>>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON
EVERYONE. TODAY IS DECEMBER 8,
2025. THIS IS THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL BRIEFING MEETING WILL
COME TO ORDER AND THE TIME IS
2:03. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LIN.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIV ERA.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> HERE.
>> AND COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON.
>> HERE.
>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION THE
MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING
NONE, THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT, WE HAVE TWO
PRESENTATIONS FROM CENTRAL
STAFF. ONE ON AMENDS TO THE
STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND THE
OTHER ON IS SPMA AND CONTRACT.
ON TOMORROW NIGHT'S AGENDA
MEETING THERE ARE 59 ITEMS. I
WILL READ THE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT IS IN ADDITION
TO 26. HERE ARE THE ITEMS ON THE
IRC. COUNCIL BILL 127-106. AN
ORDNANCE THAT GOT APPROPRIATION.
PAYMENT OF THE BILLS. RESOLUTION
32187. WHICH ESTABLISHES THE
CITY'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
COUNCIL BILL 121-41, AN ORDNANCE
TO THE CIVIL SYSTEM. 121-142 AN
ORDNANCE ESTABLISHING THE
DEFERRED ANALYST CLASSIFICATION
SERIES. COUNCIL BILL 121-143 AN
ORDNANCE INTER RIM REGULATION
FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS. COUNCIL
BILL 121-119 BOTH ORDNANCE
RELATING. COUNCIL BILL 121-137,
AMENDED LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
FUNDING PLAN FOR SOUTH LAKE
UNION AND DOWNTOWN. AND COUNCIL
BILL 121-138 AN ORDNANCE
ALLOWING SPU ORDNANCE MANAGER TO
ACQUIRE A PARCEL OF LAND IN
SEATTLE. THERE WE HAVE IT.
LET'S SEE, OTHERWISE THERE ARE
49 APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND
THEN, ON TOMORROW'S CONSENT
CALENDAR. THERE ARE 26 ITEMS ALL
OF WHICH ARE APPOINTMENTS. OKAY.
SO, NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR
FIRST PRESENTATION ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. WHY DON'T
YOU COME ON UP TO THE TABLE,
PLEASE. AND INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE
THAT, AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS, AS
YOU LISTEN TO THE, TO CENTRAL
STAFF ANALYST CARINA BOLS
PRESENTATION. PLEASE REMEMBER
THE GROUND BREAKING COMMISSION
OIR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE AND COUNCIL WAS
ABLE TO MAKE LAST YEAR FOR THE
2025 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. WHICH
WAS TO RENDER WHAT HAD BEEN A
MULTIPAGE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS A
LIST OF ALL THESE WONDERFUL
THINGS, SOME OF WHICH CHANGED
YEAR TO YEAR. OTHERS THAT
DIDN'T. INTO A TWO PAGE
DOCUMENT. AND I AM, I CONTINUE
TO HAMMER ON THIS BECAUSE WHEN
YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THE PLACE OF
A LEGISLATOR OR A STAFFER IN
OLYMPIA, THINK ABOUT YOUR
ATTENTION SPAN. THOSE MINUTES,
THOSE MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED IN
15 MINUTE INCREMENTS. AND IT
SERVES US WELL TO PRESENT THE
OUR PRIORITIES IN A WAY THAT CAN
BE DIGESTED EASILY AND
REMEMBERED AND ACCESSED. HERE IS
TODAY'S, THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
LEGISLATE I AGENDA. PLEASE
EXCUSE THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE
MY NOTES AND HIGHLIGHTS. HERE IS
THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR 2023.
LET'S SEE, IT'S GOT. I THINK
IT HAS, 15 PAGES. AND IT'S ALL
SINGLE SPACED. SO, THE SAME
THING FOR 2024, AND SO, I
ABSTAIN BECAUSE, I, I AGREED
WITH MUCH OF OUR LEGISLATIVE
AGENDA AND NOT ALL OF IT SO
THEREFOR I ABSTAINED. SO, LET'S
GO, I THINK THERE'S SOME
AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS A GOAL
THAT WE WANT TO MAINTAIN OUR
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IN A FORMAT
THAT IS USABLE. SO THINK ABOUT
THAT AS WE'RE LISTENING. OKAY.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND
BEGIN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS CARINA BOLL FOR COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF. TOMORROW AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING THERE WILL BE AN
AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE CITY
STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND
ATTACHED TO THAT LEGISLATIVE
AGENDA IS THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT
THAT LISTS ALL OF THE CITY'S
PRIORITIES. THERE'S ABOUT 26 OF
THEM IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THE
OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS DRAFTED. AND HERE
TODAY, I'M GOING TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL OVERVIEWS OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO THAT DOCUMENT
WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY DOUBLE
THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA. THE
FIRST ONE IS AMENDMENT A.
THERE'S A TABLE OF CONTEXT THAT
YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. THE
FIRST ONE IS AMENDMENT A WHICH
IS SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
LIN. IT WOULD MAKE A TOTAL OF 7
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA. SIX NEW
ITEMS AND ONE REVISION TO AN
EXISTING ITEM. AND HERE IS A
BRIEF OF THEM. PROTECTION FOR
LGBTQ PLUS YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES
AND OPPOSITION TO ANTI
TRANSGENDER EFFORTS. IT WOULD
ADD THREE NEW PRIORITIES TO
SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
OPTIONS. EXPAND TAX RELIEF TO
LOWER INCOME FAMILIES AND
SENIORS AND SUPPORT A GUARANTEED
BASIC INCOME PILOT AND ALSO
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO SIMPLIFY AND
CREATE A UNIVERSAL APPLICATION
FOR INCOME QUALIFIED BENEFITS
AND RELIEF. UNDER THE HOUSING
AND HOMELESSNESS SECTION, THE
AMENDMENT WOULD SUPPORT
COMPLIANCE WITH GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT, HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS AND STRENGTHEN ANTI
DISPLACEMENT TOOLS. UNDER THE
PUBLIC SAFETY, IT WOULD SUPPORT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. AND
THEN COUNCIL MEMBER, LIN, IF HE
HAS ANYTHING MORE TO SAY.
>> YES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU PRESIDENT NELSON.
YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE
CHANGE WHICH WOULD BE TO STRIKE
UNDER HOUSING AND HOMELESS, THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ADDITION
THERE. IT'S BASICALLY LARGELY
BEN ADDRESSED BY A BILL THAT --
BEEN ADDRESSED BY A BILL THAT
WAS PASSED LAST YEAR BY SENATOR
BATEMAN. I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF AMENDS. I WOULD LIKE TO
STRIKE THAT FROM THE AMENDMENT.
AND THEN, SHOULD I SAY A FEW
WORDS IN GENERAL ABOUT.
>> YES, GO AHEAD. THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I JUST
WANT TO TOUCH QUICKLY ON THE
AFFORDABILITY PORTION.
SUPPORTING PROGRESSIVE REVENUES.
WE I THINK WE ALL KNOW THERE'S A
LARGE DEFICIT AT THE STATE
LEVEL. THE LARGEST NUMBER ONE
ISSUE I HEARD OVER THE PAST 10
MONTHS WAS THE NEED TO, FIX OUR
UPSIDE DOWN TAX CODE TO TAX THE
WEALTHIEST IN OUR COMMUNITY TO
PAY FOR OUR CENTRAL NEEDS. AND
IN CORE AREAS TO REDUCE THE
BURDEN ON OUR WORKING FAMILIES.
AND SO, THESE ADDITIONS ABOUT
SUPPORTING PROGRESSIVE ACTION
THAT TAX THE WEALTHIEST IN OUR
COMMUNITY. LIKE THE PROPERTY
TAX. I WOULD LOVE YOUR SUPPORT,
THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE,
THE BREAK FOR SENIORS. DO YOU
KNOW WHAT THE, THE INCOME LEVEL
OR THE FIXED INCOME LEVEL IS
RIGHT NOW?
>> THERE'S DIFFERENT LEVELS.
SO, AT THE LOWEST INCOME LEVEL
YOU SORT OF, YOU CAN GET A, A
BIGGER EXEMPTION. SO I DON'T
HAVE THE EXACT LEVELS. I DO KNOW
JUST, AND THANKFULLY WE HAVE
BEEN IN MORE RECENT LEVEES
EXEMPTING PEOPLE WHO QUALIFY
FROM THE ADDITIONAL INCREASE
FROM LEVEES. I THINK WE'VE ALL
HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT WHEN WE'RE
GOING TO UP ZONE THE POTENTIAL
CONCERNS THERE ABOUT HIGHEST AND
BEST USE. WOULD LOVE TO EXPLORE
THE POSSIBILITY OF POTENTIALLY
HAVING SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE
AND LEGACY HOMEOWNERS WHO MIGHT
BE IMPACTED. THAT WAS THE UP
TRUST OF THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING
SENSITIVE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE
THAT'S SOMETHING I COMPLAIN
ABOUT EVERY TIME WE APPROVE A
LEVY LEFT. IT'S ONLY FOR
SENIORS BUT NOT FOR EVERYBODY ON
A FIXED INCOME RIGHT?
>> YES, LOW INCOME SENIORS, VETS
AND FOLKS WITH DISABILITIES.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, SO, WE
SPOKE I THINK IT WAS COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVERA WHICH BROUGHT UP
WHO BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT
IT'S A SHORT SESSION. AND, I
DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A POLICY
GOAL OF OIR STAFF TO REALLY
FOCUS ON BILLS THAT HAD BEEN
BROUGHT FORWARD LAST YEAR OR
THIS YEAR. AT THIS YEAR'S
SESSION. AS YOU'RE GOING
THROUGH THESE. IF YOU HAPPEN TO
KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD
AND I SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT
I WANTED TO KNOW THIS BEFORE.
BUT IF I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU
THAT SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS DO
BRING BACK LEGISLATION THAT
DIDN'T PROCEED TO A CERTAIN
LEVEL OR WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL FOR ME TO KNOW.
>> I ACTUALLY DID COMPILE THAT
LIST BUT I DIDN'T BRING IT WITH
ME TO THE TABLE. SO I CAN FOLLOW
WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING AND
LET YOU KNOW. I CAN ADD THAT TO
YOU COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA AS
WELL.
>> READY FOR THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
IT IS AMENDMENT B.
>> SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION. NOT
PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IDEA BUT OF THE ISSUE
OF LIKE, I HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS.
ONE IS, BASICALLY A PUBLIC
SAFETY ONE. A LITTLE BIT OF A
REORDERING AND A COUPLE OF
BULLETS. THEN SEPARATELY, I HAVE
A SEPARATE ONE. WE HAVE A NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE A
COMBINATION. SO WHEN, THERE'S
THREE RELATED TO REVENUE. IF I
SUPPORT ONE, AND THEY'RE KIND
OF, POTENTIALLY IN CONFLICT OF
EACH OTHER. IF I SUPPORT ONE,
THEN I WANT TO VOTE NO AGAINST
THE OTHER TWO. IF WE'RE VOTING
NO ON THE REST OF THE RE KNEW
PIECES THEN I'M TAKING OUT THE
ENTIRE PIECE TO INCLUDE MAYBE
PUBLIC SAFETY. I WAS JUST
CURIOUS ABOUT HAVING A
MULTITOPIC AMENDMENT VERSUS
HAVING, YOU KNOW THOSE BY
SUBJECT AREA. SO THAT'S, I USE
THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW IN
TERMS OF, YOU KNOW WHERE THAT
COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
>> YEAH. SO, IT'S COUNCIL
MEMBERS PREROGATIVE WHETHER OR
NOT TO HAVE MULL MULTIPLE
SUBJECTS IN THE AMENDS AND TO
PULL THEM OUT. JUST AMENDMENTS
UNDER CERTAIN GROUP SETTINGS.
THERE ARE SOME OF THESE THAT
HAVE MULTIPLE CHANGES UNDER
MULTIPLE SUBJECT HEADINGS. MY
READ IS NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER OR ARE
COMPETING. THERE ARE SOME THAT
ARE, REDUNDANT. THEY MAY FRAME
AN ISSUE IN A DIFFERENT WAY BUT
THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATIVE TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD BE ONE OR
THE OTHER. I THINK TO YOUR LAST
POINT. IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT
THAT TRIES TO ACCOMPLISH MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS AND IF THERE'S
ONE PIECE THAT MIGHT MAKE A
COUNCIL MEMBER NOT WANT TO VOTE
FOR THE WHOLE PACKAGE THAT COULD
BE PULLED OUT AND I COULD REVISE
THE AMENDMENT. OR IT COULD BE
THE BEFORE THE MEETING TOMORROW
OR IT COULD BE THE COUNCIL
MEMBER'S PREROGATIVE THAT COULD
INFORM THEIR DECISION ON WHETHER
TO VOTE FOR IT OR NOT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU
CORINA. I'M WONDERING SO THIS
IS A REALLY SHORT LEGISLATIVE
SESSION. I KNOW THE LEGISLATURE
LIKE WE DO SOMETIMES ON, DURING
A BIANNUAL. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN
A PART OF THE SECOND BIANUAM.
BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN THE
YEARS THAT WE'RE GOING INTO THE
FIRST YEAR OF THE BIANNUAL. I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE THINGS
FROM LAST YEAR THAT I'M GUESSING
THEY'RE GOING TO PRIORITIZE
THIS YEAR. MY QUESTION IS, DO
YOU KNOW, IF SOME THINGS BEING
CONSIDERED THIS YEAR ARE GOING
TO BE VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE NOT
ABLE TO DO LAST YEAR. OR HOW
MANY OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE
PUTTING IN THIS LEGISLATIVE
DOCUMENT ARE REALLY GOING TO BE
ABLE TO GET TAKEN UP THIS YEAR.
DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER
SOME OF THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP ALREADY. WHICH I KNOW
YOU HAVE YOUR DOCUMENT, YOU
SAID. MAYBE SOME OF THAT IS
CONTAINED IN THERE. BUT IN
GENERAL, GIVEN THAT IT'S A
SHORTER SESSION, DO YOU HAVE A
SENSE OF HOW MANY THINGS NEW
THEY'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN FOR
INSTANCE.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT SENSE BUT
THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN FOLLOW
UP WITH OIR ON.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
CP.
>> AND JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON,
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE I DID HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE, THE
SPONSOR BECAUSE IT HAS COME UP
IN THE PAST. NOT JUST ON THE
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. ONE
AMENDMENT HAS TWO PARTS OR TWO
ITEMS AND PEOPLE LIKED ONE AND
NOT THE OTHER AND SO THEN WHAT
HAPPENED. I DID EXPLAIN THAT WAS
THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE HAPPENED.
PEOPLE, WE ALL HAVE TO MAKE THE
DECISION IF WE MAKE TO SIGN UP
TO THE WHOLE THING OR WHAT. BUT
NOW I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE MORE
WORK FOR YOU. IF YOU LISTEN TO
THIS, IF YOU REALLY LIKE 90% OF
AN AMENDMENT BUT JUST CAN'T
SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OF THIS OTHER
PART OF IT I SUPPOSE YOU SHOULD
TALK TO THE SPONSOR AND
ENTERTAIN POSSIBILITY OF
BREAKING IT UP. I WOULD SAY
THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST OPTION
RIGHT NOW. OKAY, GO AHEAD
PLEASE.
>> AND THERE'S STILL TIME TO DO
THAT. NOT MUCH BUT THERE IS SOME
TIME. I WOULD NEED TO HEAR ABOUT
EVERYTHING BY THE ENDS OF THE
DAY TODAY. I DO HAVE AN
OBLIGATION IN THE MORNING
TOMORROW. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GET
IT WRAPPED UP TODAY IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE. THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT B AND THIS IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK. IT WOULD ADD 10
PRIORITIES UNDER FEDERAL
RESPONSE. IT WOULD ASK FOR
SUPPORT TO ESTABLISH -- THE
AFFORDABILITY SECTION WOULD ADD,
WOULD EXPAND THE HEADING TO
INCLUDES REFERENCE TO THE WORK
FORCE AND IT WOULD ADD THREE NEW
PRIORITIES, EXPLORE A REVENUE
NEUTRAL SWAP FOR SALES TAX.
ALLOW COLLECTIVE -- AND FURTHER
INVESTMENTS. UNDER HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS IT WOULD ADD TWO
PRIORITIES TO SUPPORT REDUCING
THE RELIABILITY. AND CHANGING
CITY AND COUNCIL ELEVATOR
STANDARDS TO MATCH GLOBAL OR
NORTH AMERICAN STANDARDS. UNDER
PUBLIC SAFETY IT WOULD ADD A
PRIORITY TO INCLUDE SUPPORT FOR
UPDATING POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY,
ARBITRATION RULES AND
PROCEDURES. AND THEN UNDER
TRANSPORTATION, IT WOULD INCLUDE
THREE NEW PRIORITIES TO SUPPORT
INCREASING THE AVAILABILITY OF
PASSENGER ONLY FERRIES. REDUCING
EMISSIONS FROM MOST POLLUTING
VESSELS FROM VISITING
WASHINGTON'S PORTS AND CLIMATE
COMMITMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL PROJECTS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA IS THAT
A NEW HAND?
>> OH, NO, SORRY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, FOR SOME,
OH, GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR
TO TALK ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT,
SORRY.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
COLLEAGUES, I WILL SPEAK MORE
IN-DEPTH ON THESE TOMORROW BUT
AT THIS JUNCTURE I WANTED TO
REAFFIRM SINCE IT'S BEEN PART
OF A DISCUSSION SO FAR. A NUMBER
OF THESE PRIORITIES WERE
REFLECTED ON A BILL AS A PART OF
THE NEXT SESSION. I IMAGINE WE
WILL SEE THOSE COME FORWARD
AGAIN. THE AI BARGAINING BILL IN
PARTICULAR WAS ONE BILL THAT
WENT THROUGH. DIDN'T QUITE GO
THROUGH ONE MORE SESSION BUT WAS
UP FOR DISCUSSION. WE ALSO HAVE
ON HERE IN TERMS OF FURTHERING
OUR INVESTMENT. WE HAVE A CAUCUS
WITHIN THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND
SEEN THE COMMITTEE TAKE UP
MATTERS IN TWO INVESTMENTS IN
MARITIME. CONDO REFORM CONTINUES
TO BE A MATTER IN THOSE BILLS
THAT COME THROUGH. WE WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THE SMALL ELEVATORS
BILL. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
SOLOMON PUT FORWARD. IT MAPS
REALLY WELL TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN
TRYING TO DO WITH A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. REALLY
EMPOWERING AND MAKING SURE THAT
WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE MORE MIDDLE
HOUSING THAT ALLOWS FOR AGING IN
PLACE BY MAKING IT EASIER TO
HAVE MORE ELEVATORS GO INTO
MIDDLE HOUSING OPTIONS. SO I
THINK THAT BLENDS ITSELF WELL.
AND THEN JUST TO TOUCH ON THREE
OTHER POINTS. WE'VE SEEN BILLS
IN OLYMPIA LAST YEAR RELATED TO
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. THIS IS
REFLECTIVE OF THAT. AND THEN,
THE MOSQUITO FLEET BILL THAT I
IDENTIFIED ON LAST YEAR. WE,
I'M HOPING WILL MAKE A RETURN
AS WELL. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT
OUR PARTNERSHIPS IN KITSAP.
VISITING WASHINGTON'S PORTS.
THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE
POWER BILL THAT HAS GOTTEN
SUPPORT FROM 350 SEATTLE BUT
ALSO, OUR IBW46 OUR ELECTRICIANS
UNION. SO JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THOSE POINTS
AND CONNECT THE DOTS. THESE ARE
NOT NECESSARILY NEW IDEAS TO THE
LEGISLATURE BUT RATHER, THESE
LARGELY EFFECT A NUMBER OF BILLS
THAT OLYMPIA SAW LAST YEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING
THOSE. BECAUSE I HAD A QUESTION
ABOUT A BUNCH OF THOSE. SO FOR
EXAMPLE IN MY NOTES I SAY, WITH
THE SUPPORT REDUCED EMISSIONS
FROM MOST POLLUTING VESSELS I
SAY I WONDER HOW. SO IS THERE
VALUE TO SAYING SURE POWER. DO
YOU THINK, PEOPLE DOWN THERE
KNOW WHAT THIS WOULD REFER TO OR
ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THIS
COULD ALSO EMPOWER THAT ITS BEST
TO BE MORE BROAD OR LESS
EXPLICIT.
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I
THINK THAT WE, THE OVER ARCHING
ROLE. I WANT TO LOOK TO, I WANT
TO RESPECT CORINA FOR THE TIME
SHE TOOK TO OUTLINE. I THINK THE
GOAL IS TO WORK TOWARD
ELECTRIFICATION. THERE'S A
DIRECT BILL THAT ADDRESSED.
>> OIR USES THIS AGENDA AS A
LAUNCH POINT. IT COULD BE BROAD.
I CAN GO NARROW, I CAN GO BROAD.
ONE LAST QUESTION,
ACCOUNTABILITY, ARBITRATION
RULES. YOU SAID SIMILAR TO THE
ONE LAST YEAR, DO YOU, DO YOU
KNOW THE, WHAT WAS THAT LAST
YEAR?
>> I CAN PULL THE BILL NUMBER
FOR TOMORROW'S DISCUSSION. WHEN
WE TAKE THIS UP IN DISCUSSION.
HAPPY TO. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST
WANTED TO NOTE SINCE IT CAME UP
AND WE WERE DISCUSSING IT.
ELECTRIFY -- ELECTRIFICATION OF
THE POST. AND COMING DOWN THE
STRAIGHT. HAVING THOSE KINDS OF
INFRASTRUCTURE. SINCE YOU ALSO
HIGHLIGHTED CHAIR,
ACCOUNTABILITY. THIS LEADS INTO
THE NEXT THING BECAUSE A LOT OF
PEOPLE MAKE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
LIKE OUR SPOT TA. BUT THEY
DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND STATE
AND LABOR LAW. THIS ACTUALLY
GOES TO, TO THAT PIECE. SO THANK
YOU.
>> I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A NOTE ON
MY DOCUMENT THAT THE UPDATE
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
ARBITRATION RULES REFERS TO
HOUSE BILL 1816.
THE NEXT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT C,
IS SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS. WE'LL SCROLL THERE. IT
WOULD ADD THREE PRIORITIES TO
THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA UNDER THE
AFFORDABILITY SESSION. IT WOULD
STATE SUPPORT FOR PROVIDING
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES WITH MORE
REVENUE OPTIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC
SAFETY HEADING. IT WOULD ADD
SUPPORT FOR STRENGTHENING METAL
RECYCLING REGULATIONS THEN IT
WOULD ADD A NEW SECTION ENTITLED
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT. AND IT
WOULD STATE SUPPORT FOR POLICIES
AND INVESTMENTS TO FIGHT CLIMATE
CHANGE. ASSIST CLIMATE
ADAPTATION AND ASSIST REMOVAL OF
FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS.
>> GO AHEAD PLEASE.
>> CORINA APPRECIATE YOUR PART
ON IF WE'RE BEING EFFICIENT OR
BROAD. I'M CHOOSING TO BE BROAD
WITH MY LANGUAGE SO WE CAN BE
MORE EFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO
THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. PROVIDE
MUNICIPALITIES WITH MORE REVENUE
OPTIONS. THIS IS BROAD. IT
REALLY COMES BACK TO THE
CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ABOUT
THE LEVY LIFT IN OLYMPIA. LAST
YEAR THEY PROVIDED US ONE LEVY
ACTION WHICH WAS THE SALES TAX
WHICH IS REGRESS I HAVE IN
NATURE AND THE WORSE OF ALL
OPTIONS THEY LOOKED AT. THIS IS
ME PUTTING ON PAPER THAT WE NEED
OLYMPIA TO GROW AND NOT GIVE
REGRESSIVE OPTIONS. SECOND,
STRENGTHEN METAL RECYCLING. THIS
COMES MORE RECENTLY WE HAD THE
STRUCTURE IN OUR BUDGET. WE HAD
IN THE BUDGET BEFORE THAT. WHAT
WE KNOW IS THAT RECYCLING
REGULATIONS NEED TO BE
STRENGTHENED RIGHT NOW, FOLKS
CAN CHOP UP PIECES OF METAL SO
THAT THEY ARE BELOW A CERTAIN
THRESHOLD AND BE PAID IN CASH SO
THAT IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE
TRACKED. THESE THINGS NEED TO BE
STRENGTHENED. THIRD AND FINALLY,
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE
THAT I BROUGHT LAST YEAR WHICH
IS, REGARDING INVESTMENTS TO
FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE. ASSISTING
THE CLIMATE ADAPTION. I BELIEVE
IT WILL COME BACK AGAIN IN PARKS
COMMITTEE LATER THIS WEEK. WE
NEED THE STATES ASSISTANCE IN
THIS MATTER AND WE'RE NOT THE
ONLY MUNICIPALITY. SO I WOULD
LOVE TO EARN EVERYONE'S SUPPORT
AND FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
PROVIDE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
WITH MORE REVENUE OPTIONS. I'M
JUST ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING
WE'RE PUTTING ON, WE ARE
MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOT ALREADY
ALLOWED TO DO. SO IT REQUIRES A
LEGISLATIVE CHANGE. YOU JUST
SAID ONE OF THEM BUT YOU SAID
THAT, YOU KNOW YOU IDENTIFIED
PROPERTY TAX FROM ONE TO 3%
WHICH IS WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO
LAST YEAR. THE GOVERNOR SAID I
WILL VETO A TAX INCREASE. THAT
IS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND BUT I
SUPPOSE THIS LANGUAGE COULD
APPLY TO, OTHER REVENUE OPTIONS
THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT OURSELVES
WITHOUT A LEGISLATIVE, WITHOUT
THE LEGISLATURE GIVING US
AUTHORITY, RIGHT. IS THAT
CORRECT.
>> YES. SO THESE WOULD BE AREAS
OF REVENUE THAT WE NEED STATE
APPROVAL. MUCH LIKE THE LEVY
LIFT. AT THE END OF THE SESSION
THE GOVERNOR MADE A DECISION
THAT I VERY MUCH DISAGREE WITH
WHICH IS TO SAY HE WOULD VETO A
LEVY LIFT AND INSTEAD GAVE US A
REGRESSIVE OPTION. HE CAN HAVE
AS MANY PRESS CONFERENCENS AS HE
WANTS. WE HAVE BEEN REGULATED BY
THE STATE THAT ALLOWS US TO GROW
OUR PROPERTY TAX BY 1% WHICH IS
LESS THAN INFLATION. THAT MEANS
FOR THE DECADES THIS POLICY HAS
BEEN PUT IN PLACE, WE HAVE BEEN
ASKED TO PROVIDE THE SAME OR
HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE, WITH
DOLLARS STRETCHING LESS FAR THAN
THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IN THE
PAST. SO, AGAIN, ANYONE CAN HAVE
WHATEVER PRESS CONFERENCE THEY
WANT, AS YOUR BUDGET CHAIR AND
SITTING ON AWC THE ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON CITIES, I CAN TELL
YOU THAT IT'S NOT JUST OUR
MUNICIPALITY. IT'S
MUNICIPALITIES ALL ACROSS THE
STATE THAT ARE STUCK IN THE SAME
POSITION OF NOT BEING ALLOWED TO
COLLECT THE REVENUE JUST TO KEEP
UP WITH INFLATION. AND SO,
PERSONALLY, YES I WOULD BE MORE
SPECIFIC TO SAY, NOT REGRESSIVE
OPTIONS OR YOU CAN PUT
PROGRESSIVE OPTIONS. IN THE SEAT
THAT I'M SITTING TODAY. I THINK
BEING BROAD IS BETTER THAN BEING
SPECIFIC.
>> IN WHAT WAS MOTIVATING MY,
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT. I
WAS WONDERING HOW WHAT YOU'RE
WANTING HERE IS DIFFERENT FROM
THE BULLET POINT ABOVE WHICH IS
SUPPORT REVENUE OPTIONS THAT
HELP SAFEGUARD ACCESS TO
ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
>> IS THAT A QUESTION TO ME?
VERY DIRECTLY, THE STATE COULD
FUND FOOD. THE STATE COULD FUND
SHELTER, THE STATE COULD FUND
HOUSING AND THOSE PROVIDE ACCESS
TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES. THAT DOES
NOT HELP US WITH THE FACT THAT
WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO, PROVIDE
THE SAFE LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
OUR DOLLARS GOING LESS FAR THAN
THEY HAVE THE YEAR BEFORE. BY
STATE LAW.
>> RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED.
I WAS JUST WANTING TO UNDERSTAND
THE DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE I'M
THINKING ABOUT REAL ESTATE.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THESE
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT D. IT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA. I THINK
IT'S HELPFUL TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT D IN TANDEM WITH
AMENDMENT E BECAUSE THEY BOTH DO
MENTION UNIVERSAL SCHOOL MEALS
FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
AMENDMENT D BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA, FRAMES IT INTO -- THEY'RE
BOTH UNDER AFFORDABILITY BUT IT
FRAMES IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF SUPPORTING STUDENTS.
AMENDMENT E SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER LIN FRAMES IT MORE
BROADLY. TO INCLUDE INCREASING
HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS THROUGH
SUPPORT FOR FOOD BANKS,
UNIVERSAL FREE SCHOOL MEALS AND
ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS FOOD
DESERTS. COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA IS
FOCUSED ON UNIVERSAL SCHOOL
MEALS AND D IS FOCUSED MORE
BROADLY WITH UNIVERSAL SCHOOL
MEALS AS ONE WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL.
>> I WILL LET BOTH OF YOU SPEAK
TO YOURS. GO AHEAD COUNCIL
MEMBER.
>> I WILL SAY TO COUNCIL MEMBER,
GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE. A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN THE
MAJORITY OF US STARTED ON
COUNCIL, I THINK TWO OR THREE
SESSIONS AGO NOW, THERE WAS A
LOT OF INTEREST TO GET THIS
PASSED. AND ADDED TO OUR AGENDA.
UNFORTUNATELY BY THE TIME WE ALL
TOOK OFFICE IT WAS TOO LATE TO
DO THAT. I LED AN EFFORT. WROTE
A LETTER, AND LED AN EFFORT TO
HAVE AN OFFICIAL LETTER SIGNED
BY ALL OF YOU TO GET, TO SEND IT
TO OLYMPIA UNFORTUNATELY. I
THINK THE SESSION ENDED OR THE
BILL WAS KILLED IN OLYMPIA RIGHT
BEFORE. SO KIND OF RENDERING
THOSE THINGS. THOSE EFFORTS
MOOT. GOOD NEWS IS, LAST YEAR,
WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT ADDED ON
THE AGENDA, AND IN FACT, I
BORROWED, COPY, PASTED, I'M SURE
THE SAME LEGISLATIVE TEXT ON
THAT POLICY PARTY LIST FROM LAST
YEAR. AND THAT IS NOW THE BASIS
OF THIS STATE'S ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. A FEW HAVE HAD THE
COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP TO PASS
THIS. INCLUDING PROBABLY THE
MOST PROMINENT RECENT EXAMPLE.
GOVERNOR TIM WALZ GOT THIS DONE
IN MINNESOTA A FEW YEARS PAST.
WHY NOT US. I THINK WHEN
CHILDREN ARE SENT TO SCHOOL,
THEY SHOULD BE SENT TO SCHOOL TO
LEARN. AND EMPOWERED TO LEARN.
AND, CAN FACE MANY BARRIERS IN
LEARNING. I DON'T WANT ONE OF
THEM TO BE HUNGER. AND SO, THAT
IS THE PURPOSE GOAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER
LIN'S AMENDMENT AS WELL. AND
I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TOMORROW.
THE INTENTIONAL TO ADDRESS
CORINA'S KIND OF DISTINCTIONS
THERE. HOW MINE IS NARROWLY
FOCUSED, VERSUS MORE BROAD. I
THINK THERE'S TRADE OFFS OF
EITHER APPROACH DEPENDING ON THE
CONTEXT. HERE IT'S INTENTIONAL
FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IT'S A
COPY PASTE EXERCISE FROM LAST
YEAR'S LANGUAGE. AND TWO, I'M
JUST TRYING TO, THIS WOULD BE A
HUGE DEAL. THIS WOULD BE A BIG
DEAL IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE
WOULD EVEN GET THIS DONE. AND I
HOPE THEY HAVE THE POLITICAL
WILL AND APPETITE TO TACKLE
THIS. ON THE OTHER HAND IF WE
HAVE EXPAND TO FOOD BANKS AND
OTHER THINGS AND MAKE IT MORE
BROAD. IT COULD POTENTIALLY RISK
JEOPARDIZING YOU KNOW, A MORE
SPECIFIC PRECISE THING WHERE
THERE'S A CLEAR MODEL ALREADY
IN PLACE. IN THE EVENT, I
SUPPORT ALL OF THE ABOVE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA. PRESIDENT NELSON.
OBVIOUSLY, SUPPORT YOURS AND
UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR FOCUS
AND IT WOULD BE A HUGE DEAL AND
I WOULD LOVE TO FOLLOW IN THE
STEPS OF SOME OF THE OTHER
STATES THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
ACHIEVE IT. THERE'S NO REASON
WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
ACHIEVE IT AS WELL HERE IN
WASHINGTON STATE. AND SOME OF
THE OTHER ONES, JUST, YOU KNOW
GIVEN POTENTIAL CUTS TO SNAP,
THANK YOU ALL FOR STEPPING UP
LAST MONTH WHEN THERE WAS THE
RISK OF CUTS THERE. AND THEN AS
FOOD DESERTS. WE HEARD ABOUT
GROCERY STORES CLOSING, FRED
MYER. THANK YOU ALL FOR STEPPING
UP WITH LEGISLATION AROUND
RESTRICTIVE ZONING. AND JUST SO
WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE AT THE
STATE LEVEL AS WELL. IF THERE
ARE ANY SIMILAR EFFORTS TO
LEGISLATE AROUND FOOD DESERTS.
SO THAT WAS THE INTENTION AROUND
IT.
>> QUESTION FOR EITHER OF YOU. I
BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA YOU
SAID THERE WAS AN EFFORT AT
UNIVERSAL FREE LUNCHES LAST
YEAR. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE
PRICE TAG WAS ON IT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND.
YEAH. BUT THERE WAS, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS A
BILL ON IT AS WELL. JUST DIDN'T
PASS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT F. IT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE. AND THIS
WOULD ADD A PRIORITY UNDER THE
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS SECTION
TO SUPPORT UPDATES TO STATE LAW
SO THAT SOCIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPERS HAVE ACCESS TO THE
SAME BENEFITS AS HOUSING
AUTHORITIES AND NONPROFIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
RELATES TO LAST YEAR'S ATTEMPT
TO PASS HOUSE BILL 1687.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOUSING, THIS
IS ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF HOUSES
AND THE PROCESSES. BUT RELATED
TO COST AND PROCUREMENT.
BASICALLY IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE
OF HOW CAN WE, SET UP SOCIAL
HOUSING FOR SUCCESS. AND BECAUSE
WE HAVE TO HAVE EVERY PIECE IN
THERE AS WE TALKED ABOUT DURING
BUDGET. NOT JUST THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PIECES THAT LIKE WE HAVE
THROUGH OH BUT PERMANENT
HOUSING. HOW CAN WE GET ALL OF
THESE TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND
COLLABORATIVE AND WORK TOGETHER.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S BEHIND
THIS AMENDMENT. AND IT DOES TIE
TO REPRESENTATIVE REED HOUSING
COOPERATION LAWS. THAT'S
BASICALLY LOOKING TO ENCOURAGE
THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING AND ADD
HOUSING TO IT. I WOULD BE
WILLING TO MEET WITH
REPRESENTATIVE -- LATER THIS
WEEK. I WILL BRING THE WHOLE
LIST WHETHER IT'S TWO PAGES OR
FIVE. I'LL BRING IT WITH ME
WHEN I MEET WITH THEM LATER IN
THE WEEK. SO ANY WAYS, THAT'S
THE BASIC BACKGROUND HERE. THANK
YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
CORINA CAN YOU REPEAT THE HOUSE
BILL NUMBER.
>> HOUSE BILL 168787.
>> THANK YOU. AND COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE, CAN YOU TELL ME, I GUESS
NOT KNOWING WHAT THIS COUNCIL
BILL SAYS, I'M JUST WONDERING
WHEN IT SAYS HAVE ACCESS TO THE
SAME BENEFITS WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN? I KNOW THE SOCIAL HOUSING
HAS A DEDICATED FUND SOURCE. THE
OTHER NONFOR PROFIT DEVELOPERS
COMPETE THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS
OR MAYBE IT'S CALLED SOMETHING
ELSE. BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO AN
RFP. SO I'M WONDERING WHAT ARE
THE THINGS THAT, THAT ARE
INTENDED BY THE SAME BENEFITS.
AND SORRY, MAYBE IT SAYS IT ON
THE HOUSE BILL. BUT I JUST
DON'T KNOW THAT HOUSE BILL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, YES IT
RELATES TO THE STATE CONFERS
DIFFERENT POWERS AND THE LIKE TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO WAIVE
REGULATION PIECES TO PROMOTE
HOUSING. SO THESE PIECES ARE
THERE. THIS GOES TO MY POINT OF
COST AND PROCUREMENT. THIS IS A
JUMP TO REMINDER TO ADD SOCIAL
HOUSING TO THE TYPES THAT THEY
ARE CONSIDERING IN TERMS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE THEN
ALLOWED TO WAIVE A COST. OR YOU
KNOW, SOME TYPE OF INHIBITING
PIECE THAT INHIBITS DEVELOPMENT.
IT GIVES BASICALLY, IT OPENS UP
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT.
THAT'S BASICALLY, WHAT THE LAW
IS DOING. NOW I'M GOING TO BE
TALKING ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE
REED ABOUT THIS. BECAUSE ONE
QUESTION ABOUT THE LAW I HAVE
RELATES TO THE EXECUTIVE VERSUS
LEGISLATIVE EQUITIES. SO
THERE'S STILL THINGS THAT ARE
OUT THERE WITH THIS LAW IN TERMS
OF HER LOOKING TO UPDATE IT.
BUT, GENERALLY, GIVING THE
OPTION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
LOOK TO WAIVE ANYTHING RELATED
TO PROCUREMENT COST OR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE
LIKE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE BASIC
DRIVER HERE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
EXPLANATION COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LIN. YOU HAVE
A QUESTION ABOUT THIS ONE,
RIGHT.
>> YES. THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR
STATEMENT THAT YOU KNOW WE NEED
TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL. AND
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, THIS
IS ABOUT GIVING US ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO
AGREEMENTS WITH THE SOCIAL
HOUSING DEVELOPER OR TO WAIVE
CERTAIN PERHAPS BUILDING CODE
REQUIREMENTS. DOESN'T REQUIRE
US TO DO ANYTHING. IT'S JUST,
ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> FLEXIBILITY IS A GOOD WORD. I
SHOULD HAVE USED IT WITH COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOME OF THE BENEFITS WE PROVIDE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE EXEMPT THEM FROM
DESIGN REVIEW. SO IS THAT THE
SORT OF THING? I MEAN I SHOULD
GOOGLE THIS, 1687. BUT IS THAT
THE SORT OF THING THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT? THE REASON IN
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA PUT IT IN
THE RIGHT WAY. I WOULD SAY, I
WOULD MAYBE THE THOUGHT BUBBLE
OF A LOT OF OUR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROVIDERS ARE. WELL WE
WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE TO HAVE THE
BENEFIT THAT THE PDA HAS WHICH
IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO FILL
OUT THE NOFA AND MAYBE AND MAYBE
NOT GET THE MONEY. SO THAT'S
WHY I WAS, SO I AM ALSO
INTERESTED IN THAT. AND I'LL
LOOK AT THAT. YOU AND I CAN TALK
OFFLINE ABOUT THE SORTS OF
THINGS THAT WE, SOME OF THE
BENEFITS THAT WERE PROCOLLUDED
FROM BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE RIGHT
NOW. WE DON'T HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE THAT THE
STATE WILL GIVE US THE AUTHORITY
TO PROVIDE. SO.
>> YES. AND TO MY INITIAL POINT,
CHAIR. THAT WAS ABOUT THE
FUNDING BECAUSE YOU MAKE A VERY
GOOD POINT. THERE'S THE NOFU
VERSUS, OBVIOUSLY THE PDA HAS
ITS FUNDING PIECES WHICH WE WENT
THROUGH LAST YEAR. AND, AS
PEOPLE KNOW, I WAS IN FAVOR OF
THE OTHER OPTION. BUT NOW THAT
WE HAVE THIS AND THIS GOES BACK
TO MY POINT. THE UNDER LINING
THING IS HOW DO WE SET UP
ORGANIZATIONS FOR SUCCESS.
THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY. THAT'S
FROM WHERE I'M COMING WITH THIS
AMENDMENT. BUT YES IT'S ABOUT
GIVING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
TAKE ACTION, SUPPORT SOCIAL
HOUSING AND AS THEY GO THROUGH
THEIR CHECKLIST. I GUESS THE
FLEXIBILITY THAT COUNCIL MEMBER
RINCK SAYS. I WILL TALK TO
REPRESENTATIVE REED AND BARRY
ABOUT, LIKE WHERE THINGS LAND
EQUITY WISE. LEGISLATE EXECUTIVE
INTEREST. IT'S GOING TO BE
COMING UP MORE AND MORE OVER THE
NEXT NUMBER OF MONTHS. I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING TO DISCUSS.
BUT, AGAIN THAT'S THE GENERAL
PIECE. I'M GOING TO START USING
COUNCIL MEMBER LIN'S
DESCRIPTION. GIVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW THE ABILITY
TO SUPPORT SOCIAL HOUSING, IF
YOU WANT TO DO IT.
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT G. IT IS ALSO
SPONSORED BY COUNCILLOR MEMBER
KETTLE. IT WOULD REORDER SOME OF
THE PRIORITIES IN THAT SESSION
TO BEGIN WITH ADDRESS THE STATE
PATROLS TOXICOLOGY LAB IN THE
FOR THE FIRST BULLET. THEN THE
CHAMPION LEGISLATION WE WOULD
MOVE CLOSER TO THE END. IT WOULD
ALSO ADD THREE PRIORITIES TO
SUPPORT LOWERING THE THRESHOLD
FOR EARLY INTERVENTION FOR
MINORS WHO UNLAWFULLY POSSESS
GUNS. THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO AN
EXISTING PRIORITY I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU SEE IT. THE
EXISTING PRIORITY HAS ALLOWED
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO RESTRICT
FIREARMS IN CITY BUILDINGS.
THAT'S BEEN MOVED TO THE, THIRD
BULLET AND THEN THE LOWER
THRESHOLD LANGUAGE IS ADDED TO
THE END OF THAT ITEM. THE SECOND
PRIORITY THAT WOULD BE ADDED IS
ADVOCATING FOR THE ADDITION OF A
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR ALL
JURISDICTIONS. THIRD, IT WOULD
ENSURE FUNDING FOR MAINTENANCE
AND ACTIVATION OF WS DOTS OF
WAY.
>> THANK YOU, THE REORDERING WAS
REALLY TO FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC
POINTS, THE TOXICOLOGY LAB. THAT
IS SO IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR A FUNCTIONAL CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND YOU KNOW,
GET TO THOSE POINTS THAT THEY
CAN TAKE ACTION ON AS OPPOSED TO
A MORE GENERAL BULLET LOWERING
THEM DOWN. WANTED TO HIT THE
TOXICOLOGY LAB. YOU KNOW THE
HELP WITH THE, HELPING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN TERMS OF THE
BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY.
AND THOSE PIECES. AND
SEPARATELY, YOU KNOW THERE ARE
SOME PIECES, SPEAKING OF
REPRESENTATIVE BARRY. I WILL
STICK WITH MY LOCAL STATE REPS.
SHE'S DOING A LOT, VERY
IMPORTANT WORK RELATED TO
FIREARMS PARTICULARLY WITH
SAFETY. STORAGE. ALL THE
DIFFERENT PIECES THAT ARE THERE.
BUT THERE'S ALSO THIS ONE PIECE
RELATED TO, YOUNG ADULTS WHO
HAVE MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF
FIREARM OFFENSES. AND IT'S,
IT'S THE NUMBER OF OFFENSES
THAT IS THE CHALLENGE HERE. AND
SO THAT'S WHAT THAT GOES TO.
AND THEN SEPARATELY, AND ADDED A
NEW ONE RELATED TO WASH DOT.
THIS TIES INTO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
ELEMENT TOO. WE HAVE TO BUILD
OUR CAPACITY AS IT RELATES TO
PUBLIC SAFETY AS IT GOES TO,
DEVELOPMENT, THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AS WE GROW. BECAUSE WE HAVE
TO HAVE THAT CAPACITY GROW WITH
THE GROWTH OF OUR CITIES. AND
THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE CARE
OF WHAT WE HAVE. THIS WASH DOT
ONE, AS I'VE TALKED TO CHIEF
SCOGGINS. THIS ALL COMES TO OUR
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND IN
CONVERSATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
HIGHLIGHTING THINGS, SUCH AS
LIKE FOR D2, THAT THERE WAS A
FIRE LAST YEAR AND THAT FIRE WAS
A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN I5. THE
ABILITY FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO ADDRESS THAT FIRE WOULD HAVE
BEEN SEVERELY COMPROMISED
BECAUSE THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE
AS IT RELATES TO I5 AND WASH DOT
AND WATER, WASN'T THERE. AND I
MENTIONED THIS LAST WEEK, THIS
IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO THIS IS
LIKE VERY SPECIFIC, INSTEAD OF
HAVING A MORE GENERAL BULLET.
GETTING BASICALLY RAISED THE
AWARENESS AND SAY HEY THIS IS
IMPORTANT. NOW, TYING INTO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT PIECE. AS
WE'VE SEEN DURING THE COURSE OF
OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THEN
THE VOTES AND THEN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL. IS
TAKE L. A. L.A. COUNTY. IT GREW
MASSIVELY OVER THE DECADES. DID
THE CAPACITY GROW WITH IT? WELL
IF IT DID THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE L.A.
WILDFIRES BETTER. SO WE HAVE TO
LOOK AT THE SAME THINGS BECAUSE
WE HAVE OUR OWN RISKS. THIS IS
MORE OF AN EMERGENCY, DOES THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE WHAT IT
NEEDS. BY THE WAY WE CAN DESIGN
THESE PIECES TO ALSO ASSIST OUR
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE
CAPABILITIES PRIMARILY THROUGH
CARE. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
ENCOURAGING OTHER JURISDICTIONS
TO DO THIS AS WELL, WILL HELP
THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WHAT
HAPPENS, LIKE ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE LAKE TO THE NORTH OR
SOUTH OR EAST OF US REALLY
IMPACTS US AS WELL. I JUST THINK
IT'S A MATTER OF GOOD
GOVERNANCE. CHAMPION
LEGISLATION. I LIKE TO CHAMPION,
I WAS GOING TO SAY WHAT WE DID.
WHAT WE DID IN SELECT COMMITTEE
WE DIDN'T REALLY ACTUALLY VOTE
ON THE FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO PUSH THAT FORWARD. SO
COLLEAGUES, THAT'S KIND OF
BACKDROP BETWEEN THIS KIND OF
COMBINATION OF CHANGES TO THIS
PUBLIC SAFETY PIECE OF THE, OF
THE OIR LETTER. THANK YOU.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT H. IT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA. AND THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ADD LANGUAGE TO
THE AGENDA -- TO PROVIDE
JUVENILE WITH ACCESS TO AN
ATTORNEY. THIS WOULD, THIS IS
GEARED TOWARD CLARIFYING THE
EXCEPTIONS TO EXISTING LAW.
WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST
PROVIDE A JUVENILE WITH ACCESS
TO ATTORNEY BEFORE THE JUVENILE
MAY, QUESTION THE YOUTH DURING
CUSTODIAL, OR REQUEST THAT A
YOUTH PROVIDE CONSENT TO A
SEARCH.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU MA'AM COUNCIL,
PRESIDENT AND COLLEAGUES. YOU'VE
HEARD ME TALK ABOUT THIS OVER
AND OVER MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE
LAST TWO YEARS. AS MANY OF YOU
HAVE, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
PATIENCE AND GRACE. MIGHT SOUND
A BIT LIKE A BROKEN RECORD
SOMETIMES BUT THIS ISSUE IS OF
THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. HOW THIS
SORT OF CAME ABOUT IN JANUARY
2024, 15-YEAR-OLD MUBARACK ABAM
A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WAS
TRAGICALLY KILLED IN THE SOUTH
WEST YOUTH TEEN LIFE CENTER IN
WEST SEATTLE WHICH IS DIRECTLY
ACROSS THE STREET. HE WAS
KILLED, HE WAS KILLED BY GUNFIRE
IN A RESTROOM WITH THREE I THINK
OTHER TEENAGERS. THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH
BEYOND THAT, REMAIN UNCLEAR. I
VISITED, HAD THE HONOR OF
VISITING HIS HOME. SITTING DOWN
WITH HIS FAMILY. WATCHING THEM
MOURN. AND HEARING THEM DEMAND
ANSWERS FROM THE CITY ON WHAT
HAPPENED TO THEIR SON. AGGRIEVED
FAMILIES JUST WANT ANSWERS.
THAT'S IT. NOT TOO COMPLICATED.
THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF THE
STATE LAW. LACK OF CLARITY WITH
RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE
LAW. THE FAMILIES DON'T HAVE
THE ANSWERS THEY NEED. AND
TRAGICALLY, LIKELY WON'T EVER.
AND SO WE CAN'T PREVENT WHAT
HAPPENED AND BY THE WAY,
MUBARACK'S DEATH WAS THE FIRST
HOMICIDE OF 2024. CAN'T BRING
HIM BACK. CAN'T PREVENT, WELL
WE CAN'T BRING HIM BACK. BUT WE
CAN, BRING MORE FAMILIES
CLOSURE. AND MORE FAMILIES
JUSTICE IN SIMILAR TRAGIC
CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT LAW WAS
MODELED AFTER AND PARDON MY, A
LOT GOING ON. BUT AND I STUDIED
THIS VERY EXTENSIVELY,
PERSONALLY ESPECIALLY IN 2024.
AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT STATE
LAW WAS MODELED AFTER A SEATTLE
LAW. SEATTLE CITY ORDNANCE. AND
A KING COUNTY ORDNANCE WHICH
WAS, ITSELF MODELED AFTER THE
SEATTLE ORDNANCE. PROBLEM WAS
THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT THE SAME.
AND SO, IT LEFT MORE TO BE
DESIRED ON THE INTERPRETATION
SIDE. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS,
AND IT'S NOT JUST IN SEATTLE;
WE'RE SEEING IT ACROSS THE
STATE. TALK TO, AGENCIES AND
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE.
SIMILARLY, CONFUSED AND SEEING
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THIS
LAW. SO LAST YEAR, SO THIS IS A
REVIVAL OF A BILL LAST YEAR
THANKS TO THE LEADERSHIP OF
STATE SENATOR JESSE SOLOMON.
BROUGHT FORTH A BILL TO ADDRESS,
TO PROVIDE THE NEEDED CLARITY.
OFFER THE CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE
AND DID NOT PASS. BUT, WE'RE
HOPING TO ACTUALLY GET IT DONE
THIS YEAR. AND, THE FAMILY OF
MUBARACK, PARTICULARLY HIS
SISTER LEILA CAME AND DELIVERED
SOME VERY POWERFUL SYSTEM, ON
WHY WE NEED THIS AND WHY WE NEED
THIS NOW. AND I COULDN'T AGREE
MORE. BRINGING IT BACK, ASKING
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE TO SAY, I AM GRATEFUL
FOR YOU FOR NEVER FORGETTING
OMAR. MANY TIMES I REMEMBER THE
FIRST TIME YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS
WAS ONE OF YOUR FIRST DAYS AT
THE DIAS TALKING ABOUT THE PAIN
AND INJUSTICE OF THAT INSTANCE.
AND HERE WE ARE MANY MANY, TWO
YEARS LATER SAME THING. SO,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO
THE CAUSE.
>> THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS
AMENDMENT I. IT IS ALSO
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA
AND IT WOULD ALSO ADD ANOTHER
PRIORITY SECTION TO THE AGENDA.
IT WOULD ADD LANGUAGE TO STATE
THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO
EXPANDING STATE AUTHORIZATION
FOR AUTOMATED NOISE ENFORCEMENT
CAMERAS.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THIS ONE IS ANOTHER RERIVAL
OF PAST EFFORTS YOU WILL RECALL
LAST YEAR I LED AN EFFORT TO A
SIGNATURE GATHERING EFFORT ON
THIS FLOOR. AND UPSTAIRS. THE
MAYOR SIGNED IT AS WELL. WE
UNANIMOUSLY SIGNED A LETTER OF
SUPPORT OF A CHANGE TO THE STATE
LAW THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE
AUTOMATED NOISE ENFORCEMENT
CAMERA TECHNOLOGY. AND TO ALLOW
US TO ADDRESS NOISE AND BEHAVIOR
THAT OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THE SAME THING HAPPENS IN BELL
TOWN AND MAGNUSON PARK. AND
INSERT EVERY LAST COUNCIL
DISTRICT IS IMPACTED. AND SO,
THIS WOULD GIVE US ANOTHER TOOL
TO USE AND I THINK IT BUILDS
UPON SOME OF THE WORK WE
RECENTLY DID DURING BUDGET. WHEN
WE CALLED THE SLIDE CALLING FOR
MORE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.
FOCUSING ON NOISE. ASKED ON A
STUDY OF AMPLIFIED NOISE AND
LIKE STADIUMS FOR EXAMPLE. BUT,
THIS IS ANOTHER TOOL, WE'RE
CLOSE LAST YEAR AND HOPING TO DO
IT THIS YEAR. ASKING FOR YOUR
SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
>> FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE. BUT
I'M SORRY HOW DOES THIS WORK?
THERE'S AN ALARM FOR NOISE AND
THEN THEY SEND OUT ANOTHER ALERT
OF NOISE.
>> MY OFFICE HAS EVEN MET WITH
SOME VENDORS THAT PROVIDE THIS
TECHNOLOGY. I DON'T KNOW WHY.
PROBABLY A GOOD USE OF MY TIME.
THIS IS A, IF AUTHORIZED BY
STATE LAW IT WOULD OPERATE VERY
SIMILAR TO SPEED. YOU'RE GOING
TOO FAST DOWN THE STREET. THE
CAMERA HAD A SPEEDOMETER. IT
TAKES A PICTURE OF YOUR LICENSE
PLATE AND SENDS YOU A MAIL. THIS
IS NOT AS ADVANCED AN AUTOMATED
SPEED AUTHORITY. IF YOUR CAR
EXCEEDS THE DECIBEL. YOU RECEIVE
A TICKET IN THE MAIL.
>> THANKS FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
>> AMENDMENT J IS ALSO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU MA'AM. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE YOUR
PATIENT. IT ALSO BUILD -LGS UPON
A SLIDE THAT WE DID. CALLING FOR
A FUNDING PATH. AFTER OUR
PROCEEDS RUN OUT IN THE NEXT
COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT, WE ALSO
WANT, SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT
FROM OUR STATE PARTNERS AS WELL.
BECAUSE THIS IS A HISTORIC
BUILDING, CAMP LONG BURNED DOWN
IN WEST SEATTLE NOVEMBER 2024.
HAD THE PLEASURE OF VISITING IT.
THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS
ACTUALLY LAST SUMMER. DID A TOUR
WITH OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT. AND
WE NEEDED, WE NEEDED TO REBUILD
IT AND BUILD IT BACK BELTER.
THIS IS NOT ONLY A TREASURE FOR
OUR COMMUNITY IN, THE CITY'S
WEST SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL
NEIGHBORHOODS. PEOPLE FROM ALL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE COME ON
FIELD TRIPS EVEN FROM OTHER
PARTS OF THE CITY TO VISIT THE
HISTORIC CAMP LODGE SITE. OR
CAMP LONG SITE IN THE HISTORIC
LODGE. SO, SO, WE'RE ASKING FOR
STATE SUPPORT FOR THIS.
SEPARATELY, I SHOULD NOTE THAT
MY OFFICE IS CURRENTLY WORKING
WITH THE 34th LEGISLATIVE
DISTRICT LEGISLATION TO
COORDINATE A TOUR THAT PARKS IS
GOING TO LEAD WITH OUR 34th
LEGISLATION AND MYSELF. OF CAMP
LODGE. IN ANY EVENT WOULD. WE'RE
JUST SEEKING SOME STATE SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>>
>> IT'S NOT PART OF THE PACKET
BUT SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
-- IT WOULD ALSO SIX NEW
PRIORITIES ENTITLED NATIVE
COMMUNITIES AND TRIBAL. THE SIX
PRIORITIES WOULD INCLUDE
ENSURING TRIBAL REPRESENTATION
IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING. STRENGTHENING
IMPLEMENTATION OF SINCE TIME AND
MEMORIAL TRIBAL CURRICULUM IN K
THROUGH 12 SCHOOLS.
RETROACTIVELY REMOVING -- AND
THEN SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FEDERALLY APPROVED
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM OPERATED
BY TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. ALL OF
THESE ITEMS WERE LAWS THAT WERE
PROPOSED LAST YEAR THAT DID NOT
PASS. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE
SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES
TRIBAL LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS
REPORT. WHICH IS AVAILABLE
ONLINE AND I'M ABLE TO, I THINK
YOU ALL RECEIVED AT LENGTH TO
IT. I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ONE AS
WELL. AND THEY LISTED THEIR WINS
FOR THE SESSION AND THE ITEMS
THAT DIDN'T PASS. THAT REFLECTS
ALL OF THESE SIX PRIORITIES.
>> CONGRESS MEMBER, YOU'RE
WELCOMED TO SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, CORINA. I KNOW I
GOT IT TO YOU LATE. SOME OF THE
ITEMS WE TEED UP. FIRST OF ALL
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE A
SECTION DEDICATED TO TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ALSO FOR COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUS
WHO HAS THESE ITEMS. CORINA
SHARED WITH US THIS THE SENATOR
SENDS THIS OUT BUT IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT. ON THE SENATE SIDE,
SHE'S THE LIAISON TO TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE STATE.
THIS IS A REPORT THAT WE PUT
OUT. I SENT THIS ALL TO YOU A
COPY FROM OUR REPORTS. REGARDING
MOST CHILDREN CHARGED AS ADULTS
IN WASHINGTON ARE YOUTH OF
COLOR. MORE THAN 80% OF YOUTH
CHARGED ARE NONWHITE. WHAT WE
WANTED TO GET IS A PROSECUTORIAL
DISCRETION IN CHARGING AND
SENTENCING. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
HAVE A SECTION HERE. AS I WAS
LISTENING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
AGREE WITH ALL SIX THINGS BUT
THEY'RE OPEN WITH DISCUSSION.
THE -R THE -R THE -- YOU JUST
HAVE TO AGREE THERE NEEDS TO BE
A SECTION. IT'S TRANSPARENT AND
EVERYONE HAS THEM IN FRONT OF
THEM. YOU CAN REACH OUT TO
REPRESENTATIVES IN OLYMPIA. AS I
HAVE DONE WITH SENATOR KAUFFMAN,
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER
STERNS, DEB LEGINOFF AND A LOT
OF OTHER FOLKS THAT I'VE WORKED
ON A LOT OF THESE ISSUES. ALSO
GUN VIOLENCE, CLIMATE CHANGE YOU
NAME IT. AND AGAIN, LIKE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE
GOVERNMENT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS,
AND WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE
WE DID THE, SINCE WE DID THE
GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT
CENTENNIAL ACCORD IN THE LAST 30
YEARS, DOING WHAT WE ALREADY DO
UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW
AND AS I SHARED, IT'S ANOTHER
STEP TOWARD HONORING THE
GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH TRIBES. YOU
WILL SEE A LOT OF THE ISSUES AND
I'VE ONLY TEED UP SIX. ANY
ISSUE THAT YOU SEE, IN INDIAN
COUNTY YOU SEE. HOUSING,
ADDICTION, HOMELESSNESS, PUBLIC
SAFETY. SOCIAL JUSTICE, ALL THAT
STUFF. IT'S ALL GOVERNMENTAL
STUFF. THEY ALL DOVE TAIL WITH
STATE, LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS AND AS LONG AS WE
KEEP THE DOOR OPEN AND CONTINUE
TO WORK ON A GOVERNMENT TO
GOVERNMENT BASIS. WE HOPE TO,
TACKLE THESE CHALLENGING ISSUES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT
FORWARD. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS.
>> NOBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO
SAY. THANK YOU VERY, VERY VERY
MUCH FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND
FOR ALL THE BACKGROUND WORK YOU
PUT INTO BRINGING THESE FORWARD.
I RECOGNIZE THERE WAS A LOT OF
RESEARCH INVOLVED IN THE FINISH
PRODUCTS. SO. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>> NEXT WE MOVE ON TO A
PRESENTATION OF COUNCIL BILL'S
121, 132 AND 121-133 RELATED TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION AND SEATTLE POLICE
OFFICERS GUILD. YOU'RE WELCOME
TO INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND
BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> CENTRAL STAFF DIRECTOR.
>> OKAY READY TO GO, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT WHENEVER YOU ARE.
>> PLEASE PROCEED.
>> CONTRACT SHOULD BE FAIRLY
QUICK. MAYBE FIVE MINUTES OR SO.
NO IT'S GOING TAKE. JUST WANT
TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THIS
IS, GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS AS
SIMPLY AND QUICKLY AS I CAN BUT
IT IS GOING TO BE A FAIRLY LONG
PRESENTATION. SO WITH THAT I
WILL GET STARTED. THE SEATTLE
POLICE OFFICERS GUILD CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND SPOG IS
EFFECTIVE FROM JANUARY 1, 2024
TO DECEMBER 31, 2027. ALSO,
INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD ADOPT THIS CONTRACT WHICH
IS COUNCIL BILL 121-133 IS,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT
WOULD ALLOW SB TO CIVILIZE
CERTAIN BACKGROUNDING AND
RECRUITING EFFORTS AND SERVICES
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
PERFORMED BY SWORN OFFICERS. AND
SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TODAY
IS DISCUSS THE FINANCIAL
IMPACTS. THE POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY IMPACTS AND THE
BENEFITS OF AGREEMENT. COPIES OF
BOTH THE PROPOSED CUA ARE
ATTACHED TO MY STAFF MEMO.
BEFORE I GET STARTED WITH THE
CONTRACT THOUGH. I WANT TO GO
INTO SOME BACKGROUND FOR HOW WE
GOT TO THIS POINT. BACKGROUND ON
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESSES
IMPORTANT AND COLORS HOW THE
CITY GOT TO THIS AGREEMENT. SO I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS,
FULLY COVERED. AND SO I WILL
START BY SAYING THAT, THE
CITY'S LABOR RELATIONS
COMMITTEE OR LRPC BEGAN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTRACT
PARAMETERS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CODE THAT OUTLINES DIRECTION OF
HOW CONTRACTS SHOULD BE
NEGOTIATED. THE ROPC HAS TO HOLD
A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE TO RECEIVE
INPUT FROM THE CITY'S
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES AND FROM
THE PUBLIC ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE CITY'S ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEM. THAT MEETING WAS HELD
WAY BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2019. IN
FEBRUARY OF 2020, THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE HEARD AND
PASSED RESOLUTION 31930 WHICH
MEMORIALIZED ALL OF THE INPUT
THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THAT FIRST
PUBLIC MEETING. ATTACHED LETTERS
ALL THE ACCOUNTABILITY REFORMS
THEY SAW. MANY OF WHICH ARE
IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S 2017
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE.
ORDNANCE 125315. OTHERS WERE
JUST PRIORITIES FOR THE AGENCIES
AND DIRECTORS THEMSELVES. THE
NEXT STEP OCCURRED WHEN THE LRPC
ADOPTED PARAMETERS. PARAMETERS
WERE ADOPTED UNDER A NEW PROCESS
THAT WAS INSTITUTED BY THEN
COUNCIL PRESIDENT LORENA
GONZALEZ AND WERE CREATED WITH
THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES WHO WERE
INVOLVED WITH THE L.R.P.C. ON
SETTING THOSE PARAMETERS. THE
PROCESS RESULTED IN THE CREATION
OF LITERALLY DOZENS OF
PARAMETERS THAT WOULD BE RAISED
AS PART OF THE CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS. THE COUNCIL'S NEW
PROCESS ALSO INVOLVED THE
APPOINTMENT OF CENTRAL STAFF
MEMBER TO THE NEGOTIATION TEAM.
THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMBER ENSURES
THAT ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS
ARE RAISED IN THE NEGOTIATION
AND SERVES AS A LIAISON.
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT -FPT --
THIS IS ON THE TITLE PAGE.
>> YES, I'M ACTUALLY NOT EVEN
TO THE CONTRACT.
>> OKAY, I WAS JUST WANTING TO
MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE A
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
>> THE CITY AND SPOG ENTERED
NEGOTIATIONS. A NEW COUNCIL AS
YOU KNOW, THIS COUNCIL MAJORITY
CAME IN NO 2024. AND THE PUBLIC
SAFETY CHAIR AND LRPC MEMBERS
SOUGHT TO RENEGOTIATE -- THERE
WAS A MEETING WHERE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES WERE
ASKED TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE
THEIR TOP ACCOUNTABILITY
PARAMETERS AND CHANGES THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE
CONTRACT. SO, JUST TO RECAP,
ORIGINALLY IN 2020, DOZENS OF
REFORMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES ALL
ARE IN LETTERS ATTACHED TO A
RESOLUTION AND ASSESSABLE TO THE
PUBLIC AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND
REFLECTED IN MY STAFF REPORT.
THERE'S A LINK THERE. SO MANY
THAT IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE
PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR TO BRING
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES BEFORE
THE COUNCIL IN 2024 AND SAY,
HEY, OUT OF ALL THESE PARAMETERS
WHAT ARE YOUR MOST IMPORTANT
THINGS. AND, FROM THAT MEETING
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES, THE
OPA, THE CPC AND THE OIG ALL
CAME UP WITH FIVE, FIVE
PRIORITIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO
GO TO IN JUST A MOMENT. THE
FINAL PIECE OF HISTORY IS THERE
WAS AN INTERIM AGREEMENT. THAT
YOU ALL KNOW YOU PASSED LAST
YEAR. THAT RAISED WAGES BETWEEN
2020 AND 2023. SPECIFICALLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING HIRING
AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AS YOU
KNOW THAT HAS GONE FAIRLY WELL.
BUT IT WAS AN INTERIM AGREEMENT
BECAUSE PARTIES AGREED TO KEEP
NEGOTIATING ON A FORWARD LOOKING
BASIS. BASED ON THE
ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS THAT
WERE ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED AND
THEN, HIGHLIGHTED AS PART OF
THAT MEETING IN 2024. WELL, THE
INTERIM AGREEMENT DID, INCREASE
THE WAGES, IT ALSO MADE SOME
IMPROVEMENTS TO POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY. THOSE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALSO COVERED IN
THIS STAFF REPORT WHICH IS ON
COUNCIL BILL 120-3783. I KNOW
THIS IS A LOT OF BACKGROUND SO I
WILL STOP AND ASK NOW IF THERE
ARE QUESTIONS BEFORE I PROCEED
INTO THE CONTRACT OVERVIEW. YES
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> COLLEAGUES ANY QUESTIONS.
GIVEN THE TOPIC COUNCIL
PRESIDENT ASKED THAT I STEP IN.
ANYTHING AT THIS POINT OR SHOULD
WE PRESS FORWARD? OKAY, CHECK,
CHECK, CHECK. PRESS FORWARD
PLEASE.
>> OKAY SO I'M GOING TO START
OUT BY TALKING ABOUT KEY
ACCOUNTABILITY REFORMS THAT WERE
AS I SAY, IDENTIFIED AND
PRIORITIZED BY THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES
THEMSELVES. I'M GOING TO START
WITH THE FIRST ONE ON FRONT LINE
INVESTIGATIONS. WHICH IS, REALLY
JUST A SUPER VISOR REVIEW OF
MINOR MISCONDUCT. BY WAY OF
BACKGROUND IF THERE'S A
COMPLAINT FROM THE PUBLIC IT'S
GENERALLY MADE DIRECTLY WITH
OPA. IF A SUPERVISOR SERGEANT
BECOMES AWARE OF A VIOLATION.
THEN THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
SUBMIT IT TO OPA. AND UNDER THIS
NEW CONTRACT THEY WOULD ALSO
HAVE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE IT
THEMSELVES. IT HAS BEEN IN THE
CASE IN THE PAST THAT
SUPERVISORS COULD INVESTIGATE
MISCONDUCT THEMSELVES. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONTRACT WAS
SUCH THAT, IT CONTAINED A NUMBER
OF RESTRICTIONS THAT MADE THESE
FRONT LINE INVESTIGATIONS
UNWORKABLE AND SO, ESSENTIALLY
SUPERVISORS AND SERGEANTS
STARTED SENDING EVERYTHING TO
OPA. THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW AS
YOU SEE HERE, FRONT LINE
INVESTIGATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED
AND IT STREAMLINED THE PROCESS
IN THE CONTRACT SO THAT THEY CAN
BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT OPA. THIS
IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE
ENVISIONS A SYSTEM AND MENTIONS
THAT, THE MOST SENIOR MISCONDUCT
SHOULD BE HANDLED BY OPA AND
MINOR MISCONDUCT SHOULD BE
HANDLED BY THE SUPERVISOR CHAIN
OF COMMAND. TO ENSURE THAT OPA
HAS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF
RESOURCES TO DEDICATE ON THE
MORE SERIOUS INSTANCES OF
MISCOMMUNICATION.
>> I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANY
QUESTIONS. OKAY SO MOVING ON TO
THE, SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS THE
180 DAY INVESTIGATIVE TIME LINE.
THE CURRENT CONTRACT RESTRICTS
OPA MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS TO
180 DAYS. AFTER THAT PERIOD, THE
CITY MAY NO LONGER IMPOSE
DISCIPLINE FOR VIOLATIONS AND
POLICY. UNLESS AN EXEMPTION
APPLIES. THE CONTRACT IDENTIFIED
A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS THAT
COULD TRIGGER THE 180 DAY
PERIOD. SPD AND OPA FOUND THAT
THAT CONTRACT LANGUAGE IS
DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE AND OFTEN
WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHEN
THE 180 DAYS KICKED OFF. IT WAS
FOR THAT REASON THAT ALL THREE
AGENCIES ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES
IDENTIFIED THIS AS A TOP
PRIORITY. THE ACCOUNTABILITY
ORDNANCE SAYS THAT, THE THE 180
DAY SHOULD START AT THE MOMENT
THAT OPA RECEIVES A COMPLAINT.
THIS CONTRACT WOULD MORE OR LESS
LINE IT UP WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE. THAT
THE PERIOD WOULD BEGIN WHEN OPA
INITIATES OR RECEIVES A
COMPLAINT. IT ALSO SPECIFIES
THAT FOR MINOR ACTS OF
MISCONDUCT, THAT IT WOULD BEGIN
WHEN A FRONT LINE SUPERVISOR
DOCUMENTS THE COMPLAINT AS PART
OF THAT FRONT LINE PROCESS WE
TALKED ABOUT. THAT WOULD ONLY BE
FOR, LESS THAN SERIOUS OR MINOR
MISCONDUCT. THEN FINALLY THE 180
DAY PERIOD WOULD BEGIN WHEN OPA
PERSONNEL ARE AT A POTENTIAL
CRIME SCENE. USE OF FORCE.
OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE AWARE OF
THE INCIDENT IF THEY ARE THERE
FROM THE OUTSET. STOP AND ASK IF
THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
OKAY. MOVING ALONG. THE THIRD
PRIORITY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
AGENCIES WAS FLEXIBLE USE OF
CIVILIAN STAFF AND OPA. THE
CURRENT CONTRACT PROHIBITS
CIVILIANS FROM WORKING ON ANY
CASE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD
TO TERMINATION. THIS LIMITATION
IS ADD ODDS WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE -- THAT
WOULD TO STAFF THE OFFICE WITH A
MIX OF CIVILIAN AND FORM THAT
SUPPORTING PUBLIC TRUST AND
MISHANDLING. IT'S THE CASE THAT
THE NEW CBA WOULD ALLOW TO WORK
ON SERIOUS MISCONDUCT CASES
PROVIDED THAT A SWORN
INVESTIGATOR IS WORKING
ALONGSIDE A CIVILIAN AND IS
EITHER THE LEAD OR COLEAD FOR
THE INVESTIGATION. SO IT WAS THE
CASE THAT, UNDER THE CURRENT
CONTRACT. CIVILIANS COULDN'T BE
INVOLVED IN THE MOST SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT AND INVESTIGATIONS
NOW UNDER THIS CONTRACT THEY
WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE INVOLVED
IN THOSE MISCONDUCT AND
VALUATIONS BUT THEY HAVE TO LEAD
OR COLEAD. MOVE ON TO THE
DISCIPLINE APPEALS PROCESS.
STATE LAW AND THE CURRENT
CONTRACT REQUIRES THAT SPOG
MEMBERS APPEAL DISCIPLINE,
DECISIONS THROUGH THE STATE'S
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
COMMISSION OR PERK. PURSUANT TO
THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, WHERE
EXISTING EVIDENCE CAN BE
RE-EXAMINED. NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE
INTRODUCED. NEW WITNESSES CAN BE
CALLED AND THE ARBITER.
EVERYTHING FROM THE AVAILABILITY
OF NEW WITNESSES, NEW
INFORMATION. AND WOULD CHANGE
THE STANDARD OF A REVIEW SO THAT
IT WAS, NOT A HIGHER LEVEL
STANDARD BUT IT WAS A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
STANDARD. ALL OF THOSE ARE
STANDARD THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED
WITHOUT NEGOTIATION OF WITH THE
SPOG. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT,
THE CITY WILL NOT, WILL NOT
ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS. WILL NOT
BACK OFF OF. AND SO, IT IS THE
CASE THAT THESE ARE GOING LIKELY
TO GO TO, BE AN IMPASSE AND GO
TO ARBITRATION. WHERE AN ARBITER
WILL HAVE TO HEAR FROM BOTH
SIDES. WHERE THE DISCIPLINED
SYSTEM AND THE CONTRACT SHOULD
BE CHANGED. ANY QUESTIONS ON
THAT. THE LAST ONE IS SUBPOENA
AUTHORITY. PROHIBITS THE USE OF
SUBPOENA TO OBTAIN PERSONAL
INFORMATION OR PERSONAL RECORDS
FROM BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS.
THEIR FAMILIES AND THIRD PARTIES
SUCH AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
OR SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. THE
ACCOUNTABLE ORDNANCE WOULD ALLOW
OPA TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS WHEN
NECESSARY TO COMPEL OFFICERS TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY
THAT IS KEY TO AN INVESTIGATION.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE,
THE CITY AND SPOG HAVE AGREED TO
TABLE THAT NEGOTIATION FOR THIS
ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS AND IT
WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN
ARBITRATION AS THE DISCIPLINE
APPEAL PROCESS ABOVE WILL BE. SO
THESE AS I MENTIONED ARE THE
FIVE PRIORITIES. IT'S NOT THE
COMPLETE LIST. AS I MENTIONED
FROM THE OUT SET IT'S A LONG
LIST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ON
THE ACCOUNTABILITY. IF YOU GO
BACK AND REVIEW THE LETTERS FROM
THE ACCOUNTABILITY. THESE FIVE
THINGS ARE CERTAINLY THE VERY
TOP PRIORITIES. ESPECIALLY THE
DISCIPLINES APPEALS PROCESS.
THAT'S MADE UP OF A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT THINGS. EVERYTHING
FROM, THE ACTUAL ARBITRATION
ITSELF TO THE STANDARD OF
REVIEW. THESE ARE ALL THE TOP
THINGS ON THE LETTERS FOR THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES. SO,
NEXT I'M GOING TO GO INTO
CHANGES THAT WERE MADE RELATIVE
TO ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE. I'M
NOT GOING TO GO TOO MUCH INTO
BACKGROUND ON CARE, THE
COMMUNITY CRISIS RESPONDERS. I
THINK THAT THE COMMITTEE OR THE
COUNCIL IS WELL AWARE OF THE,
THE CITY'S EFFORT TO EXPAND IN
THAT AREA. AS YOU ALSO KNOW, THE
RCW REQUIRES THE CITY TO BARGAIN
IN GOOD FAITH WITH SPOG BEFORE
THEY CAN CIVILIANIZE ANY DUTIES
THAT HAVE BEEN DONE BY SPOG
MEMBERS INCLUDING THE RESPONSE
TO 911 CALLS. AS YOU ARE AWARE,
THE NEGOTIATING TEAM HAD BEEN
WORKING TOWARD AN AGREEMENT THAT
WILL ALLOW FOR SOLE DISPATCH OF
COMMUNITIES AND CRISIS
RESPONDERS. CURRENTLY, CARE
DEPARTMENT CRISIS RESPONDERS CAN
ONLY ACCOMPANY 911, OR POLICE
OFFICERS ON 911 CALLS. AND
SPECIFICALLY ONLY TO PERSONS
DOWN AND WELLNESS CHECKS AS
AUTHORIZED BY AN MLU THAT THE
COUNCIL PASSED IN DECEMBER OF
2023. THIS PROPOSED CBA WOULD
REMOVE THE CAP ON THE NUMBER OF
CARE CRISIS RESPONDERS THAT
WOULD BE, COULD BE HIRED BY CARE
AND DEPLOYED IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR SOLE
DISPATCH OF CRISIS RESPONDERS IN
A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS. THOSE
SITUATIONS THAT YOU SEE UP TOP,
AS I MENTIONED, UNDER THE DUAL
DISPATCH SYSTEM, THE SYSTEM THAT
WE CURRENTLY HAVE. THERE'S TWO
CALL TYPES. PERSONS DOWN AND
WELLNESS CHECK. WHAT THIS NEW
CONTRACT DOES IS IT MOVES AWAY
FROM CALL TYPES AND MOVES INTO
THE SITUATION OF A CALL. A
REPORT OF A PERSON AND BEHAVIOR
HEALTH CRISIS. A REQUEST FOR
FOOD OR TRANSPORTATION OR A
PERSON THAT APPEARS TO BE IN
DANGER OF THEMSELVES AND IS IN
NEED OF EVALUATION. MUTUAL
DISPATCH WILL STILL BE REQUIRED
FOR A CALL WHERE THERE'S EITHER
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. POTENTIAL OF
DANGER TO THE CRISIS CARE
RESPONSE. RESPONDER OR IF A,
CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE A, A
NONPUBLIC BUILDING OR PRIVATE
RESIDENCE. IN THAT CASE, THE
CARE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO BE
MUTUALLY DISPATCHED. THE
PROPOSED CBA WILL MAKE PERMANENT
A COUPLE OF OTHER CHANGES. ONE
OF THEM WOULD BE TO RETAIN
FLEXIBILITY TO USE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR SPECIAL
EVENTS. FOR ASSIGNMENTS THAT
MIGHT OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
FILLED BY SPOG MEMBERS. LASTLY,
SPOG MEMBERS WOULD CONTINUE TO
BE ELIGIBLE FOR A STIPEND WHEN
THEY VOLUNTEER FOR SPECIAL
EVENTS. THAT STIPEND WOULD GO
FROM $245 TO $250. IN A MOMENT I
WILL GO INTO THE FISCAL IMPACTS.
AND WE WILL GO OTHER ALL OF THIS
INCLUDING THE STIPEND. THE LAST,
THE NEXT THING I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT IS OTHER CHANGES. ONE OF
WHICH IS INCREASED
CIVILIANIZATION OF SWORN
FUNCTIONS. THE PROPOSED CONTRACT
WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO ASSIGN
CIVILIANS TO AUGMENT THE WORK OF
SPOG MEMBERS THAT ARE IN
RECRUITING AND ALSO IN
BACKGROUNDING. SO, I USE THE
WORD AUGMENT. IT'S NOT TO
SUPPLANT OR REPLACE.
SPECIFICALLY IN BACKGROUNDING
WHERE THERE'S A GREAT TKPHRAPBD
RIGHT NOW. WOULD BE AUGMENTED BY
CIVILIANS SO THAT WILL PROVIDE
SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. THE
OTHER CHANGE IS THAT THE CBA
WOULD ESTABLISH A TRUST. THAT
WOULD BE POPULATED WITH $1,000
FROM THE CITY. AND THEN ON A
MONTHLY BASIS, THE CITY WOULD
DEPOSIT $100 TO EACH MEMBERS
ACCOUNT. THE LAST BIG CHANGE IS
THE ONE THAT'S UP HERE, THE
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION PREMIUMS.
OFFICERS WOULD RECEIVE A 1.5%
PREMIUM. IF THEY ARE FLUENT IN
ANOTHER LANGUAGE OR THEY HAVE AN
ASSOCIATES DEGREE IN CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CRIMINOLOGY, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, FORENSIC SCIENCE OR
RELATED FEEL. THEY CAN RECEIVE A
PREMIUM IF THEY HOLD A BACHELORS
DEGREE FROM AN ACCREDITED
INSTITUTION AND THERE'S NO
FIELD REQUIREMENTS THERE. MOVE
ON TO THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS.
FIRST THE ANNUAL WAGE INCREASES.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, 6%
IN 2024. 4.1% IN 25. 2.7 IN
2026. ALL OF THOSE FIGURES
KNOWN. THE ONE THAT'S NOT KNOWN
IS 2027 AND BASED ON THE CPI,
THAT ONE WILL FALL SIMILAR
BETWEEN A FLOOR OF 3% AND A
CEILING OF 4%. THE OTHER NOTABLE
COSTS, I HAVE GONE OVER SO FAR.
THE INCREASE FROM 225 TO 250,
FOR THE SPECIAL EVENTS PREMIUM
THAT OFFICERS ARE RECEIVED TO
VOLUNTEER. THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY
THE INCREASE THIS IS THE TOTAL
COST. ABOUT $4.5 MILLION A YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT WE PAY OFFICERS AN
ADDITIONAL VOUCHER IF YOU WILL
FOR VOLUNTEERING FOR SPECIAL
EVENTS. OF COURSE AS WE, AS I
JUST MENTIONED, THE RETIRING
MEDICAL TRUST THAT WILL COME TO
A TOTAL OF 1.1 MILLION IN 2026.
THE MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION 1.3
MILLION IN 2026 AND 1.4 MILLION
IN 2027. THE LANGUAGE PREMIUM
476,000 TO 495. AND THE
EDUCATION INCENTIVE IS 3.9
MILLION IN 26 AND 4.1 MILLION IN
27. WHEN DEVELOPING THESE COSTS,
LABOR RELATIONS ASSUMED THAT
THE, WE WOULD SEE ABOUT A 12%
PARTICIPATION WITH THE LANGUAGE
PREMIUM. AND A 20% WITH FOLKS
WHO HAVE AN ASSOCIATES DEGREE.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH
LEVEL, THE WAGES OVER ALL WILL
BE, SORRY. THE SLIDE GOT A
LITTLE BIT. WE'RE LOOKING AT AN
INCREMENTAL INCREASE OF 12
MILLION IN 2024. 22 MILLION IN
2025. 42 MILLION IN 26, AND 53
MILLION IN 2027. IT IS THE CASE
THAT THE CITY BUDGET OFFICE
ANTICIPATED THIS GROWTH AND HAS
WITHHELD RESERVES TO BE ABLE TO
MEET THESE NUMBERS. THEY DON'T
CAPTURE ANY GROWTH IN 2027. SO
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE OFFICERS
COMING ON BOARD IN 2026 AT A
VERY HIGH RATE. WE EXPECT THAT
WE MIGHT SEE 100 OF THEM BETWEEN
NOW AND THE END OF NEXT YEAR.
THOSE ALL COVERS IN THE NUMBERS
ABOVE AND THE RESERVES. 2027,
ANY GROWTH THERE WOULD NOT BE
COVERED. SO IN TERMS OF NEXT
STEP, THE CBA HAS A STORY WE
THINK IS POSITIVELY CAROLINA
BEEN APPROVED BY THE MEMBERSHIP
OF SPOG UNDER LABOR LAW. THE
COUNCIL MUST APPROVE OR REJECT
THE CBA. APPROVAL OF THE CBA
COMES IF A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF
THE COUNCIL ACCEPT IT OR VOTE
FOR IT. THE COUNCIL HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE
IT WAS BARGAINED AT THE TABLE
AND RATIFIED BY THE UNION
MEMBERS AND THE LRBC
PARTICIPATION WITH THE
PARAMETERS. SO IF THIS, IF THIS
VOTE IS, IF THIS BILL IS VOTED
OUT BY THE COUNCIL THE MAYOR
WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO
IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT IT WITH
SPOG. HOWEVER THE FUNDING
REQUIRED TO PAY FOR BOTH A BACK
PAY OF 2024 THROUGH 2025 AND THE
FORWARD LOOKING PAY OF 2026
WOULD COME AS PART OF AN
APPROPRIATIONS BILL. MOSTLY NEXT
YEAR'S MID-YEAR DIFFERENTIAL.
THOSE COSTS WOULD RELATE TO NEW
SPD OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO BE
HANDLED AS THE 2027-2028 BUDGET.
THAT CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
FASTER THAN I THOUGHT BUT OPEN
FOR QUESTIONS.
>>
>> I'M, LOOKING FOR, COUNCIL
MEMBER KETTLE.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, FIRST THANK
YOU MR. DOSS. ONE REASON WHY THE
QUESTIONS WERE, LEFT TO THE END
WAS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE GREAT
CENTRAL STAFF MEMBER THAT HAS,
IN THE MAJORITY OF US HAVE LIVED
THIS TOO. SO THERE'S THAT
ASPECT OF IT AS WELL. AND SO I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE YOU KNOW
THANK YOU FOR THIS RUN DOWN.
DURING THE COURSE OF THIS LABOR
NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS THAT WE
WENT THROUGH. COLLEAGUES, I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS. PARTLY
BECAUSE, YES THERE'S THE COST
CONSIDERATIONS BUT THIS IS A
MAJOR STEP FORWARD IN SO MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS. I KNOW THERE'S
THOSE THAT ARE CRITIQUING THIS
AGREEMENT. BUT PART OF THAT IS
UNLIKE THE MAJORITY OF US WHO
LIVE AND WORK IN THIS LABOR
WORLD. THE STATE LABOR LAW HAS A
LOT OF RESTRICTIONS. AND SO THEN
THERE'S ALSO THE ARBITRATION
PROCESS. THESE ARE LEGISLATIONS
THAT AREN'T UNDERSTOOD. IN THE
REALM OF ACCOUNTABILITY. IF YOU
WANT TO MOVE FORWARD YOU HAVE TO
CHANGE STATE LABOR LAW. THIS
GOES ON WITH THE OIR LETTER.
THIS IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
THINGS IN THE INTERIM BUT ALSO
WITH PERK. THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMISSION. THERE'S A
LOT OF PIECES THAT GO TO THAT IN
TERMS OF YOU KNOW WHEN YOU THINK
IT'S SIMPLE. A LOT OF PEOPLE
COMMENT ON THIS LIKE IT'S
SIMPLE BUT IT'S NOT. AND THAT
SYSTEM BY THE WAY IS REALLY,
GEARED TOWARD DOLLARS AND CENTS.
IT'S NOT A GEAR TO
ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS AND
PROVISIONS AND THE LABOR
AGREEMENT. AND SO I JUST WANTED
TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF LIKE
BASIC UNDERSTANDING, SET UP. AND
YOU KNOW I OFTEN HEAR PEOPLE SAY
IT'S RUSHED. WELL I HAVE,
FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER KATY
MOORE'S VOICE IN MY EAR SAYING
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN CLAMBERING
FOR THIS FOR TWO YEARS, SO THE
THOUGHT THAT THIS IS RUSHED,
HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG WE'VE
BEEN WORKING THROUGH THIS. I SAY
THAT TOO BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE
MAKE VARIOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
AGREEMENT NOT TRULY
UNDERSTANDING YOU KNOW THE
VARIOUS PIECES THAT, THAT WE
WORK THROUGH IN ORDER TO GET TO
WHERE WE ARE NOW. THE IDEA THAT
THIS IS RUSHED. AT LEAST FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE SIDE. MOVING ON TO
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PIECES.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPA. I
MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE
HOUSING. YOU HAVE THE 180
DAYTIME LINE. CLEARING THAT UP.
THAT WAS CREATING SO MANY
CHALLENGES. THE CIVIL
ORGANIZATION PIECES ARE VERY
IMPORTANT. WE PREDATED THIS WITH
OUR LEGISLATIVE -- WE KEEP DOING
THESE PIECES, AND HERE IS THE
NEXT PIECE THAT COMES TO THIS.
AND FRONT LINE INVESTIGATIONS.
BY HAVING MAYOR ISSUES GO TO
OPA. THAT ALLOWS THEM TO WORK ON
THE MAJOR ISSUES. THEY'RE NOT
GETTING CLOGGED DOWN WITH EVERY
LITTLE PIECE THAT GOT SENT FROM
SPD. AND HERE'S THE IMPORTANT
PART. I STARTED WORKING ON THIS
SUBJECT EVEN WHEN WE FOUND OUT.
BECAUSE I ORIGINALLY READ THE
ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS AND
WORKING THROUGH THOSE. BUT I
REALIZED THAT IF WE'RE TRYING
TO DEVELOP LEADERS IN THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IF
EVERYTHING GOES TO OPA THEN
WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING LEADERS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT
GOOD SERGEANTS. AND IF YOU
DON'T HAVE GOOD SERGEANTS,
GUESS WHAT, IN THE FUTURE YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO HAVE GOOD
LIEUTENANTS AND CAPTAINS. YOU'RE
NOT HELPING THAT IF WE'RE NOT
GROWING LEADERS STARTING FROM
THE EARLIEST DAYS. THAT SERGEANT
AND THAT SWORN OFFICER THAT
PIECE IS SO IMPORTANT. SO
IMPORTANT. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT
I'M PUSHING THIS AND I'M
SPEAKING TO THIS AS A RETIRED
NAVAL OFFICER. BUT IT IS SO
IMPORTANT IN THIS AREA IN TERMS
OF THE SWORN OFFICERS IN OUR
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT'S
GOING TO PAY DIVIDENDS IN THE
FUTURE. IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING
TOMORROW'S FUTURE LEADERS. I
ALSO NOTE THE ONE THING IN TERMS
THAT AS MR. DOSS NOTICED
SUBPOENAS BEING PULLED OUT AND
FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS, YES,
PARTICULARLY AS RELATED TO
INFORMATION, WHEN YOUR OPA IS
INTERNAL TO SPD. SO THERE'S
OTHER PIECES HERE WHEN YOU
DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A
SUBPOENA BECAUSE YOU'RE ON THE
INSIDE AND WORKING WITH. WE HAVE
OUR RESPONSIBILITY HERE WITH
CITY COUNCIL AND OVERSIGHT THAT
WE CAN ALSO WORK IN TERMS OF
GETTING INFORMATION IF NEEDED.
ANOTHER PIECE AND IT'S IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE BUT
IT'S BEEN FURTHER GROWN OVER
THE YEARS IS OUR ACCOUNTABLE
SYSTEM. NO CITY IN THE UNITED
STATES HAS WHAT WE HAVE. THE
COMBINATION OF THE OFFICE OF
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION,
THAT IS SO IMPORTANT. AND THAT
IS GOING TO BE REINFORCED. THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN
SUPPORTING AND CHAMPIONING AND
IT'S SO IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE
FROM CONSENT TO FEDERAL
OVERSIGHT TO LOCAL OVERSIGHT. NO
OTHER CITY HAS THE
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS OVERSIDE
THAT WE DO. I WOULD ARGUE THAT
WE HAVE A STRONG CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC SAFETY OVER SIGHT AS
WELL. THIS GOES TO ENSURING THAT
WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. ON
REFORM TO CONTINUE THAT WE HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING,
COMMUNITY POLICING AND ALL OF
THESE PIECES MOVE FORWARD. I'VE
BEEN MAKING THESE COMMITMENTS
AGAIN AND AGAIN. I MADE IT
YESTERDAY WITH AN INTERVIEW,
SPEAKING TO THESE KINDS OF
TOPICS WITH CONVERGED MEDIA.
BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. SO WORKING WITH OUR
COMMUNITY ACROSS THE BOARD IN
THE CITY BUT ALSO, THOSE
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
IMPACTED SO STRONGLY OVER THE
YEARS AND YOU KNOW MY COMMITMENT
AT LEAST IN TERMS OF CHAIR OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE IS
TO CONTINUE THAT. SO AT THE END
OF THE DAY, I RECOGNIZE THE
COSTS ARE DIFFICULT. BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY THIS IS A GREAT
DEAL AND THIS DEAL HAS NOT BEEN
SEEN BEFORE. I THINK MR. DOSS
WITH HIS, BEING INVOLVED WITH IN
OVERTHE YEARS CAN SPEAK TO THAT
IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW WHAT THIS
BRINGS US. I HAVEN'T EVEN
SPOKEN TO ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE.
AND SO, COLLEAGUES, THAT'S JUST
A QUICK INTRODUCTION AND I
REALLY, BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW
THIS IS A, A MAJOR STEP FORWARD
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE
THESE STEPS FORWARD AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. BOTH IN THE LABOR
PROCESS. BUT ALSO OUTSIDE OF THE
LABOR PROCESS. AS WE WORK IN
COUNCIL. THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> OKAY, I SAW THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER SAKA HAD HIS HAND UP NEXT
AND THEN I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS
FIRST. COUNCIL MEMBER RINCK AND
LIN. COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ ALSO
HAD HER HAND UP.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ROBUST PARTICIPATION IN
ENGAGEMENT WITH ME DIRECTLY IN
MY OFFICE OVER THE PAST FEW
WEEKS, FEW MONTHS FRANKLY ON
THIS AS SOON AS THE DEALS WERE
ANNOUNCED. SO I DON'T, SIT ON
THE LABOR RELATIONS POLICY
COMMISSION FOR ANY OF THESE
AGREEMENTS OR APPROVES A, FROM
APPROVES THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE
THEY GET TO THIS STAGE. BUT, YOU
KNOW VERY KEENLY INTERESTED SO I
REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOU HAVE
PROVIDED ME WITH -- AND PATIENCE
AS WELL. BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE A
LOT OF PESKY QUESTIONS
SOMETIMES. SO, BUT. VERY
INSIGHTFUL. CAN I ASK, CAN YOU
JUST CLARIFY RELATED TO THE
THING WE WERE KIND OF, I GUESS
MOST RECENTLY ITERATING ABOUT.
SEATTLE POLICE ARE SOME OF THE
HIGHEST PAID. MISSION WE GET
THAT DONE. THAT'S A GOOD DEAL.
NOW WE'RE UP FOR THIS PROPOSED,
OR MORE PERMANENT DEAL. THAT WAS
A TENTATIVE DEAL. ARE SEATTLE
POLICE OFFICERS STILL THE
HIGHEST PAID IN THE STATE? AS
FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY
PARALLEL NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON.
AND THAT COULD CHANGE, WITH THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY NEW PENDING
DEAL. BUT BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW
AND PROBABLY AS LAWYER I CAN
PROBABLY ASSERT ALL THE
QUALIFIERS AND HYPOTHETICALS BUT
BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW TODAY.
WITHIN REASONABLE EFFORTS. ARE
THEY STILL THE HIGHEST PAID
TODAY?
>> YES, COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA. IF
THE CONTRACT WAS NOT ADOPTED.
SEATTLE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE
HIGHEST PAID THROUGH THE REST OF
THIS YEAR. THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY IS ONE STUDY
IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION WOULD
PASS US IMMEDIATELY IN 2026. WE
KNOW ANOTHER CITY WOULD PASS US
IN 2028. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
CONTRACTS IN THE POLICE AGENTS
AROUND THE PUGET SOUND THAT ARE
BEING NEGOTIATED RIGHT NOW FOR
2026. SO I, IT'S DIFFICULT TO
SAY IF ANYONE WOULD PASS US. WE
ARE RIGHT NOW PAYING 2023 WAGES.
AS I SAY, AS OF TODAY STILL THE
HIGHEST. BUT THE WORLD IS MOVING
AND WE EXPECT SEVERAL CONTRACTS
ARE GOING TO BE PASSED IN THE
NEXT FEW MONTHS. SO, WE KNOW FOR
SURE ONE, AND THERE MAY BE SOME
OTHERS.
>> GOT IT. AND CAN YOU JUST
CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, THE REASON
WHY THAT IS, THAT WOULD HAPPEN
IN TERMS OF, THE ONE THAT WE
KNOW ABOUT. WOULD THAT BE THE,
CPI AGREE TO CPI INCREASES IN
THAT ONE JURISDICTION AND
POTENTIALLY OTHERS.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE BEYOND
CPI. THAT THAT JURISDICTION
WOULD, IS NEGOTIATING FOR POLICE
WAGES BASED ON CPI. WHAT OTHER
OFFICERS IN THE PUGET -- ARE
GETTING.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LIN. OR RINCK.
LIKE I SAID I DON'T KNOW WHO
GOT THEIR HAND UP FIRST.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
AND THANK YOU GREG FOR BEING AT
THE TABLE FOR YOUR PRESENTATION
AND DETAILED MEMOS AS ALWAYS. I
HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR
THE -- VIEWING PUBLIC. LOOKING
AT THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT TO THIS
CONTRACT I'M SEEING THAT A FEW
OF THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BEGIN
THE 180 DAY INVESTIGATIVE TIME
LINE WERE REMOVED. IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS DONE
IN ORDER TO REMOVE ANY
ACCIDENTAL TRIGGERS OF THE
BEGINNING OF THE 180 DAY PERIOD.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSESSMENT
THAT THIS WAS REMOVED IN ORDER
TO GIVE THE OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY MORE TIME AND
CLARITY AS TO WHEN THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE PERIOD BEGINS?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
IT IS ENORMOUSLY CONVOLUTED.
THERE'S ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE
DIFFERENT WAYS THAT 130 DAYS CAN
START. IN CASES WHERE THE 180
DAYS. WHERE THE INVESTIGATION
GOES ALONG AND IS BUMPING UP
OVER 180 DAYS IT WOULD BE REALLY
HARD TO TIME WHEN THAT IS
BEGINNING. IF IT LOOKS LIKE
IT'S GOING TO BE GOING BEYOND
THAT 180 DAYS THEY CAN WORK WITH
THE UNION ON POTENTIAL
EXTENSIONS.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING THAT. NOW MOVING TO
ISSUE NUMBER THREE. YOU
IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE SPOG CBA.
THE PROPOSED CBA ALLOWS TO WORK
ON -- WILL ALSO BE ASSIGNED TO
THE CASE AS THE LEAD OR COLEAD
FOR THE INVESTIGATION. AM I
CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT
THIS ISSUE AREA AS NEGOTIATED BY
SPOG WORKS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THEY DO NOT WANT SOLO OPA
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATORS HANDLING
SERIOUS MISHANDLING CASES AND
WOULD YOU SAY HAVING A SWORN
OFFICER WOULD ALSO PROVIDE OPA
WITH A POINT OF VIEW THAT MAY
CONTRAST WITH AN OPA CIVILIAN
INVESTIGATOR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.
THAT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO
ANSWER. MY ROLE IN THESE
NEGOTIATIONS IT'S MORE THAN TO
BE AN OBSERVER. I DO PARTICIPATE
IN THE NEGOTIATING TEAM AND WORK
WITH THE CITY TO ADVANCE
ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS. IT IS
ALSO DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, TO SAY
WHAT THE OTHER SIDE, WHAT
SPOG'S THOUGHTS ARE. WHEN
THEY'RE NEGOTIATING THESE. THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS, 4156
ALLOW THEM TO, SPECIFY WHAT
PARTS OF THEIR BODY OF WORK
INCLUDING INVESTIGATIONS ARE TO
BE POTENTIALLY CIVILIANIZED. AND
SO, I THINK IT'S A FAIR
ASSUMPTION THAT SPOG IS
CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
THE, INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE
WITH PERSONS WHO ARE
KNOWLEDGEABLE IN POLICE
PROCEDURE AND HAVE ON THE GROUND
EXPERIENCE. I THINK THAT'S A
FAIR ASSUMPTION. IT ALSO IS THE
CASE THAT THIS IS A SITUATION
WHERE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
BARGAIN THIS. AND SO THEY ARE. I
HOPE THAT HELPS.
>> THAT DOES, THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR TAKING
ON MY TOUGH QUESTIONS. IT
APPEARS TO ME THAT THE
REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A SWORN
OFFICER AS A LEADER COLEAD OF
INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCT
WITHIN A DEPARTMENT IS AT ODDS
WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE
AS IT MAY NOT BE A CONFIGURATION
THAT BEST SUPPORTS PUBLIC TRUST
IN THE COMPLAINT HANDLING
PROCESS. BUT MOVING ALONG IN MY
QUESTIONS FOR TODAY, JUST TAKING
A LOOK AT THE DISCIPLINE AND
APPEALS PROCESS. AS YOU STATED
IN YOUR MEMO, STATE LAW AND
CURRENT CONTRACT THE CURRENT
CONTRACT ALLOWS FOR SPOG MEMBERS
TO APPEAL DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS
THROUGH THE STATE'S PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND TO THE ARBITRATOR WILL APPLY
AN ELEVATED STANDARD OF REVIEW.
COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT AS A CITY
WE'RE UNABLE TO MOVE TO NEXT
STEPS SUCH AS GOING DOWN TO
OLYMPIA TO WE MOVE TO IMPASSE
STAGE.
>> YES, GET TO THAT IN JUST A
SECOND. SO I ALSO WANT TO GO
BACK AND HIGHLIGHT WHAT YOU JUST
SAID A MOMENT AGO IN THAT IT IS,
VERY TRUE THAT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE HAS A
DIFFERENT INCLUDING FOR
INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES. AND
THAT, WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE
ACCOUNTABLE ORDNANCE DOES SAY
THAT THE OPA DIRECTOR SHOULD BE
ABLE TO UTILIZE CIVILIAN AND
SWORN RESOURCES IN ANY WAY THEY
SEE FIT FOR THE PUBLIC TRUST.
WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
BALANCED ON MY COMMENTS THERE.
AS TO THE POTENTIAL ARBITRATION
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO
DISCIPLINE, IT IS THE CASE THAT,
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS
REQUIRE THAT THESE BE NEGOTIATED
AS PART OF WORKING CONDITIONS.
WHEN I SAY THIS, I MEAN
DISCIPLINED CONDITIONS.
EVERYTHING FROM THE DENOVO
HEARING THAT MAY BE USED TO
APPEAL THEIR DISCIPLINE TO THE
WITNESSES AND EVEN TO THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW THAT IS
REQUIRED IN THAT HEARING. ALL OF
THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE
BARGAINED FOR THE UNION. ALL OF
THOSE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT THE
CITY IS NOT WILLING TO LET GO
OF. AND THAT WE EXPECT THAT THE
CITY WILL BE MOVING FORWARD IN
ARBITRATION TO -- THOSE THINGS.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN'T
RESOLVE. YES I THINK THE NEXT
STEP FOR THE CITY WOULD BE TO
SEEK CHANGES AT THE LEGISLATIVE
LEVEL. TO SAY, WE WENT THROUGH
THE PROCESS. WE ABIDED BY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS. WE
WENT TO ARBITRATION. WE WEREN'T
ABLE TO FIND THE KIND OF REFORMS
WE WERE LOOKING FOR THERE. AND
SO, WE AS A CITY ARE LOOKING FOR
CHANGES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
LAWS. SKWR -Z THANK YOU GREG.
AND COLLEAGUES THIS OF COURSE
CONNECTS TO THE EARLIER
DISCUSSION WE HAD TO THE STATE
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. PARTICULARLY
MY AMENDMENT. THE NEED TO UPDATE
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
ARBITRATION RULES AND PROCEDURE
TO ENSURE DISCIPLINED FOR
MISCONDUCT IS FAIR AND
CONSISTENT IS A PART OF THIS
WORK: AND AS WAS STATED DURING
THE PRESENTATION SUBPOENA
AUTHORITY HAS HAD NO CHANGES IN
THIS AND MOVING ALONG TO THE
CARE DEPARTMENT. THE PARAMETERS
IN WHICH THEY CAN BE DEPLOYED TO
AS A SOLID DISPATCH CALL. IS IT
THE CASE THAT SPOG MEMBERS MAY
BELIEVE THAT SITUATION SUCH AS
HOMELESSNESS ENCAMPMENTS OR
PRIVATE BUSINESSES ARE TOO
DANGEROUS FOR A SOLO DISPATCH?
>> I THINK THAT'S AGAIN A GOOD
ASSUMPTION. THE MEMBERS OF SPOG
HAVE B EEN -- IT'S ALSO JUST
ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT SPOG IS
SEEKING TO CONTROL HOW THIS IS
IMPLEMENTED. BECAUSE THEY ARE
ALLOWED THAT AUTHORITY UNDER THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS. IT
IS THEIR CURRENT BODY OF WORK.
>> THANK YOU FOR DAYLIGHTING
THAT, GREG. I THINK COLLEAGUES I
WANTED TO LIFT THIS UP. GIVEN
FROM MY CONVERSATIONS IN
COMMUNITY, MINIMIZING ARMED
OFFICERS TO INDIVIDUALS
EXPERIENCING MENTAL CRISIS. WE
KNOW FROM THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE
FROM THE MENTAL ILLNESS
COMMUNITY, SEEING AN ARMED
OFFICER CAN ESCALATE THE
SITUATION IN A NUMBER OF CASES
AND SIMPLY WANTED TO REFLECT THE
CONVERSATION THAT I'VE HAD IN A
NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
PARTICULARLY CID. PRY VAT
BUSINESSES ARE LOOKING FOR
CLARIFICATION ON THIS MATTER.
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A
DEESCALATORY RESPONSE. MEMBER
SAKA TOUCHED ON WHAT I WANTED TO
BRING UP. OFFICERS HAVE RECEIVED
CLOSE TO A 42% INCREASE OVER THE
PAST FIVE YEARS WITH A SPECIFIC
NOTE OF A 15% INCREASE FROM THE
CURRENT STARTING SALARY OF
104,000 BUMPING NOW TO 126,000.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR
TODAY AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
AGAIN GREG FOR ANSWERING ALL OF
MY TOUGH QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, AND JUST WANT TO
UNDER SCORE THAT IS THE CASE.
IT'S 104 CURRENTLY. IT'LL
RAISE TO 118 AND THAT IS FOR
OFFICERS WHO AS A BASIC WAGE. IT
IS THE CASE THAT, AND JUST
STARTING IS A CASE OF AN OFFICER
THAT HAS BEEN ON PAYROLL FOR 54
MONTHS. THE PAY BASE WOULD MOVE
TO 151. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE
SOME OF THE SPECIAL PREMIUMS,
LONGEVITY OF PREMIUMS THAT WILL
BE AWARDED IN THE CONTRACT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LIN.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
FIRST JUST WANTED TO START WITH
A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
REPRESENTATION IS SO CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT IN ALL FORMS OF PUBLIC
SERVICE. BUT ESPECIALLY WITH
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ONE
OF THE MOST DIVERSE DISTRICTS IN
THE CITY. SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF,
OF BONUSES FOR LANGUAGE PREMIUMS
THAT WILL HELP TO DIVERSIFY THE
POLICE FORCE. I KNOW WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE. BUT JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN, YOU KNOW,
I THINK SO MANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WOULD BE CONFUSED BY THE
IDEA THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO
BARGAIN. THAT WE CAN. THIS IS AN
AREA OF POLICY THAT TYPICALLY,
CITY COUNCIL HERE SITS IN A
POLICYMAKING ROLE. WE DO NOT GET
TO JUST DICTATE THAT, THAT THE
STATE LAW WE HAVE TO BARGAIN
ACCOUNTABLE. -- ACCOUNTABILITY.
I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE
RECORD, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD BE UP FOR
NEGOTIATIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE
THE RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT TWO
BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE UP FOR
RENEGOTIATION. I DO WANT TO SAY
BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A UNIQUE
AREA WHERE, WE EITHER VOTE FOR
OR AGAINST THE CONTRACT. IT'S
EITHER UP OR DOWN. THERE'S NO
TWEAK HERE OR THERE. IT'S BEEN
BARGAINED ALREADY. AND I HEARD,
MY COLLEAGUE COUNCIL MEMBER
KETTLE TALK ABOUT THAT THIS HAS
BEEN IN NEGOTIATION FOR YEARS. I
ALSO WANT TO COMMENT THAT I
THINK FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IT MIGHT STILL FEEL A BIT
RUSHED. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR
ABOUT WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES
IN BARGAINING FOR THE PUBLIC TO
PROVIDE INPUT. BECAUSE I THINK A
LOT OF THE BARGAINING HAPPENS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. AND SO, AT
LEAST FROM THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
IT MIGHT FEEL RUSHED. I WOULD
JUST LOVE FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT
WHERE THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PUBLIC INPUT. MAYBE NOT RIGHT
NOW. I MEAN WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT TOMORROW ON THE UP AND
DOWN VOTE. IT'S PART OF THE
BARGAINING PROCESS. WHEN WILL
BARGAINING BEGIN ASSUMING WE
WOULD PASS THIS. WHEN WOULD
BARGAINING BEGIN AGAIN AND WHEN
WOULD THE PUBLIC GET TO PROVIDE
INPUT IN TERMS OF BARGAINING
PRIORITIES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER. IN
THIS CASE, AGAIN THE CONTRACT
GOES THROUGH 2027. I WOULD
IMAGINE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
DURING 2027. OR I BELIEVE IT'S
180 DAYS BEFORE THE BARGAINING
CAN START. AS I MENTIONED AT THE
START OF THE PRESENTATION. IT'S
REQUIRED BY THE SMC THAT THE
PUBLIC SAFETY HAVE COMMITTEE AND
IT'S A JOINT PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE OR SAFETY COMMITTEE.
THEY COME TOGETHER AND HOLD A
PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT THE
PUBLIC CAN COME AND TALK ABOUT
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND CAN
SAY THE THINGS THAT THEY CAN
INTERESTED IN ACHIEVING IN THE
NEXT CONTRACT. ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICERS WILL COME FORWARD AND
THEY WILL IDENTIFY THEIR
PRIORITIES. IF WE DO, IF YOU ALL
DO IT LIKE WE DID LAST TIME THEY
WILL IDENTIFY THEM IN WRITING.
AND THE CENTRAL STAFF CAN
AUTHOR, ON YOUR BEHALF A
RESOLUTION THAT CAPTURES ALL OF
THOSE. IN A STATUTORY WAY,
THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK
ABOUT NEXT YEAR OR AS WE'RE
GETTING CLOSER TO 2027. ALL OF
THE SAME PROCESSES, ALL OF THE
PROCESSES THAT WERE USED THIS
TIME AROUND DURING THE FORMATION
OF PARAMETERS, INVOLVING THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES BRINGING
THEM IN TO WORK WITH THE ORTC.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING REQUIRED
BY STATUTE. THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT COUNCIL DECIDED TO DO
THEMSELVES TO -- CAN CHOOSE TO
FOLLOW AND COULD IMPLEMENT
FORMALLY AGAIN OR AS PART OF A
FORMAL CHANGE TO THE SMC. I'M
GETTING AT YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK SO, I GUESS JUST ONE,
I MEAN ARE THERE EVER INTERIM
UPDATES THAT THE PUBLIC GETS TO
LEARN ABOUT OR DOES THE PUBLIC
JUST FIND OUT ONCE AN AGREEMENT
IS REACHED?
>> YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S
NO UPDATES DURING THE PROCESS.
IF YOU'RE AN LRPC MEMBER.
YOU'RE PROVIDED WITH UPDATES
BUT STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT
NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.
AND THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE LRPC
HAVE TO REMAIN PRIVATE ABOUT THE
INFORMATION THEY GET.
>> YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IF THERE
WERE WAYS TO PROVIDE UPDATES TO
THE PUBLIC I THINK THAT WOULD
HELP TO BUILD TRUST. HAVING THIS
NEGOTIATION HAPPEN AND THEN ALL
OF A SUDDEN IT GETS RELEASED I
THINK COULD BE A LITTLE BIT
JARRING. JUST BECAUSE ALL OF A
SUDDEN IT'S PRESENTED AT THIS
UP OR DOWN PACKAGE. AND THERE'S
NO INTERIM INFORMATION THAT IS
SHARED. A COUPLE OTHER THINGS.
WE MENTION SOME PRIORITIES THAT
WENT INTO THIS. CAN YOU TALK TO
US ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE NOT IN
THOSE PARAMETERS. GETTING MORE
INFORMATION OR GUARDRAILS INSIDE
OUTSIDE MANY OPERATIONAL FROM
THE LETTERS FROM THE
ACCOUNTABILITY. THERE ARE
SEVERAL OTHERS. IS RESPECTED IN
THE TOP FIVE. BUT THINGS LIKE
YOU MENTIONED REQUIRING OFFICERS
TO LOG THE OVERTIME THAT THEY
HAVE IS PART OF A SYSTEM WITH
SPD SO THAT SPD CAN MONITOR THE
HOURS THAT ARE BEING SPENT.
WORKED ON OVERTIME OUTSIDE OF
CITY EMPLOYMENT. THAT CERTAINLY
IS ONE OF THEM. THERE ARE OTHER
-- BY WAY OF EXAMPLE NOT TO
PRIORITIZE ONE OVER THE OTHER.
THERE ARE SOME ABOUT THE OPA
DIRECTOR. OUTSIDE OF SPD,
OUTSIDE OF THE CRIMINAL SECTION
OF SPD. IF IT'S A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION. SO, THERE ARE
EXAMPLES OF OTHER THINGS THAT
DIDN'T MAKE THE TOP FIVE. BUT,
AGAIN, THE HIGHEST ISSUES IN
THOSE LETTERS FROM THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES RELATE
TO DISCIPLINE, STANDARD OF
REVIEW, APPEAL. ARBITRATION.
SUBPOENA, AUTHORITY, ETC.
>> THANK YOU, AND JUST ONE OR
TWO MORE. SO IN NOTHING IN HERE
ADDRESSES OUR GOALS AROUND 30 BY
30. IS THAT CORRECT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK
IT'S THE CASE THAT MOST OF THE
CHANGES THAT WOULD BE MADE IN
THE 30 BY 30 PROGRAM. THE THINGS
THAT THE DEPARTMENT AND
NATIONWIDE EXPERTS HAVE
IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL POLICIES
AND SERVICES THAT COULD BE ADDED
TO THE DEPARTMENT. THINGS LIKE
MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS. CAREER
TRACKS FOR WOMEN. VARIOUS KINDS
OF RECRUITMENT EFFORTS. ALL OF
THOSE THINGS ARE WITHIN
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS. THOSE ARE NOT
THINGS THAT SEATTLE HAS TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION.
>> THANK YOU, AND FINAL
QUESTION. IF WE DO VOTE DOWN THE
CONTRACT. WE RETURN TO THE
BARGAINING TABLE. WOULD THAT BE
CORRECT.
>> ON THAT ONE, I PROBABLY WOULD
HAVE TO GET THE LAWYERS TO --
>> OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU
SO MUCH.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ DID YOU
HAVE YOUR HAND UP.
>> I DID, THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I'LL BE BRIEF. SOME OF THE
ISSUES I WAS GOING TO RAISE. MY
COLLEAGUES DID, I JUST WANT TO
ALSO THANK THE POLICE
COMMISSION, WE HAVE A
REPRESENTATIVE HERE WHO
SUBMITTED A MEMO TO US AN EIGHT
PAGE MEMO DATED DECEMBER 2nd. SO
I WANT TO THANK TERRON. I
RECOGNIZE YOUR HANDWRITING. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT
BECAUSE THAT WAS REALLY
CLARIFYING. YOU SHOULD READ
THOSE, ITEMS THREE AND FOUR. THE
SPMA AND THE SPOG, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE THAT WAS
PASSED IN MAY OF 207, AND
UNFORTUNATELY, YOURS TRULY HAS
BEEN HERE SINCE 2015, AND WAS
SPENT THREE TERMS FROM 2017 TO
2025 THAT'S EIGHT YEARS. THAT
WASN'T JUST SPRUNG ON
COMMUNITY. FROM THAT WE'VE HAD
SOME WINS AND WE HAVE HAD SOME
LOSSES. BUT AS YOU KNOW,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND
NEGOTIATIONS ARE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES. NOT
JUST FOR THE CITY SIDE OR NOT
JUST FOR SPOG AND SPMA BUT ALSO
FOR THE CITY SIDE AND WHAT OUR
PARAMETERS ARE IN HOW WE WANT TO
NEGOTIATE. SO WE'RE NOT
ACTUALLY NEGOTIATING IE
ACCOUNTABILITY AS NORMALLY YOU
WOULD USE THAT STATEMENT. WHAT
WE HAVE TO DO IS STAY WITHIN
FOUR CORNERS UNDER STATE LAW ON
WHAT ISSUES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
NEGOTIATE AND WHICH ONES WE
DON'T. SO, I CAN SAY AND I'M
SURE THERE CAN BE A LOT MORE
PARTICULARLY AFTER THE REMOVAL
OR THE ENDING OF THE CONSENT
DECREE. AS WE'VE HAD SOME
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES IN THE LAST
EIGHT YEARS. WE CREATED THE CARE
DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE IN THIS
BUDGET WE DOUBLED THEIR STAFF
AND POSITIONS. WE'VE I THINK
AND I'M SURE I WILL GET A TEXT
IF I'M WRONG. WE'VE CREATED
THE LEAD PROGRAM.
>> THE WAY THE COMMUNITY
UNDERSTANDS A LOT OF THESE
ISSUES IS THROUGH THE COMMITTEE.
AM I HAPPY WITH ALL OF THESE.
NO. THAT SERVE ON CLRP. THAT GO
THROUGH THESE VERY DIFFICULT
MEETINGS. AND THANK YOU. GOING
THROUGH ALL THESE ISSUES ABOUT
WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO. WHAT
WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO. WHETHER OR
NOT IT'S ARBITRATION. WHETHER
IT'S THE 180. WHETHER YOU CAN
HAVE SUBPOENAS. WHO CAN HAVE
SUBPOENA POWERS. ALL THOSE
THINGS ARE VETTED AND WE'RE
DOING ALL WE CAN WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF OUR LAW AND
RESPONSIBILITIES. I HOPE THE
PUBLIC CAN APPRECIATE THAT. THIS
ISN'T A POLITICAL -- WE'RE
SWORN IN IN PART OF THE CHARTER
IN PUBLIC SAFETY. WE HAVE OUR
OPINIONS ABOUT THAT. I WAS HERE
WHEN CHARLINE DOUDE WAS KILLED.
AND WE HAD OUR IDEAS ABOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING, CONSENT
DECREE, 2020. ALL THAT STUFF. SO
THIS ISN'T DONE IN A VACUUM.
IT'S DONE WITH COMMUNITY. IT'S
DONE WITH THE COMMUNITY
COMMISSION THROUGH THE LRPC.
HAVING GREG AND OUR LAWYERS THAT
RESPECT THE CITY OF SEATTLE WITH
THE SPOG AND THEIR LABOR
LAWYERS. I MEAN IT'S NOT EASY.
AND I'M HOPING, THAT WHEN I'M
GONE, THAT SOME OF YOU WILL STEP
UP AND SERVE ON THE LR PR-RBGS C
AND PUBLIC SAFETY. AND NEEDLES
TO -- NEED LESS TO SAY THERE'S
A LOT MORE TO DO. BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
IF IT WAS UP TO SOME OF US WE
WOULD HAVE AN OPEN YOU KNOW,
LABORER NEGOTIATIONS ON TV. BUT
THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS
AND YOU WON'T WANT IT TO WORK
THAT WAY FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. BECAUSE THAT'S NOW
HOW LABOR LAW WORKS. THAT'S THE
LAW THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING. SO
WITH THAT, I AGAIN JUST WANT TO
THANK THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY HAVE
BEEN OBVIOUSLY, A SOLID
SUPPORTER AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SINCE 2016 UP UNTIL TODAY'S DATE
AND I WAS HOPING THAT OUR
COLLEAGUES WOULD LOOK AT THE
SUCCESSES AND THE PHENOMENAL
SUCCESSFUL BY-PRODUCTS OF WHAT
HAPPENED IN 2015 AND 2016 AND
POST2020. AND I'M REALLY PROUD
THAT THIS COUNCIL DOUBLED THE
BUDGET AND THE STAFF OF THE CARE
TEAM. A LOT OF STUFF I CAN'T
SHARE BECAUSE THEY'RE
CONFIDENTIAL BUT WHETHER IT'S
DUAL DISPATCH OR SINGLE. WHAT IS
THE CONFIDENCE IN THE CARE TEAM.
WHAT IS THE MODEL WE LOOKED AT.
AND HOW DO WE LOOK AT IT SO
IT'S SEATTLE REFLECTING. SO
IT'S THE KIND OF POLICING THAT
WE WANT TO SEATTLE. NO SAN
FRANCISCO, NOT IN L. A. SEATTLE.
I'M PROUD OF THAT. IS IT THE
BEST WORK? YES, IS THERE MORE TO
DO? YES. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ FOR ALL OF YOUR
THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS AND I WILL
SAY THAT AS SOMEONE WHO
PARTICIPATED ON THE LRPC, IT IS
MADE UP OF A MAJORITY OF THIS
COUNCIL SO WE GET FIVE FOLKS.
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS THERE.
THEY GET FIVE FOLKS AS WELL. I
WILL ATTEST TO THE ROBUST
CONVERSATIONS AND THE HARD WORK
THAT WENT INTO THAT. AND THE
FACT THAT, BY STATE LAW IT IS
CONFIDENTIAL AS YOU WERE SAYING.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ SO I
APPRECIATE YOU UNDER SCORING. I
WILL FURTHER UNDER SCORE THERE
ARE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR HOUR
VIOLATION OF THAT
CONFIDENTIALITY. WHICH YOU
STATED AND I'M JUST UNDER
SCORING BECAUSE IT IS A SERIOUS
THING TO VIOLATE THAT. IN THE
COURSE OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE
LRPC MET WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS AS AN LRPC AND THAT IS
IMPORTANT TOO BECAUSE IT GOES
BACK TO HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO
ALL OF US TO MEET WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. WE CARE
VERY MUCH ABOUT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY'S PARTNERS AS A
COUNCIL. AND THAT IS TRUE FOR
THOSE OF US THAT PARTICIPATED ON
THE LRPC. AND SO I REALLY, I
TAKE THE WEIGHT OF THIS VERY
SERIOUSLY. AND I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS UNDERSTAND
FROM THE PUBLIC AND THOSE, AND
OUR COLLEAGUES HERE ESPECIALLY
COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE NOT BEEN
HERE BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU ALL CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS
AS WELL. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
ALL YOUR COMMENTS. AND JUST
REALLY TO UNDER SCORE HOW MUCH
WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS. AND TO
THE TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
SITTING HERE AND PARTICIPATING
IN THIS PROCESS AND GREG HAS
BEEN HERE A LOT LONGER THAN I
HAVE IN TERMS OF PARTICIPATING
IN THE PROCESS. I CAN TELL YOU,
I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU GREG
AND TO YOU DIRECTOR NELSON WHO,
SORRY, NOBLE WHO HAVE ALSO BEEN
HERE FOR A WHILE. WORKING ON
THESE ISSUES BECAUSE YOU HOLD
YOURSELF TO THE HIGHEST
STANDARDS AND I KNOW THAT. I
FEEL LIKE I'M IN GREAT HANDS IN
YOU. I REALLY WANTED TO UNDER
SCORE THAT. AND APPRECIATE ALSO
THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUE.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ WHO'S ALSO
BEEN HERE WORKING WITH THESE
ISSUES FOR SOME TIME. THE
COUNCIL NEED TO KNOW IS THIS
COUNCIL REALLY DOES CARE. AND WE
DO CARE ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNER AND ACCOUNTABILITY
PIECES. I JUST WANTED TO RESTATE
THAT. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE
PUBLIC FIELDS, IF THEY'RE NOT
ABLE TO LISTEN IN OR HAVE
INSIGHT INTO A CONVERSATION THAT
I KNOW HOW THAT FEELS. I KNOW
HOW THAT FEELS TO ME WHEN I'M
NOT PART OF A CONVERSATION. SO I
CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME
THAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE
UNDERSTANDS HOW SERIOUSLY WE
TAKE THESE PROCESSES AS COUNCIL
MEMBERS. AS ELECTED LEADERS WHO
TOOK OATHS OF OFFICE. AND HOW
MUCH THIS PARTICULAR COUNCIL I
CAN'T SPEAK TO OTHER COUNCILS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. BUT HOW MUCH
THIS PARTICULAR COUNCIL CARES
ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS AS WE'RE ENGAGED IN
THESE CONVERSATIONS. AND HOW
GREAT AND HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO
HAVE STAFF LIKE GREG
PARTICIPATING IN THESE
CONVERSATIONS. SO THANK YOU
COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE. I WILL
GIVE YOU MY PIECE. THEN I GO AND
YOU GO.
>> I WILL JUST -- STATE LAW IS
SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT AND WE
HAVE TO OPERATE WITHIN THAT. BUT
I WILL SAY IN TERMS OF MY POINT
ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY COUNT --
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE. ARE
YOU SAYING YOUR WORDS NOW ARE OR
ARE YOU SAYING THEM AFTER.
>> NO I'M SAYING THEM NOW.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
WILL CONTINUE IN FACT, WE'LL
LOOK TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS AND THE BEGINNING OF
NEXT YEAR TO COME BACK AND TO
SPEAK. THAT'S THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PIECE. THE ENGAGEMENT
PIECE WHEN THEY DO THEIR
OUTREACH BUT ALSO BETWEEN THE
THREE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
AND THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT WILL BE THERE. HOWEVER
INDIRECT. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
COMMENT ON THE, THE I GUESS THE
PUBLIC ALLEGATION THAT THIS IS
RUSHED. I GUESS IT JUST DEPENDS
ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE. LET ME WALK
BACK SOME TIMING. ON, THE RANK
AND FILE APPROVED THE TEA. THE
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT ON OCTOBER
19th. AND ON, OCTOBER 22nd, THIS
IS 2025 SO THAT WOULD BE A MONTH
AND A HALF, MAYBE ALMOST TWO
MONTHS AGO. THE MAYOR HELD A
PRESSER IN UPSTAIRS AND MANY OF
US SPOKE AT THAT PRESS
CONFERENCE. ALL THE DETAILS OF
THE CONTRACT WERE MADE
AVAILABLE. AND THEN BETWEEN THAT
DATE AND NOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF
DRAFTING OF LEGISLATIONS. A LOT
OF WRITING OF MEMOS. A LOT OF
DOTTING OF -- CROSSINGS OF Ts.
WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN 2024,
I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL OR MAY
SOME WHERE AROUND THERE. OKAY,
THAT WAS THREE YEARS LATE OR TWO
YEARS LATE BECAUSE IT WAS
RETROACTIVE. IT WAS FOR SALARIES
AND OTHER THINGS IN 2021 AND
2022 AND I BELIEVE 23 IF I'M
NOT MISTAKEN.
>> THAT NO LONGER HAVE A CAP ON
THEIR NUMBER. THIS ENABLES THE
THING THAT SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE
PUBLIC. IN SPD, ACROSS THE BOARD
HAVE BEEN WANTING FOR SO LONG
WHICH IS AN UNUNIFORMED RESPONSE
THE CARE TEAM. IT WAS NEVER
GOING TO WORK OR FULFILL ITS
POTENTIAL UNTIL THEY'RE ABLE TO
GO OUT ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT,
WITHOUT THE MANDATORY DUAL
DISPATCH. ONE OF THE GOALS OF
THE CARE TEAM WAS TO PROVIDE A
MORE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.
PEOPLE THAT ARE TRAINED IN
SOCIAL WORK, WHO UNDERSTAND THE,
WHAT PEOPLE IN CRISIS ON OUR
STREETS ARE GOING THROUGH. THAT
WAS PART OF THE GOAL. ANOTHER
PART OF THE GOAL WAS TO FREE UP
TIME FOR OUR ALREADY STAFF
STRAPPED POLICE DEPARTMENT SO
THAT THEY CAN RESPONSE TO OTHER
ENERGY CALLS THAT OBVIOUSLY
REQUIRE A BADGE AND A GUN
SOMETIMES UNFORTUNATELY. THE
POINT IS, THAT IS THE BIG WIN
HERE. WE WILL FINALLY SEE, WHAT
CARE CAN REALLY DO. WE'LL SEE
IT TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL. WE
TRIPLED THE NUMBER OF CARE
DISPATCHERS, OR NOT CARE
DISPATCHERS. I BELIEVE THE TEAM
STARTED WITH 7, OR MAYBE FOUR OR
FIVE. ANY WAY I'M LOOKING AT
CENTRAL STAFF HERE. STARTED WITH
A HANDFUL. AND THEN WE, THEN WE
DOUBLED THAT NUMBER IN THE
BUDGET LAST YEAR DURING BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS THEN WE JUST ADDED
FOR 2026, WE PUT IN 20 MORE. SO
I THINK THAT WE'VE TRIPLED OR
QUADRUPLED THE NUMBER OF CARE
RESPONDERS. WE HAVE EXPANDED I
THINK ACROSS THE CITY EVERY
DISTRICT IN THE CITY WILL NOW
HAVE A CARE RESPONSE. BEFORE IT
WAS DOWNTOWN. THAT IS ALL
POSSIBLE. BECAUSE OF THIS
CONTRACT. AND SO THIS IS WHAT IS
TAKING SOME TIME. AND WITHOUT,
WITHOUT THOSE TERMS IN THIS
CONTRACT THAT PRIORITY. THAT
POLICY PRIORITY WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO BE FULFILLED. SO I JUST
WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT
THAT IS REALLY A, A, YOU KNOW,
WHAT THIS MEANS. AND, GO ON.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY,
THE NUMBERS YOU WERE LOOKING
FOR. CURRENTLY, 20, 24 CARE
RESPONDERS. MOVING TO 48 CARE
RESPONDERS. IT IS THE CASE THAT,
48 CARE RESPONDERS TO UTILIZE, A
FORCE OF THAT SIZE YOU ARE GOING
TO WANT TO EXPAND THE CALLS
THAT, IT'S THE CASE THAT, CARE
HAS SAID THAT, UNDER THIS NEW
CONTRACT THEY COULD RESPOND TO
AS MANY 48, AS MANY AS 48,000
MORE CALLS. WITH THIS CRITERIA.
SO, IN TERMS OF EXPANDING, YES.
QUITE A BIT.
>> YEAH. AND AS I SAID GREG. YOU
SAID THIS WAS POLICE BODY OF
WORK. OR I CAN'T REMEMBER THE
TERM. THAT WAS SWORN OFFICERS
BODY OF WORK THAT IS NOW NOT
THEIR BODY OF WORK. WE ALSO
CIVILIANIZED A LOT OF DUTIES,
THE CONTRACT IN 2024, SO THEY
CAN DO, A LOT OF OTHER THINGS,
BACKGROUNDING ETC., ETC.
>>> NOW IT REALLY IS TIME FOR
OUR CARE TEAM TO SHOW WHAT THERE
IS TO OFFER. I'M TALKING ABOUT
A LOT OF THE SYSTEM, THERE'S ON
DEMAND TREATMENT. MEDICATION FOR
OPIOID USE DISORDER. THERE ARE A
LOT MORE RESOURCES. AND OUR
HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WE
MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE BEING RESPONDED TO, ACTUALLY
GET THE CARE THAT THEY NEED. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY, VERY VERY
MUCH FOR ALL THE WORK GOING
FORWARD. I MEAN GOING THAT
YOU'VE BEEN PEDAL TO THE METAL
AND SHOULDER TO THE GRIND AND
ALL OF THOSE SAYINGS. SO SEE YOU
TOMORROW. OR WE WILL TAKE THIS
UP TOMORROW AT CITY COUNCIL. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HATE TO MENTION THIS.
>> SBMA.
>> ANOTHER CONTRACT. ALL RIGHT,
MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
>> THIS ONE I THINK WILL BE.
>> FEWER SLIDES AND A SIMPLER
STORY BUT AN IMPORTANT ONE.
>> THANK YOU, BEN. OKAY THIS IS
THE SEATTLE POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION. WHEN WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT SPOG I THINK WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT OFFICERS AND
SERGEANTS. THIS GROUP IS ABOUT
80 INDIVIDUALS AND SPD THAT
REPRESENTS THE LIEUTENANTS AND
THE CAPTAINS. IT'S THE CASE
THAT THIS, COUNCIL BILL 121-132.
ALSO WOULD AUTHORIZE A COLLECT I
HAVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OF THE
SAME TIME, DECEMBER 2027. AGAIN
AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THERE'S A PROCESS LEADING UP TO
PARAMETERS FOR SPOG. THAT SAME
PROCESS. COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC
HEARING. AT THAT TIME THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES ATTENDED
THE HEARING. THEY IDENTIFIED ALL
THEIR PARAMETERS OR THEIR
PRIORITIES FOR SPMA. AGAIN THOSE
PARAMETERS AND GUIDED THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARAMETERS
FOR THE SPMA CONTRACT. SO
ESSENTIALLY, THE EXACT SAME
PROCESS. SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
DATES ON WHEN THE PUBLIC WAS
ABLE TO WEIGH IN. 32112. THAT
YOU CAN FIND THE PARAMETERS THAT
WERE USED OR NOT THE PARAMETERS,
THE ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES THAT
WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES FOR THIS
CONTRACTS. SO WITH THAT, I'M
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP INTO
THE ACCOUNTABILITY SECTION OF
THIS CONTRACT. WE TALKED A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE 10 DAYS. I
AM NOT GOING TO GO TOO MUCH INTO
THAT. AFFECTS CAPTAINS,
LIEUTENANTS AS WELL AS OFFICERS
AND SERGEANTS. ONE THING TO KNOW
ABOUT THE 180 DAYS IS THAT IT
RUNS CONCURRENTLY WITH ANY
INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS DONE BY
THE FORCE REVIEW BOARD. WHEN
THERE'S A TYPE THREE. THE MOST,
WHEN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS
INVOLVED IN A, POTENTIAL USE OF
FORCE THAT IS OF THE WORSE, OR
OF THE STRONGEST KIND UP TO THE
DEATH OF THE MEMBER, THEN THE
SPD FORCE REVIEW BOARD, WILL
REVIEW THOSE INCIDENTS AND MAKE
SURE THAT, SORT OF AN INITIAL
LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THOSE
USES OF FORCE WERE CONSISTENT
WITH POLICY. FOR THE SAKE OF
THOROUGHNESS. AS THE FORCE
REVIEW BOARD IS DOING THEIR
WORK. SO IT IS THE CASE THAT,
OPAs INVESTIGATIONS IS OFTEN
DELAYED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THAT IT TAKES THE FRB TO DO --
WORK. TO ENSURE THAT SPO HAS
SUFFICIENT TIME TO LOOK AT USE
OF FORCE. SO WHAT ONE BENEFIT OF
THIS CONTRACT IS IN CASES WHERE
THE FORCE REVIEW BOARD WAS
INVOLVED AN OPA HAD TO DELAY AN
INVESTIGATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE
FORCE REVIEW BOARD. THIS
CONTRACT WOULD ENSURE THAT, 180
DAYS THE CLOCK IS, ADJUSTED IN A
WAY THAT, OPA ALWAYS WOULD HAVE
AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO CONCLUDE ITS
INVESTIGATION. SO THAT'S, AN
IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT. NOT ALL
OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS OR REFORMS
I SHOULD SAY ARE, ARE IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDNANCE. ONE OF
THEM NOT IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY
ORDNANCE IS AROUND PAST
PRACTICE. THERE IS A POLICE
OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE
CURRENT CONTRACT THAT SAYS THAT,
AROUND THE MINIMUM RIGHTS OF AN
OFFICER WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF A
CONTRACT OR PAST PRACTICES OF
THE DEPARTMENT GRANT THE
OFFICERS GREATER RIGHTS THOSE
RIGHTS SHALL PERTAIN. AND SO, IT
HAS BEEN IN THE PAST INTERPRETED
THIS SECTION. THAT IF IT'S A
CURRENT PRACTICE, IT'S NOT,
IT'S INCORPORATED IN THE
CONTRACT VIA REFERENCE. AND WHAT
THIS CONTRACT, THIS PROPOSED CBA
WOULD DO IS THAT, ESSENTIALLY
ELIMINATE THAT. IT WOULD
ELIMINATE AN OFFICERS TO CLAIM
THAT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PART
OF THE CONTRACT EXISTS AS A
RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT. THE
THIRD THING THE CBA PURPOSE
STATEMENT. IT'S THE CASE THAT,
THE ACCOUNTABILITIES AGENCIES
HAVE LONG ASKED FOR A
TKPHEUTMENT IN THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT. IN THE CONTRACT TO
ACCOUNTABILITY. THIS CONTRACT
WOULD ADD SUCH A PURPOSE
STATEMENT. BOTH PARTIES SUPPORT
A STRONG POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEM. THAT'S FAIR, IMPARTIAL
AND PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURAL
JUSTICE. THE NEXT ONE DEALS WITH
PURSUING THE SUSPENSION.
LIEUTENANTS SPECIFICALLY FROM
WORKING OVERTIME BETWEEN THE
TIME A SUSPENSION IS IMPOSED AND
THE TIME IT HAS BEEN FULLY
SERVED. THERE'S BEEN CONCERN IN
THE PAST. THAT A REQUIREMENT TO
ALLOW OFFICERS TO WORK OVERTIME
BEFORE THEIR SUSPENSION IS
IMPLEMENTED WOULD POTENTIALLY
PROVIDE THE OFFICERS TO WORK
ENOUGH OVERTIME TO MITIGATE THE
FINANCIAL COST. THE NEXT ONE IS
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
CONCEALING MISCONDUCT. IT HAS
BEEN THE CASE UNDER THE CONTRACT
THAT THERE'S A FIVE YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATION ON SPDs
ABILITY TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE OR
LOSS OF PAY. THE CONTRACT ALSO
HAS EXCEPTIONS TO THAT PROCESS.
SPECIFICALLY WHEN AN EMPLOYEE
HAS BEEN DISHONEST UNDER AN
INVESTIGATION OR, OR CONCEALED
ACTS OF MISCONDUCT. WHAT THIS
WOULD DO IS IT WOULD ADD TO THAT
EXCEPTION NOT JUST THE EMPLOYEE
ADDING OR CONCEALING MISCONDUCT
BUT POTENTIALLY ANY EMPLOYEE
OTHER OFFICERS ALSO, CONCEALING
MISCONDUCT TO BE SUSPENDED.
LAST, ANOTHER NUMBER SIX. IS
IMPLEMENTING INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION. THE CONTRACT HAS
BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE PAST TO
MAKE SURE AN INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION IS SUBMITTED, WHAT
THE CBA WOULD DO IS CLARIFY THAT
THE UNIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE
NOTIFIED PW-FRD AN INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION CAN BE ISSUED.
REFERRING, AND SOME OF THESE
ACTUALLY I'LL PAUSE REALLY
QUICK. SOME OF THESE COUNCIL
MEMBER LIN ASKED ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS THAT
WERE NOT IN THE TOP FIVE. SOME
OF THESE I'M MENTIONING ARE
ACCOUNTABILITY PARAMETERS THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED EITHER AS
PART OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY
ORDNANCE OR BY THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES THAT
DIDN'T MAKE THAT. ANOTHER ONE
IS, REFERRING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS TO OUTSIDE
INVESTIGATORS. IT IS THE CASE
THAT UNDER THE CURRENT CONTRACT,
THE CHIEF HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE
THAT DETERMINATION. IF A
CRIMINAL, IF AN OFFICER IS
ACCUSED OF A CRIMINAL ACTION,
THE CHIEF CAN DETERMINE WHETHER
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE THE CHIEF
CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THAT
PERSON IS DETERMINED BY AN
OUTSIDE INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY
SUCH AS THE STATE PATROL UNDER
THIS NEW CONTRACT. IF THE CHIEF
AND THE OPA DIRECTOR DISAGREED
ON WHETHER THAT MATTER SHOULD BE
INVESTIGATED INTERNALLY OR
EXTERNALLY IT WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY GO TO AN OUTSIDE
AGENCY FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
>> SOMETHING THAT GREG
MENTIONED, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING
HERE. I WILL MAKE THIS POINT AS
WELL FOR GOOD OR FOR LEVELS OF
-- WITH THIS ARGUMENT, THIS IS
NOT TO SAY THAT, NOT TO ENDORSE
THIS AGREEMENT OR THE PREVIOUS
ONE. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS
SUCCESS. THE NEXT ROUND OF
THINGS IF YOU WILL THAT ONE
MIGHT WANT TO PURSUE. AND THAT
IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE
EVERYTHING WE WANTED THAT THE
CITY WAS INTERESTED IN EITHER.
JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS
DIFFERENT AND HOW IT SORT OF
SPEAKS TO THE OVER ALL
BARGAINING PROCESS IN TOTAL.
>> THANK YOU FOR ADDING THAT
FINITE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I
FAILED TO MENTION UP FRONT. SPMA
THE REASON WE'RE GETTING DOWN,
AS BEN SAID TO LATER IN THE LIST
IS BECAUSE SPMA HAS ALREADY
ADDRESSED MANY OF THOSE TOP
FIVES WE HAVE MENTIONED. MANY OF
THE DISCIPLINE ISSUES WE HAVE
DISCUSSED WHETHER IT'S THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW. OR BRINGING
IN NEW WITNESSES OR NEW EVIDENCE
IN ARBITRATION. THOSE THINGS
WERE ADDRESSED THROUGH A PROCESS
THAT SPMA PUT INTO THEIR
CONTRACT. IT IS MOW THE CASE
THAT THEY HAVE A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD FOR
APPEALS OF DISCIPLINE. AND MANY
OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE
DISCUSSED TODAY HAVE ALREADY
BEEN ADDRESSED AND THAT'S WHY
WE'RE SORT OF GETTING TO THESE
NEXT ONES ON THE LIST.
>> THERE WERE A COUPLE --
FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT AS WELL
FOR WHAT COULD BE THE CASE.
EXPERIENCED DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM
DIFFERENTIALLY. CAN'T READ
THEIR MINDS AS TO WHAT'S
MOTIVATING. BUT AGAIN IN
BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING WHY
WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.
>> SO, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT
WERE PARAMETERS OR, NOT
PARAMETERS I SHOULD SAY THESE
WERE, SHARED GOALS
THAT SEATTLE'S
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES HAVE
WANTED FULL UNFETTERED
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE, THE
CASE SPMA CONTRACT ACTUALLY SAYS
THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE CAN
BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE
CONTRACT. HOWEVER, TO THE AFFECT
IMPACTS ARE CREATED BY THAT,
THOSE IMPACTS ARE STILL ARGUABLE
AND SPMA WOULD WANT TO BARGAIN
THOSE. SUBORDINATION CLAUSE, THE
CASE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY
AGENCIES HAVE SOUGHT FOR THE
CONTRACT TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT
OVERRIDE CITY ORDINANCES. THAT
IS SOMETHING NOT POSSIBLE UNDER
CURRENT STATE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING LAW, THET IS NOT
SOMETHING INCORPORATED. NONE THE
LESS, IT REMAIN AS GOAL OF THE
CITY AND I THINK THE CITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES THAT
ULTIMATELY SOME DAY THE PR
VISIONS AND ACOUNTERABILITY
ORDINANCE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS OF
THE STATE AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED
THAT.
>> SO, MOVING ALONG, COUPLE
OTHER CHANGES IN HERE,
CIVILIANIZATION OF CAPTAIN
FUNCTIONS, THIS IS ACTUALLY A
FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. THIS
WOULD ALLOW CIVILIANIZE ANY
SWORN LEADERSHIP SERVICE OR AREA
NOT CURRENTLY STAFFED BY A
CAPTAIN. IN SOME IT CAN BE
DIRECTED UNDER CIVILIAN,
SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TECHNOLOGY
OR TRAINING UNITS AS LONG AS
NUMBER OF CAPTAINS REMAINS THE
SAME IN THE CONTRACT, THERE IS
INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR SPD TO
CIVILIANIZE. I SEE A HAND.
SHOULD I STOP? COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, OR KEEP GOING?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS AN OLD
HAND.
>> OKAY. IS THAT AN OLD HAND?
>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHANGES
TO THE WAY COMPENSATION IS
HAPPENING, THESE ARE SOMEWHAT
TECHNICAL IN THE SENSE THAT
CAPTAINS DON'T RECEIVE OVERTIME
IN THE SAME WAY LIEUTENANTS AND
OFFICERS DO. THEY RECEIVE OTHER
KINDS OF COMPENSATION, GET FLEX
TIME, COMPENSARY TIME AND
EXECUTIVE LEAVE. THIS CHANGES
SOME OF THE WAY THE CONTRACT
WILL CHANGE SOME OF THE WAYS
THEY CAN USE FLEX TIME AND
EXECUTIVE LEAVE CASHOUT. I AM
NOT GOING INTO TOO MANY DETAILS
BY MY STAFF REPORT GOES IN TO
THOSE DETAILS. IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW. GOING TO
GO TO THE FINANCIALS. AS YOU CAN
SEE, 13.8 AND 24, THEN INCREASES
BETWEEN 3 AND 4% IN THE NEXT
THREE YEARS, THE FLEX TIME
CONVERSION HAS SMALL COST AND
EXECUTIVE LEAVECASHOUT. THE
OVERALL COST OF THE CONTRACT
VARIES BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE-SIX
MILLION OVER THE NEXT FOUR--
OVER THE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT.
AGAIN, THE CITY BUDGET OFFICE
HELD IN RESERVES AN AMOUNT THAT
IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER COSTS
THROUGH 2026, THE COST IN 2027
WILL HAVE TO BE BARGAINED
THROUGH THE PROPOSED BUDGET
PROCESS. THERE ARE ALSO RESERVES
IN 2027. SO, THIS ISN'T GOING
TO BE ENTIRELY NEW MONEY IN THE
SENSE IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ADED
TO THE DEFICIT THE CITY HAS SOME
CONSIDERATION WAS ALREADY
BROUGHT FOR THAT.
>> GREGORY MENTIONED THIS BUT
LEGISLATION WILL BE BROUGHT
FORWARD NEXT YEAR TO MAKE THE
ALLOCATIONS, THERE WILL BE
CONSIDERABLE MONEY, RETROACTIVE
PAYMENT AT ONE TIME MADE 24, 25,
THEN PART OF 26 DEPENDING WHEN
LEGISLATION IS BROUGHT FORTH.
WON'T BE SURPRISED TO BE THE
LEGISLATION SOMETIME, I WOULD
GUESS FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT
YEAR.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I WILL BE BRIEF. CAN YOU
FLOAT BACK TO PAGE FIVE REAL
FAST? IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS
CORRECT, SO WE CAN PUT THIS IN
CONTEXT, THE ANNUAL WAGE
INCREASES, BECAUSE THEY KEPT
GETTING HIGHER, BECAUSE WE
CAN'T DEFERRING THE CONTRACT
AND WE HAD TO DO IT
RETROACTIVELY AND AS DOING THAT
THE COST OF LIVING KEPT GOING
UP, ARE THESE THE NUMBERS THAT--
WERE THESE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
COST OF LIVING WE NEGOTIATEED
WITH PROTECH 17, ALL THE OTHER
CITY EMPLOYEES? BECAUSE I THINK
THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO PUT
THAT IN CONTEXT THE COST OF
LIVING OR WAGE INCREASES WE WERE
GIVEN THESE ACROSS THE BOARD,
BECAUSE PROTECH HAD LAWYERS IN
THE ROOM FOR THEIR LABOR UNIONS,
COST OF LIVING, IF I AM SAYING
THAT WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
>> GENERAL COMMENT, NEGOTIATIONS
WE HAVE, THE CITY HAS, WITH MOST
UNIONS, AGREEMENTS REACHED
IMPLEMENT ANNUAL WAGE INCREASES
THAT ARE TIED TO MEASURES OF
CPI, INFLATION, SOMETIMES
INCREMENT ABOVE TO REFLECT
EITHER CHANGE IN DUTIES OR
CHANGING IN MARK CONDITIONS OR
THE LIKE. INCREASES 3 OR 4%
CONSISTENT WITH INFLATION OR
JUST ABOVE INFLATION, AND, YES,
PROTECH, IN THE SAME TIME
PERIOD, HAS COMPARABLE RATESISM
BASE LEVEL INCREASE, NOT
NECESSARILY, I MEAN, 13, ALMOST
14%, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT
REFLECTIVE OF CPI ALONE BUT ALSO
OF OTHER CHANGES AND WORKING
CONDITIONS IN THE LIKE AND
MARKET CONDITION RESPECT TO
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS IN
GENERAL.
>> JUST LABOR PERSPECTIVE,
ECONOMIC, CITY EMPLOYEE, WHETHER
SEATTLE CITY OR SEATTLE POLICE
OFFICER, I WANT TO DISAPPEASE
PEOPLE OF THE NOTION THAT
SOMEHOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS
REWARDING SPOG FOR BAD OR GOOD
CONDUCT. WE WERE GOING BY
NUMBERS COST OF LIVING, AND THE
OTHER INDEX WE USE?
>> CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.
>> CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, SO, IT
ISN'T LIKE I THINK, I GOT TO BE
CAREFUL HOW I SHARE THIS BUT I
WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT SO
THEY UNDERSTAND HOW THESE
NUMBERS GOT HERE.
>> 3-4% RANGE IS CURRENTLY
REFLECTIVE OF INFLATION AND
RELATED. BEYOND THAT IS
PURPOSEFUL OR NEGOTIATEED BUT
PURPOSEFUL TO REPRESENT CHANGE
IN WORKING CONDITIONS THAT
JUSTIFY AND/OR CHANGE IN MARKET
CONDITIONS RECRUITING THAT
JUSTIFY INCREASE ABOVE THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BOTH ARE TRUE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> THE ONE THING I MIGHT ADD IS
THESE, AS YOU NOTE, AS YOU
NOTICE THE CONTRACTS ARE COMING
AT THE SAME TIME FOR THE SAME
PERIOD. SO, IT IS THE CASE THAT
WHEN SPMA IS NEGOTIATING, THEY
HAVE AN EYE ON WHAT IS HAPPENING
WITH SPOG AND WAGES ARE ADJUSTED
TO INSURE OUR CAPTAINS AND
LIEUTENANTS ARE PAID
APPROPRIATELY WHEN YOU COMPARE
THEM WITH THE OFFICERS AND
SERGEANTS.
>> PART OF THE MARKET ADJUSTMENT
DIRECTOR NOBLE MENTION.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ET CETERA?
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I AM A
LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT-- WAY, I
BELIEVE WE ARE FINISHED WITH
YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU
VERY, VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THE
HARD WORK. COLLEAGUES, ITSER
4:37. WE HAVE THREE EXECUTIVE
SESSIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO
PROPOSE THAT WE POSTPONE OR NOT
DO OUR WEEKLY ROUND-ROBIN, IS
THAT OKAY? OKAY. GETTING THUMBS
UP AND SMILES. ALL RIGHT. LET ME
THEN, PLEASE, WHILE I PULL UP
THAT PART OF THE-- I NEED TO
PULL UP THE SCRIPT THAT WILL
THEN WRAP US UP AND MAKE SURE WE
CAN GET INTO THE-- WHERE WE ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE.
>> WE ARE NOW MOVING ON, WE ARE
NOT GOING TO GO INTO ITEM 6, SO
THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE
AGENDA AND NOW IF THERE IS NO
FURTHER BUSINESS, WE WILL MOVE
INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. HEARING
NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE WILL NOW
MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS
PRESIDING OFFICER, I AM
ANNOUNCING THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WILL CONVENE INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT ALWAYS
SOUNDS SO REDUNDANT BUT ANYWAY I
AM SURE IT IS LEAGUE. THE
PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION
IS TO DISCUSS PENDING POTENTIAL
AND ACTUAL LITIGATION. IT IST AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DISCUSS
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MATTERS WITH
THE CITY ATTORNEY AS AS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW. I EXPECT THE
TIME OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO
END BY 7:25, AN ESTIMATED 2.75
HOURS. IF IT GOES LONGER, I WILL
COME ON THE TV AND SAY THAT IT
IS GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THAT
AND IF IT IS, AND THIS MEETING
WILL END AUTOMATICALLY WHEN WE
ARE FINISHED WITH THE EXECUTIVE
SESSION. SO, WITH THAT, I AM NOW
ANNOUNCING THAT THE EXECUTIVE
SESSION IS IN-- WE ARE ON OUR
WAY THERE. PLEASE TUNE IN AND WE
WILL HAVE FULL COUNCIL MEETING
TOMORROW AT 2:00. OKAY.THAT IS
IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY.