOCUS MIGHT RUN COUNTER TO THE
EQUITABLE WAY, AND OUR GOAL IS
TO FOCUS ON HARM REDUCTION.
WE DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED
SERVICES TO DO NAVIGATION TEAM
WORK, AND THAT'S WHY THAT WORK
HAS REALLY BEEN GROUNDED IN
FOCUSING LIMITED RESOURCES ON
AREAS THAT HAVE THE GREATEST
NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO BOTH THE
FOLKS LIVING IN THOSE
ENCAMPMENTS, AND IN THE AREAS
SURROUNDING THOSE ENCAMPMENTS.
I WANT TO WORK WITH
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ ON HER
ACCOMPLISHMENT, BUT I AM
CONCERNED IF WE LOOK AT A
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, WE ARE
REALLY GOING TO TURN THIS WHOLE
BODY OF WORK INTO ONE THAT IS
DRIVEN BY WHAT LOCATIONS ARE
GETTING THE MOST COMPLAINTS
RATHER THAN CREATING THE
LARGEST ACTUAL OBJECTIVE
PROBLEMS.
>> I THINK THAT'S WELL STATED.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I THINK I SHARE THAT
SENTIMENT.
I THINK IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
FIND BALANCE HERE.
I DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ'S
DESCRIPTION OF THE SORT OF
GENERAL LACK OF SERVICES, IN A
SERVICE DESSERT THAT EXISTS IN
NORTH SEATTLE.
I AM ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THAT
CONCEPT, AND WITH THE REALITIES
OF THAT BEING TRUE.
I THINK THE POINT IS, YOU KNOW,
SORT OF, WHAT ARE -- I HAVE TWO
THINGS I REALLY WANT TO GET
CLARIFICATION AROUND.
AS A MATTER OF POLICY IN THIS
BUDGET PROCESS, DOES IT MAKE
SENSE FOR US, IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE OVERARCHING CONVERSATION WE
ARE HAVING ABOUT THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, TO ONCE AGAIN GO DOWN THE
PATH OF EXPANDING IT BY ADDING
TWO FULL-TIME POSITIONS?
THAT'S ONE OVERARCHING
QUESTION.
I THINK WE AND OUR OVERSIGHT
WILL CONTINUE TO ASK DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS AROUND, WHAT IS THE
THEORY OF CHANGE? IS IT REALLY
JUST FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT
CLEANING UP ENCAMPMENTS, AND
DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND PUBLIC ISSUES THEY CAUSE
DEVOID OF ANY MEANINGFUL ACCESS
TO OUTREACH, AND CONNECTION TO
SERVICES?
OR IS IT REALLY MORE ABOUT THE
SERVICES PORTION?
I HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS ABOUT
WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION IS, BUT SETTING THAT
ASIDE, I THINK THE QUESTION IS
STILL, THE POINT IS WE ARE
STILL TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT
IN A DATA-DRIVEN, EVIDENCE-
BASED MANNER, AND SO I HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT EXPANDING THE
NAVIGATION TEAM YET AGAIN
WITHOUT CLEAR ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS.
THAT'S ONE POINT.
THAT LEADS TO THE SECOND POINT,
WHICH I THINK IS BEING RAISED
BY COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WHICH
IS, IF WE ANSWER NO TO THE
FIRST QUESTION, BUT WE THINK,
MAYBE, THERE IS SOME VALUE TO
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, WHAT CRITERIA
ARE WE USING TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT
JUSTIFIES A GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS,
AS OPPOSED TO THE OBJECTIVE
CRITERIA AROUND THE SEVERITY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUES, AND THE NEED TO DO
OUTREACH, AND OFFER SERVICES IN
A PARTICULAR LOCATION.
I THINK WE NEED MORE
INFORMATION AND CONVERSATION
ABOUT THIS BEFORE I WOULD BE
WILLING TO SIGNAL SUPPORT HERE.
>> I KNOW WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT
FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
I WANT TO IDENTIFY THIS LETTER
THAT CAME FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY DEPARTMENT
HEAD HAS SIGNED ON TO THIS.
I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE THIS
CONVERSATION.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, YOU HAVE
TALKED SO ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE
THEORY OF CHANGE.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE DATA-
DRIVEN PIECE OF THIS, WE WANT,
BUT THIS IS YEAR THREE.
I BELIEVE, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING
FROM THE DEPARTMENTS, COMING
TOGETHER MORE UNIFIED THAN I'VE
SEEN IN THE PAST ON ALMOST
ANYTHING, SAYING THIS IS HOW WE
WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE
PROBLEMS.
I HOPE AS WE GO FORWARD, WE CAN
TALK TO EACH OTHER IN A
DIFFERENT WAY.
HOW CAN WE USE THESE RESOURCES
BEST?
>> I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THERE
IS CONSENSUS AMONG THE
EXECUTIVES, BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO
MAKE.
WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT, AND
SO MY POINT IS THAT I'M NOT
SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE
AS IT RELATES TO WHAT IT MEANS
WHEN YOU SAY THE PROBLEM.
I THINK THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS
FUNDAMENTALLY DESIGNED TO CLEAN
UP ENCAMPMENTS.
I THINK THAT'S REFLECTED AS
JUST THAT.
AS OPPOSED TO MEANINGFULLY
MOVING SHELTERS FOR PEOPLE
LIVING IN UNSANCTIONED
ENCAMPMENTS WHO POSE A PUBLIC
SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM,
INTO A BETTER SITUATION.
I THINK THE REASON I'M COMING
TO THAT CONCLUSION IS BECAUSE,
AS WE CONTINUE TO SEE AN
EXPANSION ON THE CLEANING SIDE
OF THIS HOUSE, WHEN I ASKED
JEFF IF THERE WAS A
COMMENSURATE INCREASE IN THIS
PROPOSED BUDGET ON OUTREACH
SERVICES DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO
THE NAVIGATION TEAM, THE ANSWER
WAS NO, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I
AM RECEIVING SIGNALS AND
INFORMATION FROM THIS PROPOSED
BUDGET THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PROBLEM WE ARE FIXING,
OR THAT THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING
BE FIXED IS CLEANUPS.
IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS, LET'S BE
TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT, AND SAY
THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
I HAVE ONGOING CONCERNS ABOUT
PRETENDING THAT THE NAVIGATION
TEAM IS ACTUALLY CONNECTING
PEOPLE TO SERVICES AND SHELTER
WHEN THE NUMBERS, IN TERMS OF
THE PERFORMANCE THAT WE HAVE
FROM THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS
DISMAL.
8% SUCCESS RATE, IF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM WAS A SERVICE
PROVIDER, THEIR CONTRACT WOULD
HAVE BEEN CANCELED AT THIS
POINT WITH AN 8% PERFORMANCE
SUCCESS RATE.
I THINK I WANT TO BE REALLY --
I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY
TRANSPARENT, AND HONEST IN OUR
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS, THAT WE ARE SEEING
CONSENSUS FROM THE EXECUTIVE
ON.
I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT
DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THE PROBLEM
IS AND A POTENTIAL SOLUTION
MIGHT BE.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> CAN I JUST --
>> SURE.
>> THIS IS JUST VERY QUICKLY.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ AND COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD FOR THEIR EXPERIENCE.
PARTICULARLY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD BECAUSE I KNOW SHE'S
BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME.
I WANT TO CLARIFY TWO THINGS.
WHAT I'VE SEEN IN MY RENT
INTERACTIONS WITH THE
NAVIGATION TEAM HASN'T ALL BEEN
COMPLAINT BASED.
WHAT I AM SEEING -- AND THIS IS
JUST ME, DEBORAH JUAREZ, IN
DISTRICT 5, WORKING WITH OUR
FOLKS.
WE HAVE SEEN WONDERFUL
CONNECTIONS OF NOT JUST
CLEANING, BUT GETTING PEOPLE
INTO SERVICES.
A LOT IS BECAUSE THIS
COUNCILMEMBER FUNDED LOCAL
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
NORTH HELPLINE, AND YOU'VE
HEARD ME RATTLE OFF ALL OF
THESE COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE TWO YEARS
AGO, THIS COUNCILMEMBER PUT
$150,000 INTO THE BUDGET TO
STUDY SOCIAL SERVICE
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NORTH.
WE WERE NOT SIDELOAD OR
DUPLICATING RESOURCES.
WHAT CAME BACK FROM THAT STUDY
BESIDES WORKING WITH
HOMELESSNESS IS THAT THE
NAVIGATION TEAM HAD WORKED WELL
WITH US.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHER
DISTRICTS.
I CERTAINLY HAVE DIFFERENT
OPINIONS ABOUT CITYWIDE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IS
CORRECT.
IT'S A BROADER POLICY QUESTION,
BUT I THINK ANECDOTAL
INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.
I DON'T THINK IT CARRIES THE
DAY, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS
CONVERSATION TO END WITH WHAT
I'VE SHARED IS EVERYTHING WE
HAVE HEARD IN THE NORTH END,
PARTICULARLY DISTRICT 5, WAS
JUST COMPLAINT BASED, AND THE
ONLY THING THE NAVIGATION TEAM
DID WAS CLEAN UP.
I CAN CATEGORICALLY SAY THAT'S
NOT THE CASE.
>> I THINK WE'VE GOT MORE
CONVERSATIONS AROUND THESE
LINES.
I WANT TO ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ IN PARTICULAR.
WHEN I AM TALKING ABOUT "THE
PROBLEM" I AM LOOKING AT
MULTIPLE PHASES, BUT FIRST AND
FOREMOST, JUST TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
OUTSIDE ARE PROVIDED THE
SERVICES THEY NEED TO BE
SHELTERED IN A WAY THAT IS
RESPECTFUL, BUT ALSO HELPS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE KNOW
THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
POSITIONS ON THE SIDEWALKS, OR
IN THE PARKS, OR ARE PROVIDING
I WOULD SAY CONTRIBUTING TO A
SENSE OF LESS THAN SAFETY IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT WE'VE GOT
TO PUT OUR ARMS AROUND THE
PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS
WELL.
THAT'S NOT IN ANY WAY TO SAY OR
BE INTERPRETED THAT I THINK
SWEEPS ARE RIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE
JUST CHASING PEOPLE AROUND, NOT
MAKING THINGS BETTER, BUT WE
HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MANY PEOPLE
NEED OUR ASSISTANCE.
THAT'S WHY THE MONEY WE ARE
LOOKING AT PUTTING FORWARD BOTH
IN TERMS OF GOOD, HEALTHY
HOUSING, OR SOME SOLUTION THAT
IS BASED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL'S
NEEDS IS GOING TO MAKE IT
BETTER.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
BEING WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM HAVE BEEN
WONDERFUL TO GO SEE HOW THEY
REACH OUT, AND TOUCH PEOPLE,
AND WHAT THEY KNOW.
IF WE THINK WE ARE NOT DOING
THE RIGHT THINGS, I WOULD
REALLY LIKE TO CONSIDER HOW WE
WANT THAT TEAM TO EVOLVE, BUT
IT TOOK US A LONG TIME TO GET
WHERE WE ARE, AND I DON'T WANT
TO THROW IT OUT.
>> I DO HAVE IDEAS WITHIN THE
MATRIX OF CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT.
IDEAS THAT HST HAS IDENTIFIED,
SO WHEN WE GET TO THE OTHER
PROPOSALS, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK
MORE ABOUT THAT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL.
BUT MAYBE, THIS IS A GOOD
DOVETAIL INTO THE QUARTERLY
CHECK INS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE
STRUGGLING WITH OUR DIFFERENT
OPINIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM.
THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, I'VE
LISTENED TO SEVERAL
PRESENTATIONS, AS MANY TEAM
MEMBERS AS POSSIBLE.
I WAS FAVORABLY IMPRESSED WITH
THE COMMITMENT, THE INDIVIDUALS
INVOLVED, THE LEADERSHIP
INVOLVED, AND THAT PROMPTED A
VERY AGGRESSIVE INVESTMENT
STRATEGY INTO THIS APPROACH.
I NEVER PERCEIVED IT AS A
CLEANUP EFFORT, PARTICULARLY
WHEN WE REQUIRE THEM TO OFFER
SHELTER FIRST BEFORE THEY TOOK
ACTION, SO I GUESS, MY QUESTION
IS, WE LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENT
PROPOSALS.
THIS IS A BIGGIE.
WE ARE SOMEWHAT ILL-EQUIPPED, I
THINK, TO KNOW THE
EFFECTIVENESS, AND I DON'T
THINK WE CAN PULL TOGETHER
ENOUGH OF A TEAM PRESENTATION.
I'M LOOKING AT THE MEMO THE
DEPUTY MAYOR PRESENTED.
WE ARE GOING TO BE ILL-EQUIPPED
TO MAKE THESE TOUGH DECISIONS
FROM COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ'S
SUGGESTION.
FROM GEOGRAPHIC PARITY TO A PER
VIZO LOOKING AT THAT APPROACH,
SO WE REALLY CAN'T GET THE
NAVIGATION TEAM HERE IN SHORT
ORDER, I'M ASSUMING, GIVEN OUR
BUDGET SCHEDULE.
>> THEY WERE HERE LAST WEEK.
>> BUT IF YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS,
I THINK WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE MORE TIME.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE HERE
FOR THAT?
>> THREE OR FOUR.
>> OKAY.
BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
>> APPARENTLY, IT DIDN'T WORK
BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE DIFFERENT
OPINIONS, AND TOUGH QUESTIONS
WERE NOT ASKED, OR WE WALKED
AROUND WITH THIS INCREDIBLE
AMBIGUITY, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE
THESE DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
I WILL JUST MOVE ON.
I WILL RESERVE OPINION ON THESE
DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT IT'S
KIND OF A FUNNY THING.
EVIDENTLY, EVERYONE SAW THE
SAME THING, BUT WALKED AWAY
WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
>> WE CAN HELP INFORM THAT
DISCUSSION.
>> WE CAN MOVE ON.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON,
ACTUALLY.
>> I'M SORRY THAT YOU WANT TO
MOVE ON.
I WANT TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS -- I
THINK THE NAVIGATION TEAM WORK
IS, IN SOME WAYS, VERY SIMPLE,
AND IN SOME WAYS CAN BE VERY
COMPLEX, AND NUANCED.
I THINK THAT IS WHERE OUR
STRINGS ARE BEING CROSSED TO
CALL UPON A GHOST BUSTER MOVIE
REFERENCE.
I'M SIGNALING MY AGE, AT THIS
POINT.
AS IT RELATES TO THE OFFER OF
SERVICES, I THINK THAT USED TO
BE TRUE THAT THE NAVIGATION
TEAM CATEGORICALLY ALWAYS HAD TO
OR MOST OFTEN FIRST OFFERED
SERVICES BEFORE DOING A
CLEANUP.
HOWEVER, THE POLICY AROUND
NAVIGATION TEAMS REALLY DID
CREATE AN EXCEPTION FOR
ANYTHING DEEMED TO BE AN
OBSTRUCTION.
WE HAVE SEEN, OVER THE LAST
YEAR OR SO, THAT THERE HAS BEEN
AN UPTICK IN THE NUMBER OF
ENCAMPMENTS THAT ARE
CATEGORIZED AS OBSTRUCTION,
WHICH THEN DO NOT REQUIRE AN
OFFER OF SERVICES BEFORE
CLEANING UNDER THE 72 HOUR
RULE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE
AREA WHERE I AM EXPRESSING
CONCERN AROUND WHETHER OR NOT
THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS TRULY
FULFILLING THE BROADER THEORY OF
CHANGE OVER OFFER SERVICES
FIRST, AND THEN DO THE CLEANUP,
SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I AM
DRAWING A NUANCE IS IN THAT
SPECIFIC BUCKET OF WORK THAT
THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS DOING
AROUND ENCAMPMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN DEEMED TO BE OBSTRUCTIONS,
WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE OFFERED
SERVICES BEFORE THE CLEANUP,
AND BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THE
NAVIGATION TEAM RESOURCES HAVE
BEEN SKEWING TOWARDS THAT TYPE
OF WORK, OBSTRUCTION, THAT'S
WHERE I GET CONCERNED ABOUT
WHETHER WE ARE EFFECTIVELY
UTILIZING THESE LIMITED
RESOURCES IN A WAY TO
MEANINGFULLY CONNECT PEOPLE TO
SHELTER.
AS OPPOSED TO MOVING PEOPLE
AROUND THE CITY.
I THINK THAT MY CONCERN IS A
GENUINE ONE THAT COMES FROM A
PLACE OF, IF WE ARE HAVING AN
UPTICK IN THOSE ENCAMPMENTS
DECLARED TO BE OBSTRUCTIONS,
AND THEREFORE WE ARE JUST DOING
CLEANUPS WITHOUT OFFERED
SERVICES, HOW MUCH OF THIS
MONEY ARE WE EFFECTIVELY USING
TO MOVE PEOPLE AROUND THE CITY
AS OPPOSED TO CONNECTING THEM
TO MEANINGFUL SERVICES, AND
OFFERING SERVICES BEFORE WE
DISRUPT THEIR EXISTING LIVING
SITUATION?
AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE
PEOPLE DOING THE WORK ARE BAD
PEOPLE.
I THINK THEY ARE DOING THE BEST
THEY CAN WITH THE RESOURCES
THEY HAVE, AND THE DIRECTION
THEY HAVE.
I THINK, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THEY ARE IN SOME WAY MEETING
THE PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC
SAFETY ISSUES CREATED AS A
RESULT OF UNSANCTIONED
ENCAMPMENTS.
I DON'T THINK I COULD GO TO THE
NEXT LEVEL AND SAY, AS A
RESULT, WE ARE MEETING THEIR
HUMAN NEEDS TO BE IN A SAFER
PLACE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
UNSANCTIONED ENCAMPMENTS DEEMED
TO BE OBSTRUCTIONS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY WHERE I'M
COMING FROM.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
CUTTING $8 MILLION?
>> YES.
WE APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBERS
GONZALEZ AND HERBOLD CLARIFYING
WHAT THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS
ACTUALLY ENDING UP DOING OVER
WHAT ITS STATED PURPOSE MIGHT
BE.
I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE,
BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE HAVE
SEEN.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A SITUATION
OF AMBIGUITY.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS SOME
KIND OF DEEP MYSTERY NONE OF US
CAN RESOLVE.
IT'S VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A PRETENSE OF
EVIDENCED-BASED APPROACH WHEN
YOU'RE COMPLETELY IGNORING THE
STARK EVIDENCE WE ARE SEEING,
WHICH IS THAT IT'S NOT WORKING.
I HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE
PROBABLY IN ONE OF OUR SELECT
COMMITTEES ON HOMELESSNESS, BUT
I WILL DO THIS AGAIN.
THE LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM
REACH ON JANUARY 16 OF THIS
YEAR MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THE
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH
SETTING UP, YOU KNOW, THE
PRINCIPLE BEHIND THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, WHICH REALLY ILLUSTRATES
THAT THE PHRASE NAVIGATION TEAM
IS REALLY JUST A EUPHEMISM.
IT'S NOT -- IT'S A TEAM THAT
CARRIES OUT SWEEPS OF HOMELESS
PEOPLE, OF HOEHMANN BEINGS.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY HAD
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT,
WHICH IS WHY THEY DISTANCED
THEMSELVES FROM THE NAVIGATION
TEAMWORK WAS THAT THERE WAS A
FOCUS ON SHELTER RATHER THAN
HOUSING.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBERS
SAYING IT'S A PROBLEM THAT THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IS INCREASINGLY
FOCUSED ON MOVING PEOPLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE OBSTRUCTIONS OR
SOMEBODY HAS SAID THAT THEY ARE
OBSTRUCTIONS, AS OPPOSED TO
OFFERING THEM SERVICES.
THAT'S BAD.
I COMPLETELY, 100% AGREE
SERVICES NEED TO BE OFFERED
BECAUSE THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.
HOWEVER, REACH'S LETTER IS
POINTING TOWARDS A DEEPER ISSUE
THERE HASN'T BEEN A DEEPER
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF, WHICH IS
THAT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO
OFFER SHELTER, AS IN HERE'S A
SHELTER, BUT FOR A FEW DAYS, GO
THERE, AND DON'T BE VISIBLE TO
THE BUSINESS OWNERS IN THIS
AREA.
THAT DOESN'T WORK.
IN MY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN
SERVICES, WE HAVE HAD RESIDENTS
AT THE ROWENA ENCAMPMENT, JUST
FOR ILLUSTRATION, TO SHOW WHY
EVEN THE BETTER AND MORE
MITIGATED SERVICE OR APPROACH
THE NAVIGATION TEAM MIGHT USE
IS PROVIDE SHELTER.
IT DOES NOT WORK.
THE RESIDENTS OF THE
ENCAMPMENT, THERE WERE THREE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY
SWEPT FROM THE SAME LOCATION,
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THEY
WILL TELL YOU THAT ONE OF THE
FIRST FEW TIMES THEY ACCEPTED
SHELTER, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK FOR
THEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUPLES
ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER.
IT'S TRAUMATIZING.
I CANNOT IMAGINE WHAT TRAUMA
THAT CAUSES, AND I DON'T THINK
IT'S ACCEPTABLE THAT IF WE ARE
NOT WILLING TO SUBJECT
OURSELVES TO THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT ACCEPT
HOMELESS PEOPLE SHOULD ACCEPT
THOSE.
THAT'S ONE PROBLEM.
THE OTHER PROBLEM IS AS THE
RESIDENTS HAVE SHOWN ON SEATTLE
CHANNEL, YOU CAN WATCH THIS,
SAID THIS INDIVIDUAL MAKES HIS
LIVING THROUGH TRADING OF SOME
KIND OF CARDS.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT, SO I DON'T
KNOW WHAT KIND, BUT HE SAID,
THE LAST TIME HE MOVED INTO A
SHELTER, HE HAD TO LOCK HIS
BELONGINGS IN A PLACE FOR
EVERYBODY ELSE PUTS THEIR
BELONGINGS, AND ALL OF HIS
BELONGINGS WERE STOLEN.
HE LOST HIS LIVELIHOOD.
HE DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO A
SHELTER.
DOES THAT MEAN HE IS A PROBLEM?
NO, IT JUST MEANS HE'S POOR,
AND HE'S UNABLE TO PAY HIS
RENT.
HE'S ACTUALLY MAKING A LIVING,
BUT JUST NOT ENOUGH TO PAY
RENT.
I THINK REACH MAKES THE POINT
THAT THE NAVIGATION TEAM'S WORK
IS FOCUSED ON SHELTER
REFERRALS, MANY OF WHICH ARE
NOT AN APPROPRIATE FIT FOR
RESIDENTS IN THE ENCAMPMENTS.
OUR STAFF HAVE BEEN TOLD TO
PROVIDE CHAUFFEUR OFFERS EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE RARELY ACCEPTED
RATHER THAN LONGER-TERM,
ALTERNATIVE HOUSING PLANS.
THIS IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE TINY
HOME VILLAGES ARE A PANACEA FOR
EVERYTHING.
THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT A
SUBSTITUTE FOR ACTUAL HOWLING,
AND PERMANENT, SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING, BUT THEIR TRANSITIONS
TO PERMANENT HOUSING ARE SO
STRONG AND SUCCESSFUL THAT
REALLY, WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING
IS, RATHER THAN PUTTING
RESOURCES IN THE NAVIGATION
TEAM, WE SHOULD BE -- OR THE SO-
CALLED SHELTER OFFERINGS, WE
SHOULD HAVE OUR CITY OF SEATTLE
STAFF, AND OTHER SERVICE
PROVIDERS, GO TO THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE HOMELESS, AND OFFER THEM
REAL OFFERS, LIKE HERE IS
SHELTER.
YOU CAN HAVE THIS TINY HOME,
AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE OTHER
SERVICES TO HELP YOU
TRANSITION.
DO I HAVE A GUARANTEE THAT
EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE OF THE
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WILL
ACCEPT IT?
OF COURSE NOT, BUT I HAVE NO
DOUBT ON MY MIND BASED ON WHAT
WE'VE HEAR FROM PROVIDERS THAT
THEY WILL MAKE A SIGNIFICANT
DENT IN THE PROBLEM, WHICH WILL
NOT BE SOLVED THROUGH A
NAVIGATION TEAM APPROACH.
THE SECOND PROBLEM REACH
HIGHLIGHTED IS INCREASED
ENFORCEMENT.
THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST
COMPELLING REASONS THEY LEFT.
THEIR STAFF EXPERIENCED
INCREASED MISTRUST FROM CLIENTS
AS THEY SAW THEIR ASSOCIATION
WITH THEM.
IN COMBINATION WITH THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE NOT OFFERING
ACTUAL ALTERNATIVES THAT WORK
FOR THE INDIVIDUALS, AND THE
ENFORCEMENT BASED APPROACH, I
DON'T THINK IT'S WORKING.
YES, THERE ARE SERVICES THAT
COULD BE PROVIDED, AND THOSE
WHO SHOULD NOT BE UNDERFUNDED
OR DEFUNDED, BUT THE PRIMARY
EXISTENCE OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM
IS FOR SWEEPING HOMELESS HUMAN
BEINGS, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS A
PROBLEM.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST A PROBLEM IN
TERMS THAT IT'S INHUMANE.
IT'S ALSO COMPLETELY
INEFFECTIVE.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ TALKED
ABOUT THE ABYSMAL NUMBERS.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.
IF THIS WAS A NONPROFIT BASED
PROGRAM, THIS PROGRAM WOULD
HAVE BEEN DEFUNDED A LONG TIME
AGO.
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
CONTINUING THIS CITY PROGRAM,
WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH
TAXPAYER RESOURCES, WHICH BY
THE WAY IS REGRESSIVE.
REGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
TAKE THIS STEP.
YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE CITY
COUNCIL ENGAGES IN THIS
DISCUSSION, AND THERE'S NO LACK
OF CLARITY.
IT'S VERY CLEAR.
THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY.
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER
THERE IS A POLITICAL WILL TO DO
THIS OR NOT.
>> NEXT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO THE
NEXT POINT, WHICH IS ITEM
NUMBER 11 FUNDS FOR THE
NAVIGATION TEAM.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> SURE.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REPLICATE
A PROVISO IN STRUCTURE THAT WE
HAD IMPOSED LAST YEAR, BUILDING
OFF OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN
DONE THIS YEAR, SO GREEN SHEET
1495, ESTABLISH A PRIVY ZO WITH
QUARTERLY REPORTING, AND THAT
THE FUNDING FOR THE NAVIGATION
TEAM WOULD BE LIFTED EACH
QUARTER, COMMENSURATE WITH THE
QUARTERLY REPORTING.
AS MENTIONED EARLIER, SEVERAL
RECOMMENDED -- ALTHOUGH THE
QUARTERLY REPORTING WAS DONE,
IT WASN'T DONE IN A WAY THAT
WAS FULL AND COMPLETE.
SPECIFIC TO THE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN NOT MET
SATISFACTORILY, SPECIFICALLY,
WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THE
REQUIREMENT TO DO A STAFFING
ASSESSMENT, STAFFING STRUCTURE
ASSESSMENT, AND THE OTHER IDEA
I THINK WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
DEVELOP THROUGH THE WORK THAT
THE EXECUTIVE HAS DONE IS THE
NAVIGATION TEAM DOES HAVE A
THEORY OF CHANGE.
THE THEORY OF CHANGE IS NOT
ONLY ABOUT CLEANING LOCATIONS.
IT'S NOT ONLY ABOUT CLEANING
AND MAINTAINING CITY PROPERTY.
THE THEORY OF CHANGE IS TO
CONNECT UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS
AT SITES TO BE CLEANED WITH
EXISTING SERVICES AND SHELTER,
BRING MORE PEOPLE INSIDE, AND
CREATE FASTER RESOLUTIONS TO
HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS.
THAT THEORY OF CHANGE IS REALLY
FOCUSED ON THE NAVIGATION
TEAM'S WORK AS IT RELATES TO
NON-OBSTRUCTION ENCAMPMENT
REMOVALS.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS NOT DEVELOPED
A THEORY OF CHANGE FOR THE
OBSTRUCTION REMOVALS, THE ONES
THAT THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO
IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT'S EITHER
ON A SIDEWALK, A PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY, OR WITHIN A PARK.
SO, THE NAVIGATION TEAM IS
AUTHORIZED TO IMMEDIATELY REMOVE
THOSE ENCAMPMENTS, AND FOR NON-
OBSTRUCTION REMOVALS, THEY ARE
THINKING OF THE THEORY OF CHANGE
AS THE CENTERING OBJECTIVE,
BOTH CLEANING LOCATIONS, AND
HELPING PEOPLE, AND THEY HAVE
DEVELOPED THROUGH THIS THEORY
OF CHANGE, STRATEGIES,
ACTIVITIES, SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES,
AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT THEY
ARE AGREEING TO REPORT ON, AND
WE'VE BEEN STARTING TO GET SOME
OF THOSE, SO THAT'S INITIALLY,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REFERRALS
TO SERVICES.
BY SERVICE CATEGORY, NUMBER OF
TIMES DIVERSION UTILIZED,
NUMBER OF CONTEXT MADE, NUMBER
OF PEOPLE CONTACTED.
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING
NOW.
THEY ARE WORKING ON DOING MORE,
AS WE'VE HEARD IN THE RECENT
WEEK.
THEY ARE WORKING NOW ON
REPORTING PERCENTAGES OF
SUCCESSFUL REFERRALS.
AND THE NUMBER OF REFERRALS TO
SHELTER, SO I PROPOSE REQUIRING
THEM TO CONTINUE REPORTING ON
THESE OUTCOMES, AND I KIND OF
WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT
ON THIS IDEA THAT WHEN
CONTRACTORS DON'T MEET THE
OUTCOMES THAT ARE DEVELOPED
THROUGH RESULTS-BASED
ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT WE DEFUND
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
THAT IS NOT THEY ARE BE A
APPROACH.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO SAY THAT.
THEY ARE BE A APPROACH IS ABOUT
CREATING A PROGRAM OF
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, AND
GIVING THE CONTRACTORS THE
OPPORTUNITY BY THE CITY WORKING
WITH THEM TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO, IT'S TRUE THAT OUTREACH
CONTRACTORS HAVE AN OUTCOME FOR
THE PERENTAGE OF REFERRALS
FROM CONTACTS OF 60%.
THERE IS INFORMATION IN THE
DEPARTMENT MEMO WE RECEIVED
THAT SHOWS THERE IS PARITY
BETWEEN WHAT THE NAVIGATION
TEAM IS DOING, AS RELATES TO
REFERRALS TO SHELTERS,
SPECIFICALLY REFERRALS, PEOPLE
SHOWING UP.
AS COMPARED TO BETWEEN THE
NAVIGATION TEAM, AND THE NON-
NAVIGATION TEAM OUTREACH
WORKERS, SO I THINK, TO ME,
THAT SHOWS THE EXECUTIVE IS
COMMITTED TO HOLDING ITSELF
INTERNALLY TO THE SAME STANDARD
WE ARE HOLDING OUTSIDE
CONTRACTORS TO, AND I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO DO THIS WORK, BUT I
DO SHARE THE CONCERN THAT I'VE
HEARD, ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS
PROCESS OF CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT TO INCLUDE OUTCOMES
FOR PEOPLE IS NOT EXTENDED TO
THE OBSTRUCTION ENCAMPMENT
REMOVALS.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WE NEED TO STRUGGLE WITH IN
THIS BUDGET CYCLE.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TIMES
THAT THE EXECUTIVE ACTUALLY
NEEDS TO MOBILIZE DEPARTMENTS,
TO MOVE ENCAMPMENTS FROM
SIDEWALKS, OR DANGEROUS ON-
RAMPS.
WE GET THESE REPORTS EVERY WEEK
THAT SHOW WHICH LOCATIONS ARE
BEING TAGGED AS OBSTRUCTIONS.
I DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY IN MY
OFFICE TO GO OUT AND CHECK TO
MAKE SURE THEY ARE BEING
PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AS
OBSTRUCTIONS.
BUT I THINK, MAYBE THAT'S THE
AREA WE WANT TO MOVE INTO, IS
FOCUSING ON GETTING REPORTING
FOR THE NON-OBSTRUCTION
NAVIGATION TEAM WORK AS
IDENTIFIED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ITSELF AS BEING WILLING TO
REPORT ON THIS PARTICULAR
MEASURES AND OUTCOMES, AND THEN
LOOKING FOR SOME MECHANISM TO
CONFIRM LOCATIONS BEING TAGGED
AS OBSTRUCTIONS DO NOT MERIT
THREE DAYS NOTICE, AND OFFERS
OF OUTREACH, REALLY SHOULD BE
GETTING THAT DEFINITION.
AND THAT LEEWAY TO ACT
IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION FOR THE IMPACTS
TO PEOPLE.
>> DO YOU SEE THAT THE ACTUAL
INTERNAL RULES ARE INEFFECTIVE,
OR INCONSISTENT?
I KNOW YOU WERE PART OF THIS, I
THINK IN THREE YEARS, WHERE WE
HAD MANY MEETINGS WITH LISA
DUGARD, PUBLIC DEFENDERS, AND
WE CAME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT ON
HOW THESE WERE GOING TO BE
HANDLED, BUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE
FACT THAT WE NEEDED TO DEAL WITH
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS, OR
OBSTRUCTIONS ON THE PUBLIC
SIDEWALK.
WHAT ARE WE MISSING, THAT NEEDS
TO HAPPEN?
>> THE DEFINITION OF
OBSTRUCTION MEANS PEOPLE'S
PERSONAL PROPERTY, COURAGE,
DEBRIS, OR OTHER OBJECTS
RELATED TO AN AND COMMENT THAT
ARE IN A CITY PARK OR PUBLIC
SIDEWALK INTERFERE WITH
PEDESTRIAN OR TRANSPORTATION
PURPOSES, PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
OR AREAS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR
OR ESSENTIAL TO THE INTENDED
USE OF A PUBLIC PROPERTY OR
FACILITY.
I THINK IT'S A VALID EXERCISE
FOR US TO ASK OURSELVES WHETHER
OR NOT THAT DEFINITION IS TOO
BROAD.
OR APPROPRIATE FOR AN EXEMPTION
TO PROPER NOTICE, AND OUTREACH
TO ENCAMPMENTS.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE
DEFINITION REQUIREMENT.
HITS SOME MECHANISM OF
OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE THAT ONCE
WE HAVE A DEFINITION THAT WE
AGREE TO THAT'S BEING APPLIED
PROPERLY.
AT ONE POINT, THE OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS WAS ACTING IN SORT
OF AN AUDITING FASHION, AND
MONITORING SOME OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM WORKED TO MAKE
SURE IT WAS BEING DONE IN A WAY
THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE
MDA ARE.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THAT.
MAYBE, THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE
WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT
THE PROPOSAL.
MY STAFF REMINDED ME, I WAS
HERE FOR THE NAP TEAM.
TOO MUCH INFORMATION OVERLOAD
ON OCTOBER 2. I DID HAVE TO
STEP OUT FOR AN HOUR.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU
ARE TRYING TO GO.
YOU WANT US TO MEASURE, INVEST,
AND HAVE SOME SERIOUS OVERSIGHT
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NOW
TEAM PROGRAM.
MY CONCERN IS IT SEEMS A LITTLE
HARSH THAT IF WE STOP FUNDING
BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THE
RESULTS, LIVES CAN BE LOST.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE PEOPLE OUT
THERE CAN SUFFER, NOT THE
DEPARTMENT'S NOT DOING WHAT WE
WANT THEM TO DO.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS
ANOTHER APPROACH THAT REQUIRES
THAT WE STILL GET THE SERVICE
WE WANT, BUT THE COUNCIL IS
JUST IN A BETTER POSITION TO BE
MORE DIRECTIVE.
IT JUST SEEMS HARSH.
I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HOLD UP
THE FUNDS BECAUSE AGAIN, LIVES
CAN BE LOST AS WE DO THAT.
>> LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY.
THIS IS WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR
IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
WE REQUIRED QUARTERLY REPORTING.
TEY DIDN'T COMPLETELY FULFILL
THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR
PROVISO, AND NO FUNDS WERE
WITHHELD.
>> CAN I ADD TO THAT?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE CONCERN
THAT YOU DO BASED ON WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR.
WE DID NOT REQUIRE COUNCIL
ACTION TO RELEASE THE FUNDS.
ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SUBMIT
THE REPORT.
>> YOU ARE TAKING IT A STEP
FURTHER.
>> I HAVEN'T.
I HAVE NOT PROPOSED THAT THE
COUNCIL PASS LEGISLATION EVERY
QUARTER TO RELEASE THE FUNDS.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMPACT
WOULD BE, IF THINGS WERE
PERFECT HERE?
AND YOUR PRIVIES OVER PAST.
HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO SOME OF
THE OTHER ISSUES HERE THAT WE
ARE GOING TO SEE COMING UP?
>> WAS I MISS READING THAT?
IT SAYS TO ADDRESS
UNSATISFACTORY RESPONSES,
COUNCIL ACTION WOULD BE REQUIRED
.
>> THAT'S AN APPROACH WE COULD
TAKE.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT WE HAVE
TO TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
TO HAVE THE MONEY BE RELEASED
EACH QUARTER.
I AM PROPOSING THAT THEY DO
QUARTERLY REPORTING BEFORE THE
FUNDS ARE RELEASED.
>> I SUSPECT THAT WAS MY
LANGUAGE DRAFTING AND SUMMARY,
AND I THINK THERE WAS A
MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART IN
TERMS OF WHAT WAS EXPECTED.
I AM THE ONE THAT PHRASED IT
THAT WAY, AND I CLEARLY DIDN'T
FOLLOW UP.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW I COULD READ
IT ANY OTHER WAY.
COUNCIL ACTION WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO RELEASE THE
FUNDING QUARTERLY.
THAT WAS THE BASIS OF MY POINTS.
I WOULD THE COUNCIL WITHHOLD
FUNDING?
>> I THINK SHE'S SAYING THAT'S
NOT HER INTENTION, SO WE CAN
LOOK AT THAT AGAIN.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
THINK YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB
THIS YEAR, AND I THINK WE
SHOULD CONTINUE IT.
I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE
WAY TO GET REPORTS THAT WE
PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T IN A TIMELY
FASHION.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE LANGUAGE,
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AS
LONG AS THEY PROVIDE THE
QUARTERLY REPORT, THEN THE
FUNDING CONTINUES, SO IF THEY
FAIL TO DO THAT IN A TIMELY
MANNER, THAT WOULD TRIGGER
SOMETHING, AND IF THERE IS
SOMETHING WE SEE IN THE REPORT,
WE CAN TAKE ACTION THEN TO
PROVISO IT IF WE DIDN'T
APPRECIATE WHAT THEY WERE
DOING.
I THINK THIS HAS SERVED US
REALLY WELL NOT JUST THE
COUNCIL BUT THE PUBLIC TO GET
THE DATA WE NEED, AND I WOULD
SUPPORT CONTINUING IT IN THAT
FASHION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> JUST A FEW THINGS, NOT
NECESSARILY DIRECTLY RELATED TO
THE PROVISO, ALTHOUGH I AGREE
WITH COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN THE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD GAVE A
GOOD EXPLANATION OF THE WHOLE
ISSUE, BUT GOING INTO THE WHOLE
QUESTION, I MEAN, THIS ITEM AND
THE PREVIOUS ITEM, THEY ARE ALL
ABOUT THE NAVIGATION TEAM, AND
WHETHER OR NOT TO CONTINUE THE
NAVIGATION TEAM, AND ALSO, I
THINK THE MEDIA HAS ENGAGED IN
OBFUSCATION.
WHEN COUNCILMEMBERS OBJECT TO
ASPECTS OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM
THAT ARE CLEARLY INHUMANE AND
INEFFECTIVE, THAT GETS
PRESENTED AS YOU ARE AGAINST
HOMELESS SERVICES.
UNFORTUNATELY, MIKE'S LONG'S
LETTER IS ALSO VERY, VERY
HEAVILY IN THAT DIRECTION.
SORT OF, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTING
THAT SOMEHOW, OPPOSING THE
NAVIGATION TEAM OR SWEEPS,
OPPOSING HOMELESS SWEEPS,
OPPOSING HOMELESS PEOPLE, I
THINK COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL
SAID LIVES WILL BE LOST.
I THINK THIS IS AN OBFUSCATION
OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING,
WHICH IS IT'S NOT WORKING FOR
HOMELESS PEOPLE, AND FOR ALL OF
THE POINTS THAT ELECTED
OFFICIALS ARE RAVING ABOUT HOW
SUPPOSEDLY HOW GOOD THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IS, I HAVE NOT
HEARD FROM A SINGLE HOMELESS
PERSON WHO SAID THE NAVIGATION
TEAM PROCESS HELPED ME.
NOW, ALL I'VE HEARD IS HOW
TRAUMATIC IT WAS BECAUSE THEY
KEEP GETTING MOVED FROM PLACE
TO PLACE.
I THINK THE QUOTE OF REFERRALS
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
YES, THEY MAKE REFERRALS, BUT A
REFERRAL IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS
ACCEPTANCE RATE.
THE REACH LETTER TELLS US, AND
TESTIMONIALS FROM HOMELESS
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SWEPT
THEMSELVES TELLS US THAT THE
REASON THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING
THE ACCEPTANCE RATE IS LOW IS
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRATIONAL
OR THEY WANT TO BE ON THE
STREETS BUT BECAUSE THE
SERVICES THAT ARE ON OFFER ARE
NOT WORKING FOR THEM.
THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAVE TO
TIE THIS TO, AS YOU SAID,
BECAUSE TINY HARRIS VILLAGES
ARE WORKING SO WELL, WE NEED TO
TIE IT TO THIS.
IMAGINE A SCENARIO IF WE HAVE A
TEAM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL
IT.
I DON'T WANT TO USE NAVIGATION
TEAM BECAUSE IT'S A EUPHEMISM
FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT
WORKING.
IMAGINE YOU HAVE A CITY OF
SEATTLE TEAM THAT GOES TO
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND
PROVIDE SOME REFERRALS TO
THINGS THAT ACTUALLY WERE
ACCEPTABLE.
THEN IT WOULD WORK.
>> AND ACTUALLY EXIST.
THEN WE WOULD ALL BE IN
AGREEMENT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO PUSH BACK ON
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE CONFUSING
THIS ISSUE.
SOMEHOW, THIS IS AGAINST HAVING
AN OBJECTION TO SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT WORKING AND IS
INHUMANE.
IT'S COMPLETELY ON ITS HEAD.
THE REFERRALS ARE NOT BEING
ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT'S NOT
WORKING.
THE OTHER THING WE SHOULD
CLARIFY IS ALL HOMELESS
SERVICES, AS FAR AS I
UNDERSTAND, CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG, HOMELESS SERVICES ARE
GENERALLY HELD TO THE STANDARD
OF TRANSITIONS TO PERMANENT
HOUSING.
BY THAT MEASURE, THE NAVIGATION
TEAM HAS A SUCCESS RATE OF
ZERO.
WE'VE ASKED THEM REPEATEDLY.
THEY HAVE NO TRANSITIONS FOR
PERMANENT HOUSING.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED.
I THINK THAT'S AN UNREALISTIC
GOAL, EVEN FOR OTHER HOMELESS
SERVICES.
BUT WE HAVE TO SEE IS, ARE THEY
PERFORMING WHATEVER SERVICE
THEY ARE?
AS IT A USEFUL ROLE IN THE
PROCESS OF TRANSITIONING PEOPLE
TO PERMANENT HOUSING?
I THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT WOULD
BE SERVICES LIKE TINY HARRIS
VILLAGES.
JUST TO ECHO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD WAS SAYING EARLIER,
THE NAVIGATION TEAM'S EFFORTS
ARE DIRECTED BY COMPLAINT BASED
MECHANISMS, AND IT SAYS
NAVIGATION TEAM IS THE CITY'S
FRONT-LINE CRISIS RESPONSE TO
THOUSANDS OF CUSTOMER REQUESTS
TO ASSIST PEOPLE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
I'M SORRY, THIS IS VERY HEAVILY
EUPHEMISTIC LANGUAGE.
IT'S MOSTLY PEOPLE COMPLAINING
THAT THERE ARE HOMELESS PEOPLE
OUT THERE.
WE HAVE TO USE RATIONAL
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS
HOMELESSNESS, INVEST IN THINGS
THAT ARE WORKING AND STOP
INVESTING IN THINGS THAT ARE
NOT WORKING.
>> THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
THEY TAKE FAR OUTWEIGHS THE
NUMBERS OF ENCAMPMENT REMOVALS
THEY DO.
THEY DO BETWEEN THREE AND 10
REMOVALS A WEEK.
A COMPLAINT APPROACH IS THE
PORTAL FOR RECEIVING
INFORMATION ABOUT LOCATIONS.
IT'S THE METHOD BY WHICH THEY
GO.
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST
THAT.
AT ANY TIME THERE ARE PROBABLY
400 DISTINCT LOCATIONS IN THE
DATABASE.
THEY NEED TO MOVE BASED ON
WHERE THEY ARE GETTING
COMPLAINTS, BUT BASED ON AN
ASSESSMENT OF WHERE THEY ARE
GETTING THOSE LOCATIONS, FOR
WHICH THEY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS
OF THOSE LOCATIONS, WHICH ONES
RISE HIGHEST IN PRIORITY
BECAUSE OF AN OBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT AROUND PUBLIC
HEALTH, AND PUBLIC HEALTH THE
CONSIDERATIONS.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
APPROACH.
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST
THAT.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE APPROACH
IS NOT, LET'S PROVIDE THEM
SERVICES THAT ARE ACTUALLY
GOING TO WORK FOR THEM.
IT IS, THIS IS WHAT'S
AVAILABLE.
ARE YOU TAKING IT OR NOT?
SIMPLY SAYING THIS MANY
REFERRALS HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT
THAT'S NOT USEFUL.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK US TO
PLEASE MOVE ON.
I THINK THERE IS SUPPORT ON THE
PROVISO, AND ON ITEM 12, WHICH
IS THE MOBILE NEEDLE EXCHANGE
PROGRAM, COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO
IS LEFT, BUT I THINK HE HAS
LEFT COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ WITH
HIS NOTES.
>> CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD THERE.
I HAVE SOME HANDOUTS, TOO FOR
THE CLERK, AND FOR MY
COLLEAGUES.
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH IN MY
DISTRICT IS PREPARED TO
DISPLACE THE SERVICE PROVIDERS
WHO RENT SPACE IN THE CHURCH.
MY HOPE IS NOT A MOBILE NEEDLE
EXCHANGE PROGRAM CAN SERVE AS A
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FINDING A
NEW FIXED SITE, AND FINALLY WE
ARE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE
EXACT COSTS, BUT I WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THIS ISSUE AS A
PRIORITY FOR ME.
THAT'S FROM COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO REPRESENTING DISTRICT
4.
>> ANY COMMENTS?
>> IF I MAY, WITH THIS PROGRAM,
WOULD IT BE RUN THROUGH OUR
SEATTLE KING COUNTY PUBLIC
HEALTH AGENCY?
>> I DO NOT KNOW.
I READ THE SCRIPT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
>> MORE INFORMATION TO COME.
I KNOW THAT THE SEATTLE KING
COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH HAS SOME
NEEDLE RELATED PROGRAMMING, AND
WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS
GOING TO BE RUN THROUGH THAT
AGENCY OR IF THIS WOULD
SENSIBLY BE A NEW LINE-OF-
BUSINESS FOR HST.
MAYBE, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF
CAN FOLLOW UP.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT.
CURRENTLY, THE NEEDLE EXCHANGE
IS HANDLED BY PUBLIC HEALTH
RATHER THAN HST DIRECTLY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS
FORMULATED WITH THAT LEVEL OF
DETAIL AT THIS STAGE.
>> THANK YOU.
VERY GOOD.
ITEM 13.
PILOT PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
OUTREACH WORKERS IN THE U-
DISTRICT.
IS THIS COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THIS ON
BEHALF OF COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO?
>> IS THIS NUMBER 13?
NOPE.
>> I HAVE 15.
>> WHO'S GOT 13?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO 13.
THIS WOULD CONTINUE A PROGRAM.
I BELIEVE THE CURRENT FUNDING
WE PROVIDED IN LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET CARRIES THROUGH A
CONTRACT WITH DIA IN BOTH
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT AND BALLARD.
THIS IS MODELED AFTER A PROGRAM
THAT THE BALLARD BIA STARTED A
FEW YEARS AGO, WHEN THEY
INDEPENDENTLY CONTRACTED WITH A
REACH WORKER TO ASSIST THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN DOING
OUTREACH.
IT'S A HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MODEL.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT SERVED
THE NEEDS WELL.
IT'S A REALLY GOOD MODEL.
THE CHAMBER AND THE MEMBERS
WERE VERY SATISFIED WITH THE
WORK THAT WAS DONE.
A LOT OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
CHAMBERS WANTED TO IMPLEMENT
SOMETHING SIMILAR.
THE CONTRACT THAT WE FUNDED IN
LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, I BELIEVE
CONTINUES THROUGH JUNE OF NEXT
YEAR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I'VE HEARD HEARD GOOD THINGS.
ANY COMMENTS?
MOVING INTO THE AND KOEMAN
TRASH PROGRAM EXPANSION.
>> I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES
AND REACH ABOUT EXPANDING THE
PURPLE BAG PROGRAM.
DOING SO WOULD UTILIZE REACH'S
EXISTING RESOURCES.
THEY FEEL THEY HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO DISTRIBUTE
ADDITIONAL BAGS.
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES IS
INTERESTED IN EXPANDING THE
LOCATIONS THAT THEY COLLECT THE
BAGS FROM.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, REACH IS
OPERATING ON A GEOGRAPHIC MODEL
WITH WORKERS IN ALL AREAS OF
THE CITY TO OFFER SERVICES TO
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS.
PART OF THE REGULAR OUTREACH,
THEY WOULD WORK WITH SPU TO
ASSIST OR ASSESS POTENTIAL
SITES FOR FEASIBILITY, HANDOUT
BAGS, AND EXPLAIN THEIR PROGRAM.
AND OF COURSE MY CONVERSATION
WITH SPU STAFF ABOUT
COLLABORATION AND EVALUATION OF
THE SITES.
SPU HAS ESTIMATED THE COST PER
LOCATION FOR PICKUP COSTS.
BUT WE'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO
FIND A MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATION
OF THE FUNDING AMOUNT THEY'VE
IDENTIFIED SO FAR BASED ON WHAT
THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 15.
I DON'T HAVE SPEAKING POINTS,
BUT HE SPOKE TO ME ABOUT IT.
>> I WILL BE SPEAKING ON
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, AND I
HAVE A HANDOUT FROM MY
COLLEAGUES, AS WELL.
NUMBER 15 IS THE 381,000
STARTUP AND OPERATION OF
OVERNIGHT ONLY PARKING LOTS.
THE INCREDIBLE FOLKS AT THE
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CENTER
REACHED OUT TO ME EARLIER THIS
YEAR WITH INTEREST IN STARTING
A SAFE LOT PILOT ON THEIR
PROPERTY.
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH THE LOW INCOME
HOUSING INSTITUTE, LEHIGH, TO
PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL.
I HAVE A DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
AND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL.
THERE HOPE WOULD BE TO START
WITH ABOUT FIVE VEHICLES AND
RAMP UP TO 2230 WITHIN THE
FIRST SIX TO 12 MONTHS.
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS HAS BEEN
DOING A VERY ROBUST OUTREACH
PROCESS TO THEIR TENANT
ORGANIZATIONS, COMMUNITY
GROUPS, THE BIA, AND
NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS, AND HAS
RECEIVED POSITIVE RESPONSES.
IN ADDITION TO THE SAFE LAW,
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AND LEHIGH
WOULD PROVIDE ON-SITE STAFFING,
A CASE MANAGER, AND IS WORKING
WITH THE LOCAL YMCA TO PROVIDE
SHOWERS AND BATHROOM
FACILITIES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY COMMENTS?
>> I THINK THIS IS GREAT THAT
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH US.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NUMBER 16, COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN?
>> THAT'S GREAT.
THIS WOULD ADD $200,000 TO FUND
THE SCOFFLAW MITIGATION
PROJECT.
JUST TO REMIND FOLKS, THIS HAS
BEEN AN ALL VOLUNTEER PROJECT
FOR CLOSE TO A DECADE NOW.
THE SCOFFLAW MITIGATION TEAM
WORKS WITH VEHICULAR RESIDENTS.
THEY GET REFERRALS FROM POLICE
AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
THEN THEY USE WHATEVER
RESOURCES THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO
RAISE PRIVATELY TO HELP FOLKS
IN SITUATIONS THAT COULD BE
SOMETIMES HELP WITH PAYING
TICKETS, PROVIDING VEHICLE
REPAIRS.
ALL WITH AN EFFORT TO
ORIGINALLY FOCUS ON ENSURING
THE VEHICLES CONTINUE TO MOVE
SO THAT THEY DON'T GET
IMPOUNDED, AND FOLKS LOSE THEIR
HOMES.
OVER THE YEARS, THE PROGRAM HAS
CONTINUED TO EXPAND TO PROVIDE
OTHER SERVICES.
IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM.
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THEY'VE
BEEN LOOKING TO FIGURE OUT HOW
THEY COULD GET CITY FUNDING TO
MAKE IT MORE ROBUST.
YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE THE PINK
HANDOUT THAT WALKS YOU THROUGH
THEIR REQUEST, THEIR BREAKDOWN
OF THE TYPES OF THINGS THEY ARE
TRYING TO DO, BUT WE WOULD LOVE
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO INCLUDE
THEM.
I KNOW THAT WE GET, YOU KNOW,
MULTIPLE REQUESTS EVERY SINGLE
DAY.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A BIG
CHALLENGE AROUND FOLKS LIVING
IN VEHICLES, AND THIS IS PART
OF THE SOLUTION.
>> ANY COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT REVEREND BILL AND JEAN
DORSEY HAVE BEEN DOING.
I WONDER HOW DOES THIS WORK?
THEY ARE A NONPROFIT.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE AN RFP
BEFORE IDENTIFYING THEM AS
BEING THE RECIPIENTS OF
$200,000.
>> I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH HIM
AND FIND OUT SOME OF THAT
INFORMATION.
THIS SHOULD BE AN RFP, AND WE
SHOULD SEE WHO IS WILLING TO
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES, AND IT
WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE WERE
MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS OUT
THERE INTERESTED IN COMPETING
TO PROVIDE THIS WORK.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IF THE SCOFFLAW MITIGATION TEAM
IS INTENDING TO SET US UP, THEY
ARE APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED.
THEY ARE ACCEPTING FUNDS TODAY,
SO I IMAGINE IF THEY ARE NOT A
501(C)(3), THEY HAVE SPONSORS,
BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD
WORK.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S SEE.
WE ARE NEXT INTO MOBILE
BATHROOM FACILITIES,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS PROPOSAL APPROPRIATES A
LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $2 MILLION
FROM THE GENERAL SUB FUND TO
DEVELOP MOBILE BATHROOMS.
A.K.A., MOBILE PITSTOPS.
$1.3 MILLION WOULD BE NEEDED
FOR ONE-TIME START-UP COSTS TO
PURCHASE AND RETROFIT FIVE
MOBILE PITSTOPS, AND ABOUT
$725,000 WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR
ONGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS TO
STAFF AND MANAGE THESE
PITSTOPS.
THIS CREATES GREATER ACCESS TO
RESTROOMS AND HYGIENE SERVICES.
AGAIN, IT IS MY EFFORTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE CITY AUDITOR.
AND THE CITY AUDITOR'S WORK
AROUND THE NAVIGATION TEAM WITH
THE IDEA THAT IF WE CAN BETTER
MANAGE THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF
THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS, THAT
WILL MITIGATE THE NEED FOR THE
WORK OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM.
THE AUDIT FOUND JUST SIX 24/7
CITY OPERATED PUBLIC TOILETS,
AND AS WE KNOW, ACCESS TO A
BATHROOM BENEFITS EVERYONE.
SAN FRANCISCO HAS BEEN VERY
SUCCESSFUL IN USING THE MOBILE
PITSTOP MODEL, AND IT ALSO HELPS
PEOPLE WHO NEED THESE SERVICES
ALSO LINK TO NEEDED CASE
MANAGEMENT.
IT CAN BE AN ENTRYWAY INTO
OTHER SERVICES.
MOBILE PITSTOPS STATIONS CAN BE
STATIONED AND GATHERING AREAS
ACROSS THE CITY, PROVIDE A COST-
EFFECTIVE ADDITION TO OUR
CURRENT EFFORTS TO INCREASE
ACCESS TO BATHROOM AND HYGIENE
CENTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
STAFFED FOR SAFETY AND
CLEANLINESS.
THE MOBILE PITSTOPS AGAIN ARE
ESTIMATED TO HAVE EACH ABOUT
$145,000 OF ONGOING COST TO
STAFF, OFFICE SUPPLIES, AND
MAINTENANCE FOR EVERY MOBILE
UNIT.
A PROPOSED OPERATING COST OF
$99,000 PER TOILET, NO SINK OR
MIRROR, AND A DIM LIGHT.
>> I WAS IN SAN FRANCISCO ABOUT
THREE YEARS AGO.
I SAW THE PITSTOPS.
THOSE ARE SOLID IN PLACE.
WHAT I APPRECIATED ABOUT THEM
WAS THAT THEY ARE SAN
FRANCISCO'S EQUIVALENT OF SPU
IDENTIFIED PLACES AND LOCATIONS
WHERE THEY NEEDED THEM MOST
BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME
úTHEY WERE USING TO CLEAN UP
WHATEVER THEY WERE CLEANING UP,
BUT THEN THEY ALSO ADDED THESE
MOBILE STATIONS, AND JUST AS
YOU ARE SAYING, TAKING THEM TO
THE PLACES WHERE THEY NEED TO
BE, AND I'M HEARING NOTHING BUT
GOOD THINGS FROM SAN FRANCISCO
EVEN THOUGH IT'S COSTLY.
WE'VE GOT TO DO THIS.
>> THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY AUDITOR RELATED TO THE
CITY NAVIGATION TEAMWORK.
A LOT OF THAT IS DRIVEN BY THE
PUBLIC AND HEALTH CONDITIONS OF
OUTDOOR UNSANCTIONED
ENCAMPMENTS.
IF WE CAN INCREASE ACCESS TO
HYGIENE FACILITIES AT THESE
LOCATIONS, IT WILL HOPEFULLY
REDUCE THOSE PUBLIC SAFETY
CONDITIONS THAT LEAD TO
ENCAMPMENT IDENTIFICATION AS
PRIORITIES.
>> I LIKE THIS.
IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR THE CITY.
FOR THOSE THAT NEED FACILITIES,
AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE
SOMETIMES OFFENDED BY WASTE AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, SO I LIKE THE
IDEA.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS CITY
PROCESS.
NOT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING
BECAUSE I LIKE IT, BUT WHY IS
THIS GENERATED FROM THE
COUNCIL?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD
HAVE THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE
THE EXPERTISE TO GO OUT THERE,
AND LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT RFPs,
THE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES, THE
DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS, AND THAT
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EMBEDDED
IN THE BUDGET.
I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED WHEN
IDEAS LIKE THIS, AND WE'VE HAD
SOME MISSTEPS IN THE LAST 10 OR
15 YEARS ON BATHROOMS OF
COURSE, WHEN THEY ARE GENERATED
FROM THE COUNCIL THAT WHY,
DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR
-- I KNOW THE AUDITOR DID COME
BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT
TO ME, THE LARGER ISSUE IS AS A
COUNCIL, AS POLICY, THIS
WARRANTS LOOKING AT SPECIFIC
SOLUTIONS.
WE HAVE DEPARTMENTS THAT SHOULD
BE TELLING US THIS IS EXACTLY
HOW YOU ADDRESS THE HYGIENE
MATTER IN THE CITY.
I AM ASSUMING A LOT OF THIS IS
NOT ONLY COMING FROM THE
AUDITOR, BUT WE ARE GETTING
FEEDBACK SAYING THIS IS A GREAT
ROUTE TO DO.
THE CLIENT IS NOT HERE.
>> PERHAPS, IT WOULD BE USEFUL
TO SHARE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS,
THE EXECUTIVE RESPONSE TO THE
AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT
RELATES TO INCREASED ACCESS TO
HYGIENE FACILITIES?
>> SURE.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE WITH ME
CURRENTLY.
>> WHAT'S THE NET OF IT?
JUST NOT IN THIS BUDGET?
THERE'S NO INCREASE TO SERVICES
EXCEPT WHAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED.
>> MY ROUGH RECOLLECTION IS
THEY FELT THAT RECOMMENDATION
-- THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY
AUDITOR WAS TO FOCUS ON THE
WORK OF A NAVIGATION TEAM.
THE RESPONSE FROM HST IS, MY
RECOLLECTION WAS THAT
RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND HYGIENE
WAS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE
REVIEW OF THE NAVIGATION TEAM
ACTIVITIES, SO THERE WAS I THINK
A DISAGREEMENT, OR LACK OF
ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
AUDITOR, AND THE DEPARTMENTS OF
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A LINK
OF A PROVISION OF HYGIENE
SERVICES.
>> I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD LADE WHOLE THING OUT.
I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THOSE
POINTS, BUT WANT TO SAY I AGREE
WITH THOSE POINTS.
AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, IS
TECHNICALLY BOTH ITEMS ARE
CORRECT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S
DIFFERENT, BUT NEEDLESS TO SAY,
I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT ITEM 17.
>> NUMBER 19 IS SOMETHING
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND I
BOTH SHARE.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT?
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE BEEN VERY
APPRECIATIVE OF PARKS, FOR
OPENING UP THEIR FACILITIES
WHERE THEY ARE THERE ARE
SWIMMING POOLS.
WAS ASKED TO INCREASE THOSE
NUMBERS TO OTHERS WHERE THEY
ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING
OFFERED.
MEADOW BROOK, MILLER, --
>> IT'S JUST MEADOW BROOK,
ACTUALLY.
>> I THOUGHT WE HAD THREE?
>> WE HAVE FOUR EXISTING.
DELRIDGE, RAINIER BEACH, GREEN
LAKE, AND MILLER.
>> WE ASKED TO EXPAND THAT.
PARKS SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO.
WE WILL SEE WHERE IT GOES.
I SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT THE
LAUNDRY SERVICE.
I THINK THAT'S OVERKILL AT THIS
POINT, THAT WE HAVE SOME
AVAILABLE DISPOSABLE
COMPOSTABLE TOWELS THAT PEOPLE
CAN USE.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT THING
FOR THEM FOR THEM TO OPEN UP
FACILITIES, AND WE ARE ALREADY
PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED
THEM.
>> WE ARE JUST HAVING ONE LEFT,
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
REALLY LOVELY LUNCH OF 44
MINUTES.
FUNDING TO EXPAND CLEANING OF
RESTROOMS AND CITY PARKS.
SEEMS LIKE A NO-BRAINER.
ANYTHING THAT WE NEED?
>> I DON'T NEED TO ADD ANYTHING.
>> ALL RIGHT, 44 MINUTES.
I HOPE EVERYONE WILL BE BACK
STARTING AT 2:00 WITH HUMAN
SERVICES.
TEAM AT THE TABLE, THANK YOU.
YOU'VE BEEN STUNNING.
ALL OF MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD
ALL OF YOUR IDEAS AT THIS
POINT.
WE ARE AT RECESS.