Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 10/17/19 Session I


>>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, IWANTED 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *