♪♪
-Hello. I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
In the weeks following the November election,
the Seattle City Council is focused
on a new ethics bill regarding political consultants.
What impact could this measure have
on future election campaigns,
and why are some city leaders pushing back against it?
Plus, Seattle's largest police officers union has negotiated
a new contract with the city.
It broadens the city's ability
to use non-police alternatives on 911 calls.
But some critics say it doesn't have strong enough
accountability measures.
I'm going one-on-one
with outgoing Council President Sara Nelson
to discuss these issues and the questions
you're sending in, too, next on "Council Edition."
-There is no scorecard.
I didn't govern to get reelected.
-All that and more coming up next
on "City Inside/Out: Council Edition."
♪♪
And here we are with Council President Sara Nelson
from Citywide Position 9.
Thank you very much for being here.
-Thank you for having me.
-We're recording the show during a debate
over the last piece of legislation
you're going to sponsor before the end of your term.
This is about political consultants at City Hall.
You're trying to prevent situations
where a consultant can advise city officials on policy,
while at the same time
work on political campaigns related to those same officials
or their policies.
This happened to you.
Outgoing Mayor Bruce Harrell had his campaign adviser,
Christian Sinderman,
as a city-paid consultant for the past three years.
The mayor did disclose this information.
Sinderman, this past fall,
was also a consultant for Dionne Foster,
who ended up winning your Position 9 seat
in the election.
You have said this legislation is what
good governance looks like.
I know some opponents are saying you're trying
to get back at a political rival there.
Can you break down what this is all about?
-Well, this is -- Thank you very much for that question.
You opened by saying we're in the middle of a debate.
I don't think there is much debate about the fact
that we -- Policymakers need to make
their policy decisions based on information
that is not influenced by a consultant's financial
or political interest.
This piece of legislation simply creates clear rules
that separate government contracting work
that consultants perform, and political consulting,
which consultants engage in for either city ballot measures
or for city candidates.
We need to make sure that you can't do both at the same time
and if you want --
But consultants are free to do both.
There is a cooling-off period.
So, this is -- My legislation is modeled
on similar regulations in Portland and San Francisco
that establish a cooling-off period.
Mine is about a year between political consulting
and contracting with the city for a policy or a project.
And the reporting requirement
is that consultants have to attest
that they are in compliance with the regulations.
-Has it been difficult
for you to separate your personal experience with this,
with the job that you need to do as a lawmaker with this?
-You know, frankly, no,
because this legislation is completely consistent
with what I've been trying to do from the get-go,
which is change the conversation on things
that are extremely important to our constituents,
on public safety, on our budget processes,
on human services, etcetera.
And this council has taken on some really big issues
and simply making sure that we are --
that we're instituting best practices
when it comes to consultants
that is in line with the good governance
that this council, I think,
is building a reputation for itself on.
-Got it. One last question on this.
I know the state has some laws in place
that govern what candidates can do and can't do.
Council Member Lin was talking about this
during some of the proceedings on this.
I guess I'm trying to get to this bottom line of,
is this city ordinance going to be something
that would make it onerous to run for city council?
What's it going to do for candidates in the future
who try to run for council
or maybe other positions within the city?
-Well, since you mentioned that,
this town needs more campaign managers,
more campaign consultants.
It's a pretty small pool.
So I hope your listeners would think about a career in that.
-Yeah, yeah. -But no,
this does not impact city employees.
And we regulate lobbyists by ensuring
that they, you know, that they're registered.
We ensure that city employees can't go
from talking to, when they leave the city employ,
from working with someone
who is working on the same policy portfolio that they are.
And this just simply fills a gap in our ethics rules
to make sure that we're doing things by the book,
and, most importantly, that we are making decisions
in the public's best interest.
-Okay. Thank you for that.
I want to move on with you, if I could,
to the $8.9 billion budget
that the City Council approved at the end of November.
You highlighted this budget as a win for recovery.
I remember reading that in one of your newsletters there.
With $2.85 million in new revenue
for treatment and recovery services,
this includes $500,000 in a pilot program
that you started that enables case managers
or first responders
to refer people looking for addiction treatment
into regional treatment centers.
I know that the county has been responsible for a lot of work
on this over the past several years.
Why was it important to you to make this investment
at a city level?
-Well, first of all,
I was shocked to find out when I first started four years ago
that the city doesn't fund any treatment
besides methadone and buprenorphine.
So that helps for opioid-use disorder.
Doesn't, you know, doesn't help do anything
for a meth addiction, for example.
So we already do fund treatment.
And then there are some harm-reduction practices
that we fund.
I am all for needle exchange, etcetera.
But we did not fund
the kind of treatment that I went to.
I am in recovery, but you don't need to be in recovery
to know that addiction and the fentanyl crisis
are the root cause of so many of our public-safety
and our chronic homelessness problems.
And so it only makes sense to focus on that root cause,
which is addiction,
and expanding the options for people.
And so I was able --
It took me two years to get $300,000 in the budget
for on-demand comprehensive treatment.
And now there is, you know,
there are $2.85 million in the budget for that
and some money for sober housing,
because when somebody is in recovery,
where are they going to go?
None of our affordable-housing providers
specialize in that kind of housing.
They should. Calling all housing providers.
-Yeah. -But the point is
this is important because it's central to so many
of our other problems.
And it only makes sense to tackle that root cause.
And also, it is a moral imperative
to try to alleviate the suffering of the people
that we see every day downtown, bent over from fentanyl.
We can do more.
And I'm proud to be providing the funding for that.
-Can we go a little bit further down this path
of housing first?
You were talking about this a second ago,
so all city-subsidized housing follows this approach.
The idea is provide housing first, stabilize the person,
then work on addiction or behavioral-health issues.
You've raised concerns about this.
I know the Trump administration has, too,
saying it will not help fund these kinds of programs
going into 2026.
You've got advocates saying Housing First is a proven model.
It just needs more resources.
Critics say Housing First just enables addiction.
I just wanted to get a bigger picture
of where you see our region heading on this debate,
especially in light of these potential federal cuts
coming through.
-I think that there is a self-reflection
and introspection on what the protocols are and should be.
And I have heard, you know, for example,
everybody mentions Lisa Daugaard and she came out and said,
"This is not unreasonable, these requirements."
-What the Trump administration was saying. Yeah.
-Right. Because every housing --
I believe that housing providers...
Excuse me. -Yeah.
Have a drink of water, please.
This is a good conversation we need to have here.
Housing First is based on the notion
that you bring people inside and offer wraparound services.
Too often those wraparound services don't exist.
And so we need to really think about
how we can continue with providing that housing,
but ensure that the people inside
are getting the help that they need.
We cannot just be warehousing people
with substance-use disorder
and letting them die inside, frankly.
If you look at the King County dashboard
of fatal overdoses,
there's a higher percentage of people that die
of fatal overdose in supportive housing than outside.
That's a problem.
And so we need to make some choices,
fund Housing First in such a way that maybe we do fewer projects
but ensure that they have those wraparound services.
-Yeah, because when they don't have them,
that's when it falls apart. -Right.
-Right, right. I guess in terms of...
Yeah, I hear what you're saying
about how this debate is definitely nuanced here.
Is it a situation where you could see
more of these kind of treatment- first options coming through?
Because I'm looking at that larger conversation.
A lot of people are saying, "Wait a minute. Treatment first?
That didn't work, you know, 40-some years ago.
That's why we got into this
Housing First type of situation."
How do you look at that bigger picture there
about where this situation is going?
-Well, I am proud of the role
that I am playing to center recovery in the conversations
about public safety and homelessness.
And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I do believe that treatment is recognized,
is growing in people's recognition
as a necessary area of intervention.
So, I don't know where policymakers are going to go
when it comes to how much are we going to try
to tow the line with the Trump administration?
How much are we going to try to find other funding
so that we can keep doing what we are,
despite those regulations.
Give up on the HUD funding
and then generate revenue somewhere else.
I don't really know how people are going to go,
but I firmly believe
that we have to help people get on the road to recovery,
which looks different for every person.
We need to provide more options.
-Yeah, definitely call into question right now.
I wanted to talk about another important part of the budget
for you this year -- hiring more police officers.
The council made the investment last year to make
the Seattle Police the highest- paid officers in the state.
There were some changes to the hiring process, too,
I know you were working on,
and it looks like the numbers are changing here.
Seattle has hired 150 officers this year.
Some are leaving, too,
but it appears there's a net gain of 94 officers
at the end of 2025.
You mentioned recently in Council chambers
this is a move in the right direction
after many years of losing officers.
What does gaining 94 officers say to you?
-That means there are 94 officers
out there protecting our residents, small businesses,
and also forming relationships with people
in neighborhoods.
What I hear all the time
from both small businesses and residents,
they wish that there were more beat cops, you know?
-Walking the street outside their businesses.
-Walking the street, right. -Yeah.
-And so, hopefully we can staff back up
so that can happen again.
In 2022, Chief Diaz moved 100 investigators out
of their specialized units and into patrol
because 911 response times were, you know...
-Not in a good place. -Right.
And we need to bring those people.
We need to restaff the investigative units,
because that's really what prevents crime.
That keeps guns off our street.
That goes after the higher-level drug dealing.
And so 94 officers is significant.
I'm very proud of the fact that we reversed the trend
since 2019 of losing more officers than we can hire,
and that did happen because of raising compensation.
It happened by
reforming how SPD applications are processed,
ensuring that applicants
are contacted personally within 48 hours.
"Thank you for applying to SPD.
We'll be right with you. Help you through the process."
-Customer-service type of things.
-Exactly.
That's what other jurisdictions were doing.
And we helped bring about those changes.
And now we're seeing things going in the right direction.
-Thank you.
I wanted to talk about the city
also reaching an agreement recently
with SPOG, the Seattle Police Officers Guild.
This is the police officers' union
that represents the majority of the city's rank-and-file cops.
This agreement included a 13% raise.
This is on top of those dollars the SPD was already making,
highest-paid officers in the state.
In your mind, what did the city get out of this deal?
-The unfettered expansion of the CARE team.
-Yeah, the Community-Assisted Response and Engagement,
the non-police responders, these social workers, etcetera,
out on the streets, crisis responders.
-Exactly. Non-uniformed response.
This has been a high priority ever since I started.
And now,
not only can the department hire adequate number of people,
as long as the money is there,
they can be dispatched alone to respond to people in crisis.
And that was the huge win in this contract.
-Right.
Because beforehand it had to be a dual-dispatch situation
with police going with these CARE officers.
In some cases now, they don't have to go with them,
it sounds like. -Right.
Which undermined the whole potential of the vision,
which was sending non-uniformed responders
to help people in crisis,
thereby leaving our officers to attend to other emergency calls.
So, now we can do that. And that is a huge win.
-I did want to talk about one piece here,
when it comes to police accountability.
There were some debate over this.
The council signed off on this.
It had already been approved in terms
of what the union had ratified,
but there was a split vote recently on this, 6-3.
Council member Saka
says this collective-bargaining agreement reached with SPOG
wasn't strong enough on officer accountability.
Council member Kettle said after two years of negotiations,
the city is making progress on the accountability front.
-It's a two-party process, these negotiations,
and we've been working through this,
and these pieces that are part of the accountability
and operational parameters of our agreement
do push us forward in terms of accountability.
-The proposed SPOG CBA is a bad deal
for the city of Seattle.
The accountability provisions contained in that contract
are too lightweight.
-I wanted to ask this. Did Seattle make meaningful gains
on police accountability with this new contract
with SPOG?
Some of your colleagues are saying no.
-I do believe that we did.
And there are going to be some accountability measures
that will likely have to be arbitrated, okay?
So, we're not done, all right?
And the disagreement with Council member Saka
was around subpoenas specifically.
-Can a civilian...
I'm talking about the inspector general,
OPA, these different offices,
can those civilian offices actually compel an officer
when it comes to these different,
when there's a question about misconduct, etcetera.
-We already can subpoena phone records.
The question was, what about the phones of their partners,
their friends, etcetera, you know, wives, husbands.
And that's where that was a deal-breaker for that side.
And I can understand that.
And so I had to ask myself
was being able to subpoena the phones
of the partners of our officers,
how much would that help benefit overall public safety?
How many times has that come up in an investigation?
Turns out it was not a significant barrier
to investigations
or to ensuring accountability amongst our officers.
So, that is why I believe that it was correct
to bargain the parameters that we did.
-Okay. Thank you.
I received a number of emails about this issue,
about -- I think there was some frustration with the council,
even in passing this, with this negotiation.
Some people are wondering why the city couldn't do more.
Others wonder about the state law
that requires these officer-misconduct issues
to be negotiated.
I wanted to I wanted you to think about that with this lens.
Consider this question from Steve, who asks...
It's a deep question there,
but I wanted to know how you would respond to that.
The underlying question is how do we bargain these contracts?
I'm reminded of a few years ago. I believe it was in 2021,
there was a bill in Olympia that would have eliminated
bargaining on accountability.
And this council did not support that bill.
-Mm.
-You know,
and think about what the council was like back then.
You would have thought that they would have supported that.
And it was because it opens the door
to really unraveling some core tenants
of labor bargaining. -Labor negotiations.
-Right. -Yeah, yeah.
-And so, that was two too far to go for that.
And so I do believe that there are other
measures that we can do to improve accountability,
to have these conversations ongoing.
But when it comes
to the nature of collective bargaining,
I'm not going to touch that.
-Understood, understood.
That's an interesting nexus of city and state issues there,
for sure.
Switching gears with you, if I could,
I've also received some messages about the Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, this is the road map, of course,
for future urban growth the city has been working on
for the past several years.
The council is set to approve changes on the plan here
at the end of this year
that would encourage more growth,
and there's a request
for the Office of Planning and Community Development
for more input and amendments in 2026.
This is after your term ends.
Robin had this question...
Some thoughts about what's next in the Comp Plan
and what 2026 might bring?
-Well, the Comp Plan, so, first of all,
what we're about to approve
are the boundaries of neighborhood centers
and a lot of the maps.
However, the heights within those lines
is still to be deliberated next year.
That's a big one.
-Okay.
And meaning it could be 25. It could be 40. Is that the...
-Right. In the new neighborhood centers--
-Can you describe what a neighborhood center is,
if you could?
-It's a new designation that designates
development capacity,
additional development capacity along lines of frequent transit.
-Thank you. Yeah.
So, that's what we're looking at.
Do you expect some big changes to that with 2026,
with some new people in the council
and a new mayor, too. What do you think?
-I think that this city is, as I agree,
we should be, set up to embrace more housing
because we've got a housing crisis
and that is a housing-affordability crisis.
And so it remains to be seen what, you know,
how high those heights will be
and whether or not there will be
additional neighborhood centers that are on the table
to decide next year.
You know, we have to stay within a certain boundary
of what has already been studied.
And if it hasn't been studied under SEPA,
then that prolongs the process of finalizing everything.
So, you know, everything is a balancing act.
But I do believe that this is a City Hall
that values
additional development capacity for more housing.
And also that does pay attention to our residents
and does care about our neighborhoods.
I started working with Richard Conlin
after he had come off of years of neighborhood planning.
-Former council member, yeah. -Right.
And so this is a city
that cares about their neighborhood
and about affordability.
And so, there are still some big decisions to come.
-Got it.
I wanted to make sure I touched on a workforce housing issue.
You've been very passionate about establishing
a makers district near the stadium area of SoDo.
The ordinance you were able to pass
through the council back in March
is caught up in a legal challenge right now.
So, I know you're limited about what you can say
with a court case,
but I would love for you to talk about this broadly if you could.
This was a very hard-fought piece of legislation for you.
You know that better than I do.
Raised a lot of concerns from the Port of Seattle.
If this court challenge stops the makers district
from happening,
do you see the council revisiting the topic next year?
-I'm not even going to comment. I don't know.
I will simply say that I stand by that effort.
I stand by that battle,
that fight that we engaged in in the first quarter
because it was all about affordability.
It was all about affordability
and helping small industrial businesses, makers,
find space that is affordable
in an increasingly expensive city, even in SoDo.
And what people need to realize
is that area is specifically zoned to require
that 50% of the housing that's built there
be affordable at between 60% and 90% area median income.
-Okay. -And so that's written in stone.
That's rare.
And that shows you that that was the intent
of that area from the get-go.
You know, last-minute decisions were made.
That's not what ended up happening in 2023.
And because of the housing-affordability crisis,
there was not a good-enough reason not to pursue this
because the EIS that had been conducted said
that additional traffic on the road from that housing
will not undermine port operations
or impact longshore jobs. -Got it, got it.
I wanted to look back on your term in office.
You joined the council to get the voice
of a local small businessperson represented.
Do you think your voice was heard in the way
you wanted it to be?
I wanted to talk about some of the accomplishments
you might be most proud of.
-Wow. Do I feel my voice was heard?
I can only look
at the work that we did, my team and I.
And I can simply say that yes, I ran
to provide the fresh perspective of a small-business owner,
somebody who knows
that your costs should not exceed your revenues,
somebody that values the ecosystem
of our business community, especially small businesses,
because they create the jobs,
they drive innovation, and they create the sense of place
in our neighborhoods.
And they needed help.
And when I came out of the --
and especially coming out of the pandemic,
but what I heard from them was
public safety was their top priority, not access to capital,
but public safety.
And so that's why I shift my focus to staffing backup SPD
and all that other work.
So, when you look back on the public-safety work
that we've done, I do think that my work was --
my voice was heard together with allies.
Since 2023, we've been able to return public safety
to its rightful place as our top priority,
because that is our job.
That's our responsibility.
On that front, I also do believe that, you know,
when it comes to jobs -- there's a link to jobs here --
the creative economy.
I'm proud of establishing the Seattle Film Commission,
because, eh, what's another commission?
Actually, this puts government skin in the game
in supporting our local film industry
and also attracting major productions to the city.
I'm tired of seeing a movie about Seattle
that's not filmed in Seattle.
-Come on, Vancouver, please. -I know.
-Yeah. -And so this past year,
Paramount Pictures was headquartered in Seattle
to make a movie that will have scenes of New York
filmed in Seattle.
So, that is great.
Parking places for a musician in front of...
So, some of the things that I'm proud of, you know,
might be fairly obscure,
might not be the headline-grabbing issues.
But what they do reveal is just sort of a pragmatic,
commonsense approach to policy making.
-Got it. Any do-overs you wish you had?
I'm thinking about maybe the pay-up legislation.
You were working very hard to figure out some way
with gig workers and stuff. I don't know.
-I did not mean to pick a fight with SEIU and UFCW.
-Yeah. The unions. Okay.
-Right.
The unions that together make Working Washington
that got the old council to run that bill.
I was responding to the workers showing up in chambers,
begging us to do something to repeal the law
or to revise it because their wages had tanked...
-Right.
...once that law went into effect.
And so I was responding to what I was hearing them want.
And knowing that it was, you know, sensitive,
but I felt that it was something that had to be done.
-Yeah. Yeah.
We discussed that on a "City Inside Out" show here, too.
It was a very fraught issue, and I just wanted to make sure--
-Wait. -Please.
I just wanted to say,
you know, that's our job is to take on tough issues.
It is our job to try to do big things and to help
the greatest number of people, right?
When you ask me what I look back on,
it's not the losses that I think --
you know, there is no scorecard.
I didn't govern to get reelected.
I governed
to make hard calls and to try to do, you know,
try to do the most good -- right? -- to fix this city.
-Yeah, yeah.
-Because when you think about what it was like in 2021,
all right?
And I had nothing to lose.
I was old and in recovery -- no shame --
so I could try to do what I thought was right.
-Fair enough. Last question.
Just about every incumbent in office at the city level,
including yourself, was voted out in November.
We're just talking about a lot of new faces here --
mayor's office, your position, city attorney, etcetera.
Do you have any expectations for this new-look city of Seattle
government in 2026? -Expectations?
No, because I don't know these individuals really well.
I heard them on the campaign trail.
It's different when you're governing.
And all I can say is I wish them well.
I wish them success. I love this city.
And don't blow it. No. Just kidding.
No, but I think that we're all in this together,
and I have no preconceived notions
of what's going to happen.
I hope that everybody brings their heart
and their best intentions to the job.
-All right.
That's City Council President Sara Nelson.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you for your work on the City Council.
I appreciate it, and we will see you next time
on "City Inside Out -- Council Edition."
♪♪