.
>>> HELLO EVERYBODY.
TODAY IS DECEMBER 5. IT'S
2:00 P.M.
I'M SALLY BAGSHAW.
THANK YOU TO COUNSEL MEMBERS
GONZALEZ HERBOLD AND
PEDERSON FOR BEING WITH ME HERE
TODAY AND WE HAVE
ONLY ONE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND
THE ITEM IS TO HEAR
MORE ON THE UPDATES AND WHERE
WE ARE WITH THE
GOVERNANCE AND WHAT HAPPENED AT
REGIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE TODAY RPC AT KING
COUNTY.
WE'VE BROUGHT JESS SIMMS THANK
YOU SO MUCH AND
TRACY RATZLIFF THANK YOU AND
TEST COLBY FROM THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE.
FIRST OF ALL DO WE HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENT?
>> WELL, LOOKING AT THAT SHEET
I AM GOING TO IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO ADOPT
THE AGENDA WITHOUT
ANY CHANGES TODAY.
AND SEE NO OBJECTION AND
HEARING NO OBJECTION THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
WE'VE GOT EIGHT PEOPLE SO IF
YOU WANT TO OFFER TWO
MINUTES TO EVERYBODY DAVID
HAYNES, BRIAN FORD, KAREN
SCHILLING, KATIE NOR, DANIELLE
IN THAT ORDER.
SO DAVID, BRIAN AND CAROL IF
BRIAN AND CAROL WILL
LINE UP SO WE'RE READY TO GO
RIGHT AFTER DAVID.
THANK YOU.
.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY
COUNCIL.
IN ORDER TO HAVE REGIONAL
AUTHORITY SUCCESS YOU
STILL HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ABUSE HOMELESS
CUSTOMERS ARE SUBJECTED TO BY
CONTRACT PROVIDERS.
I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER
INVESTIGATING AND
STOP NOMINATING THE WRONG
PEOPLE FOR THIS NEW
REGIONAL AUTHORITY WHOSE AGENDA
SEEMS TO BE
PERVERTED, RACIST AND BULLYING
ALTERNATIVE ALL
HOME.COM AND SOME OF THE CITY
GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL
WELFARE NON PROFITS APPLYING A
SYSTEMATIC RACISM
USING TAX DOLLARS.
THIS BUDGET CYCLE FOR
EDUCATIONS OF HATE HIDING
BEHIND A RACE AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE LENSES.
IT'S ALL THE I HATE TO SAY
IT.
IN ORDER TO KEEP CHRISTIAN
COMPASSION STRONG 10%
OF THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE SPENT
ALLEVIATING THE
OPPRESSION OF THE HOUSELESS
CITIZENS OVER THROWN BY
TREASONOUS DEMOCRATS
CORRELATING SAPPHIC REASM AND
PROLIFIC CHEAP LABOR TO THE
HOMELESS CRISIS IN
AMERICA.
THE STATE HAS 1 MILLION NON
CITIZENS TAKING A HOME
OFF THE MARKET TO MAKE BIG BANK
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
HAPPY WHILE CITY COUNCIL THINKS
TAPPING INTO AND
MANAGING THE HOMELESS BY
SELLING OUT THE SCRUTINY OF
THE SIX FIGURE SALARY GETTING
AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT
EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW MUCH DATA
AND MANY PEOPLE THEY
HAVE HELPED ALL FOR REELECTION
SUPPORT TO SOLIDIFY
GUARANTY FOR CONTRACTORS AT
TAXPAYER EXPENSE AND THE
RIGHTS OF THE HOMELESS.
YOU CANNOT REAPPOINT THE
PERVERTED RACIST BULLIES
GETTING IN THE WAY OF REAL
PROGRESS.
IT'S NOT FAIR ALL HOME GETS
AWAY WITH HIRING A NEW
YORK COMPANY WITH A PERVERTED
RACIST PLAGIARIZED
AGENDA A COMPANY TO FILL IN THE
BLANKS GARRETT R
GUARANTEES OF ORGANIZING.
WHAT IT DOES IS VIRTUALLY
ADDING SYSTEMATIC UNDER
MINING RACIST AGENDAS THAT ARE
RACIST ANTI SOCIAL
AND DESPERATELY INJUSTICE TO-
-IT'S AN INJUSTICE TO
ALLOW RACISM TO CONTINUE IN
THIS CITY.
>> BRIAN FORD, CAROL SCHILLING,
KATIE LONG.
.
>> HEY HOW IS IT GOING?
>> HI.
>> I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT
THE SWEEPS THAT ARE
GOING ON CURRENT WITH THE
UNSANCTIONED CAMPS IN
SEATTLE.
I WORK WITH A GROUP CALLED
FACING HOMELESSNESS AND
WE GO OUT EVERY OTHER WEEKEND
AND DO UNSANCTIONED
CAMP CLEAN UPS AND I THINK
THESE SWEEPS ARE A
TERRIBLE THING.
I MEAN YOU'RE FORCING PEOPLE TO
MOVE FROM PLACE TO
PLACE WITH NOWHERE TO GO AND
SOMETIMES LOSING THEIR
POSSESSIONS AND HAVING PEOPLE
MOVE AROUND LIKE THAT
IS RADICALIZING A NEW GROUP OF
PEOPLE EVERY TIME YOU
FORCE THEM TO MOVE INTO A
DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU KNOW?
AND IT'S JUST IT TURNS PEOPLE
AGAINST THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE LIVING THERE.
I THINK THAT RESOURCES SHOULD
BE PUT INTO SERVICES
LIKE GARBAGE COLLECTION AND
PORTABLE RESTROOMS.
CLEAN UP, THE CLEAN UP
AFTERWARDS HAS TO COST MORE
THAN PROVIDING THESE SERVICES
UP FRONT.
WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT, THE
CITIZENS ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER.
YOU KNOW?
AND JUST TO HAVE IT PILE UP AND
TO COME BY LATER AND
CLEAN IT UP JUST DOESN'T MAKE A
LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
AND THE UNSANCTIONED CAMPS
AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE.
FORCING PEOPLE TO LIVE OUTSIDE
AND TRY TO SURVIVE
AND YOU ADD TO THEIR TRAUMA BY
COMING AND SWEEPING
THEM OUT OF THE PLACE THAT
THEY'RE LIVING.
I THINK THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD
COME OUT AND
PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF THESE
CLEAN UPS WITH US AND
COME AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT-
-COME AND SEE HOW
THESE PEOPLE ARE LIVING OUT
THERE AND COME AND SEE
WHAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH ON A
PERSONAL BASIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU BRIAN AND I CAN
ASSURE YOU FOR MYSELF
AND A NUMBER OF MY COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES WE HAVE BEEN
THERE AND WE HAVE ASSISTED SO I
APPRECIATE YOUR
COMING DOWN.
THANK YOU.
CAROL, KATIE, DANIELLEA AND
THERESA.
>> HI MY NAME IS CAROL
SHILLING.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT--I HAVE
A PRINT OUT THAT I
LEFT FOR YOU.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT BUILDING
A MULTI USE
BUILDING TO SUPPORT
HOMELESSNESS, A YMCA TYPE
FACILITY WITH SOCIETIAL MIXING,
A HIGH CBD GROW IN
THE TOP OF THE BUILDING TO
CREATE A NEUROLOGICAL
MEDICAL CANNABIS THERAPY ACCESS
AS WELL AS
CAMPGROUNDS ON THE I-5
CORRIDOR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REST OF THE
STATE THERE'S
CAMPGROUNDS EVERYWHERE.
THERE'S NO CAMPGROUNDS THERE.
THERE'S AN OBVIOUS NEED FOR
CAMPGROUNDS.
WHEN I CAME TO THE STATE IN
2008 TO ATTEND UW I
NOTICED A WOMAN THAT WAS CRYING
ON THE SIDE OF A
KMART.
IT'S 11 YEARS LATER AND IT'S
ONLY GOTTEN WORSE.
THERE'S TENTS NEXT TO REGULAR
BUILDINGS.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
WE NEED CAMPGROUNDS AND
SERVICES.
THE BUILDING I DESIGNED IS
BECAUSE SEATTLE UNITY
SOLD THEIR LAND AND I DEVELOPED
WHAT I THOUGHT
SHOULD BE NEXT DOOR.
OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE A
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
BUT MAYBE THERE'S A BUILDING
THAT'S JUST GOING TO
WASTE IS WHAT I'M THINKING.
HOMELESSNESS IS MULTI LEVEL.
IN 2007 WE STARTED TO
REREGISTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY NEURO TOXINS
NOT ONLY DO DIRECT
DAMAGE TO THE NEUROLOGY THEY
ALSO WEAKEN VIRUSES
WITHIN THE SYSTEM, DORMANT
VIRUSES WITHIN THE SYSTEM
AND WHAT THE SYSTEM, IMMUNE
SYSTEM, DOES IS CREATES
INFLAMMATION AS PART OF ITS WAR
ON THOSE VIRUSES AND
THAT INFLAMMATION CREATES
MENINGITIS WITHIN THE
VESSEL.
WHAT WE HAVE IS A CHRONIC
SYSTEMATIC--WE HAVE AN
EPIDEMIC OF MENINGITIS THAT
DOES NOT KILL, THAT DOES
NOT LEAD TO SEIZURE, THAT DOES
NOT LEAD TO DEATH.
IT LEADS TO CHRONIC
HOMELESSNESS AND WE NEED TO
DEAL WITH THAT AND SO THAT'S
WHAT THIS BUILDING WILL
DO.
>> THANK YOU CAROL.
KATIE, DANIELLEA AND THERESA.
.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS KATIE AND I THOUGHT
THE SHEET UP HERE
WAS LIKE TO SIGN UP IF YOU ARE
GOING TO BE HERE.
SO I DO HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING
THOUGH.
I'M SO NERVOUS, I'M SORRY.
EVER SINCE I WAS BORN HERE,
THERE'S BEEN LIKE
PLENTY OF HOMELESS PEOPLE.
LIKE OVER THE YEARS THE
HOMELESS POPULATION
STARTED TO INCREASE EVEN THOUGH
YOU HAVE THESE BIG
TECH COMPANIES PAYING LIKE
TAXES, $500 PER LIKE
EMPLOYEE BUT I DON'T SEE THAT
MONEY GOING ANYWHERE.
SORRY.
IT'S MY FIRST TIME.
.
>> GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR COMING AND COME
BACK AGAIN.
DANIELLEA, THERESA AND SHAWN.
.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS DANIELLEA, THANK YOU
FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
SO I'M A RESIDENT OF NORTHEAST
GREEN LAKE AND I
JUST WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT MY
EXPERIENCE, MY FAMILY AND MY
NEIGHBORS EXPERIENCE
WITH AN ENCAMPMENT ON I-5 NEAR
OUR HOME.
SO I HAD MOVED IN AND BOUGHT A
PROPERTY AT THE
CORNER OF 76TH STREET AND FIFTH
AVENUE WITH
DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION
PROPERTY RUNNING BEHIND IN
JULY.
AT THAT POINT THERE WERE NO
SIGN OF CAMPS AND THEN
PROBABLY BY LATE SEPTEMBER
STARTED TO NOTICE PEOPLE
TRESPASSING INTO MY BACK YARD
AND EVENTUALLY
REALIZED THAT THE AREA RIGHT
BEHIND MY HOUSE WAS A
MAJOR ENTRANCE TO THIS
ENCAMPMENT.
SO AS IT GREW ON THE ORDER OF A
FEW WEEKS AND
WITHIN THOSE WEEKS UNTIL IT GOT
CLEARED IN LATE
SEPTEMBER, I WAS HAVING PEOPLE
COMING INTO MY
PROPERTY LEAVING WEAPONS,
CONSTANTLY HAVING TO CALL
THE POLICE, HAVE PEOPLE COME
IN, YOU KNOW POLICE
OFFICERS TO INVESTIGATE.
MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S EMPTY
PROPERTY WAS BROKEN
INTO.
THERE WERE SQUATTERS THERE.
THIS WAS RIGHT NEXT TO MY
HOUSE.
NEEDLESS TO SAY I DID NOT FEEL
SAFE IN MY OWN HOME
THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED AND
THANKFULLY SINCE THE
CAMP GOT CLEARED OUT IT'S BEEN
MUCH BETTER SO I
HAVEN'T HAD PEOPLE TRESPASSING
BUT I'M CONCERNED
BECAUSE I'M ALREADY SEEING NEW
TENTS, YOU KNOW, IN
THE AREA RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE
AND THAT CLEAN UP
CLEARLY CAUSED NEW TENTS TO
FORM IN AREAS NEARBY.
SO THEN YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
THIS--NOT ONLY ARE
THE PEOPLE SUFFERING WHO ARE
LIVING IN THESE
ENCAMPMENTS BUT WE HAVE TO
REMEMBER TOO THAT WHEN
THEY FORM RIGHT NEXT TO OUR
HOMES THAT WE'RE HAVING
DIRECT IMPACT ON CITIZENS LIKE
MYSELF AND MY
NEIGHBORS.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO
SHARE.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING,
DANIELLEA.
THERESA, SHAWN AND IS IT ALEX?
ALICE?
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I ACTUALLY HAD A DIFFERENT
STATEMENT PREPARED BUT
WE'VE HAD E-MAILS AND
CONVERSATIONS I JUST WANT TO
SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS
COMMITTEE AND IT'S
WORK SO FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU
FOR THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE.
THIS COMMITTEE WHEN I BELIEVE
IT WAS SEVENTEENED
WAS TO REALLY POOL KNOWLEDGE
AND INFORMATION IN
MINDS AND TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT
MORE ABOUT AN
EFFECTIVE WAY TO SOLVE
HOMELESSNESS AND AS YOU KNOW
I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY AND THE
PARKS AND ALSO COMMUNITIES
AROUND THE CITY WHOSE
RESIDENTS ARE WORKING OR
RAISING CHILDREN OR CARING
FOR ELDERLY PARENTS AND
ACTUALLY CAN'T BE HERE SO I
JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M MORE
GRAT FIND WITH THE
LEADERSHIP THAT CITY COUNCIL
HAS SHOWN ON THE WORK
ON THE BUDGET AND THOSE WHO ARE
LIVING OUT DOORS AND
WE'RE STILL--BECAUSE WE'RE
STILL SEEING OF COURSE AS
YOU ARE TENTS ON THE HILLSIDE
GREENWAYS, TENTS ON
THE FREEWAYS, TENTS ON THE CITY
STREETS.
WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE SAFETY OF THOSE
FOLKS WHO ARE LIVING OUT DOORS
AND THE SAFETY IN THE
CITY.
AND WE JUST ALL NEED MORE SAFE
AND STABLE PLACES
FOR ALL OF US TO LIVE WHETHER
WE ARE LIVING OUT
DOORS OR LIVING IN HOMES.
SO AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS
IS THE LAST
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE YEAR AND AGAIN,
RATIFIED BY THE WORK THAT'S
BEEN DONE, WE DO HAVE I
THINK SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO
ARE COMING BACK WHO
ARE INCUMBENTS AND THEN A
COUPLE OF NEW FOLKS AND AS
I'VE SEEN THE INFORMATION I'D
LIKE TO ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS
ASKING QUESTIONS,
WORK TOGETHER, PUT TOGETHER A
PLAN THAT WE CAN NOT
GO THROUGH ANOTHER SEASON WITH
TENTS, PEOPLE LIVING
OUT DOORS AND SUFFERING FROM
THAT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE
MEETING NEXT WEEK.
WE WILL SEE.
SHAWN AND THEN ALEX.
AND ALICE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE YOUR WAY UP.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.
SHAWN WITH 17.
MY ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS THE
EMPLOYEES AT THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AS
WLL AS SOON TO BE--THE
SOONLY ORGANIZED PPMS AT KING
COUNTY THAT WILL BE
IMPACTED BY THE REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE MODEL.
WE PREVIOUSLY JUSTICE YESTERDAY
SENT A LETTER
OBJECTING TO THE AMENDMENTS
THAT THE RBC HAS MADE TO
THE PROPOSAL REGARDING AND I
WANTED TO COME AND
SHARE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
SPECIFICALLY SOUND CITY
HAS STATED THAT EVEN THOUGH
SUBURBAN CITIES WON'T BE
PAYING DIRECTLY THEY SHOULD
STILL HAVE A SEAT AT THE
TABLE AND THE COUNTY
CONTRIBUTING 57 MILLION WHICH
THEIR RESIDENTS CONTRIBUTE TO.
THAT MAY BE TRUE.
SO DOES THE CITY.
THIS CALM UP DURING THE EHT
DISCUSSION BUT PLAINLY
THE CITY OF SEATTLE MAKES UP
40.4% OF THE TOTAL
ASSESSED VALUE OF KING COUNTY
AND ABOUT A THIRD OF
THE POPULATION.
AS A RESULT, BUSINESSS IN
SEATTLE ARE ESSENTIALLY
PAYING 23.028 MILLION OF THE
COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION
PLUS THE 75 MILLION DIRECTLY.
ANOTHER WAY SEATTLE WILL BE
FOOTING THE BILL FOR
75% OF THE NEW AUTHORITY BUT
WILL NOT HAVE THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE TABLE.
THIS PROPOSAL ESSENTIALLY
ALLOWS OTHER CITIES TO
SPEND THE MONEY BASED ON THE
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY THAT
THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS PRIOR
PROPOSALS WHICH WAS
RELIANT ON BEST PRACTICES AND
EVIDENCE BEING POLICY
LEADING.
SO OUR MEMBERS KNOW MUCH MORE
ABOUT THE BEST
PRACTICES THAN THE POLITICIANS
THAT ARE TRYING TO
USE SEATTLE'S MONEY TO
IMPLEMENT POLICIES THAT WERE
STRONGLY REJECTED BY THE CITY
VOTER'S LAST ELECTION.
JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE SO MUCH
DONE SO
SUCCESSFULLY HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFUL THANKS IN LARGE
PART TO KEEPING POLITICS AS FAR
AWAY FROM THE
DECISION MAKING AS POSSIBLE.
I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE PLAN
AS AMENDED.
THANK YOU.
.
>> THANK YOU, SHAWN.
ALICE?
AND ALICE IS OUR LAST SPEAKER.
JUST PULL THAT DOWN TOWARDS
YOU.
IT BENDS.
>> HI.
TELL ME IF THE VOLUME IS RIGHT.
I'M ALICE CUMMINGS ONE OF THE
ORGANIZERS AT POP UP
KITCHEN.
WE SERVE A HOME COOKED MEAL
EVERY SUNDAY IN THE
ROOSEVELT NEIGHBORHOOD AND
EVERY WEEK WE TALK TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING OUT DOORS
IN VARIOUS WAYS
SOMETIMES DOORWAYS, CARS,
TENTS.
AND MANY OF WHOM HAVE
SIGNIFICANT HEALTH ISSUES.
A FEW WEEKS AGO, I RECEIVED A
CALL FROM ONE OF OUR
NEIGHBORS WHO WAS VERY SICK AND
NEEDED TO GO TO THE
HOSPITAL AND SHE HAD BEEN
HOSPITALIZED A FEW WEEKS
BEFORE OR ACTUALLY ABOUT A
MONTH BEFORE AND WITH A
SEVERE INFECTION THAT SHE GOT
AFTER A BICYCLE
ACCIDENT AND WHEN SHE WAS
RELEASED SHE ENDED UP
HAVING TO HAVE SURGERY WHERE
THEY REMOVED TISSUE
THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE
SEPSIS.
AND SO I CALLED AND TAKE HER
DIRECTLY BACK TO HER
TENT WHICH IS WHAT SHE WANTED.
I ENDED UP CALLING THE TEAM AND
TALKED TO ONE OF
THE OFFICERS THAT I'VE WHICH I
WAS HAPPY ABOUT
BECAUSE SHE CLEARLY WAS GOING
TO GO BACK TO THE TENT
AND AND THAT SEEMED GOOD.
SHE SEEMED TO BE DOING BETTER
AND A FEW WEEKS
LATER THEIR CAMP WAS SWEPT AND
THEN ANOTHER TWO DAYS
LATER IT WAS SWEPT FOR THE
FIRST TIME THIS TIME
CONFISCATING ALL OF THEIR
POSSESSIONS.
AND THEN I WAS SHOCKED AND
SURPRISED AND ANGERED
BY THAT, YOU KNOW, HEARING
ABOUT THIS TWO WEEKS
LATER SHE CALLED ME AND SAID I
NEED TO GO TO THE
HOSPITAL.
I WENT TO PICK HER UP.
HER ENTIRE BODY WAS FULL OF
SEPSIS.
THEY TRANSFERRED HER TO HARBOR
VIEW WHERE SHE WAS
THERE FOR ABOUT FIVE DAYS.
SHE HAD SURGERY.
THEY GAVE HER LOTS OF
ANTIBIOTICS AND THEN TIME TO
GO.
AND I WENT UP THERE AND TRIED
TO ARRANGE FOR SOME
SORT OF CARE FOR HER FOR A FEW
DAYS.
THEY FINALLY AFTER LOOKING INTO
ALL OF WHAT THEY
HAD AND NOTHING WAS AVAILABLE
THEY SAID SHE CAN STAY
HERE ONE NIGHT.
NEXT MORNING 10:00 SHE WAS OUT
AND I MISSED
TALKING TO THE SOCIAL WORKER
BUT THEY SAID THEY HAD
GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING WITH
HER AND THERE WAS
NOTHING.
MEANWHILE I HAD CALLED PROBABLY
TEN DIFFERENT
PLACES TRYING TO FIND SOME KIND
OF HELP FOR HER.
IN THE END I DROPPED HER AT A
SHELTER AND I DON'T
KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING NOW.
BUT IT'S VERY, VERY VULNERABLE
PERSON WITH
NOTHING, YOU KNOW?
SO.
>> ALICE THANK YOU FOR YOUR
HEART AND THANKS FOR ALL
OF THE WORK YOU'VE DONE.
THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN HERE
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT THAT'S THE END OF
OUR PUBLIC COMMENT
AND I WOULD LIKE OUR PRESENTERS
úTO COME UP TO THE
TABLE.
.
>> THANK YOU.
JEFF DO YOU WANT TO START
INTRODUCTIONS?
>> JEFF SIMMS COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> TRACY RATZLIFF COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AND TESS COLBY.
>> THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
>> ALL OF YOU KNOW HOW MANY
MONTHS AND HOW MANY
MEETINGS WE HAVE HAD MOVING
FORWARD WITH AN
AGREEMENT THAT STARTING OFF
WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT
INPUT.
ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BUDGET
I WAS MEETING WITH
MY COLLEAGUES AT KING COUNTY
AND WAS CITY'S
ASSOCIATION.
THIS MORNING THE REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE TOOK WHAT WE
HAD I THINK IT A GOOD
NEGOTIATING POINT ON THE
WEDNESDAY NIGHT BEFORE
THANKSGIVING THEN THERE WERE
A FEW OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT
CAME FORWARD.
WE CALL THOSE THE THANKSGIVING
AMENDMENTS.
SO WE CAME IN FRONT OF REGIONAL
COUNTY OF THE
REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
TODAY, HAD A FEW
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS SO I
BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL HAVE
WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE
THANKSGIVING COPY.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY, DIVE BACK
IN AND MAYBE YOU COULD START
OFF EXPLAINING A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TODAY
AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH
ONE OF YOU WANTS TO DO THAT BUT
THEN ALSO TALKING
ABOUT WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS AS
PART OF YOUR
PRESENTATION.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO
GET UP TO DATE ON ALL OF THE
UNDER LYING AGREEMENT
ITSELF, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE
HEARD TODAY AND THEN
OUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS IF NOT TODAY IN THE
NEXT FEW DAYS BEFORE
FINAL DECISIONS CAN BE MADE.
.
>> CERTAINLY.
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.
TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONSISTENT
TERMINOLOGY AND
ARE ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME
THINGS I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER
BAGSHAW REFERRED TO AS
THE THANKSGIVING AMENDMENTS ALL
RECEIVED A MEMO ON
TUESDAY MORNING AND AT THAT
TIME I REFER TO THOSE AS
AMENDMENTS AS OF 3: 51:00 P.M.
ON DECEMBER 2. THOSE ARE THE
SAME THINGS, CHANGES INTRODUCED
VERY
LATE IN THE PROCESS.
AND THAT WILL BE--THAT IS-
-THOSE WILL BE REFLECTED
IN THE CHART THAT I HAVE UP ON
THE SCREEN HERE.
GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT.
>> CAN WE GET THAT CHART OVER
THERE.
. THE MAYOR AND EXECUTIVE
TRANSMITTED TO THE
RESPECTED CITY AND COUNTY
COUNCILS A PROPOSAL FOR
CREATING A UNIFIED ENTITY.
THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE IN THE
SECOND COLUMN OF THE
DOCUMENT THAT IS DISPLAYED AND
THAT PARTICULAR HOW
THAT DIFFERS FROM WHAT WAS
CONSIDERED TODAY.
AS COUNCIL MEMBER BAGSHAW
ALREADY DISCUSSED
MULTIPLE CHANGES OCCURRED ALL
THE WAY UP TO EVEN
THIS MORNING WHEN THE REGIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE OF
THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL MET AND
ADOPTED
APPROXIMATELY SIX AMENDMENTS.
I'LL STATE EACH OF THOSE
BRIEFLY BUT I'M GOING TO
GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT THAT'S
ON SCREEN AND YOU
WILL SEE THAT THE THIRD COLUMN
REFLECTS THE WHAT WAS
PASSED BY KING COUNTY REGIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE
EARLIER TODAY.
>> EXCUSE ME, BEFORE YOU JUMP
INTO THAT, PERHAPS
JUST FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TUNING
IN FOR THE FIRST
TIME, IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT
THE PRINCIPALS WHAT IT
IS WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING BETWEEN
THE CITY, THE COUNTY
AND THE CITY ASSOCIATION SO
GIVE US AN UMBRELLA AND
THEN GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT
THESE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
AS PROPOSED.
>> PERFECT.
'M HAPPY TO.
SO BROADLY AS I ALLUDED TO A
LITTLE BIT BUT WITH A
LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL THE GOAL
OF THIS APPROACH WAS
TO CREATE A SINGLE AUTHORITY
THAT IS A REGION WIDE
AUTHORITY GUIDING ALL OF THE
INVESTMENTS THAT ARE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES MAKING IN
HOMELESS SERVICES IN
ORDER TO HAVE A UNIFIED
APPROACH TO ADDRESSING A
PROBLEM THAT'S INFORMED BY BEST
PRACTICE, THE VOICE
OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED
EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS
AND THE INPUT OF PEOPLE THAT
ARE ON THE FRONT LINES
OF DOING THIS WORK AND PUTTING
ALL OF THAT TOGETHER
TO MOVE FORWARD AS A REGION AND
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE RESPONDING IN A UNIFIED WAY
AND REGION WIDE WAY
TO THE EMERGENCY OF
HOMELESSNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
.
>> I MEAN WE COULD PROBABLY
SPEND THE NEXT FOUR
HOURS TALKING ABOUT THIS BUT
I'D ALSO LIKE YOU TO
FRAME WHAT IT IS YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED WELL THAT PEOPLE
WOULD LIVE TO EXPERIENCE AND
PROVIDERS WITH
EXPERIENCE WILL BE INFORMING
DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE
BUT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT
THAT INFO GRAPHIC WITH
THE GOVERNING BOARD OR
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD AND
VARIOUS ADVISORY COMMITTEES
LEADING UP TO THAT.
IF YOU COULD JUST DESCRIBE THAT
BRIEFLY.
>> SURE.
AND AS I DESCRIBE IT I'LL
DESCRIBE IT AS IT
CURRENTLY WOULD BE REFLECTED
FROM WHAT WAS JUST
PASSED BY THE COUNTY TODAY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
MOSTLY ON THE SAME PAGE AND
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT WAS PASSED TODAY AS A
HIGHLIGHT ON THE SCREEN
BUT ALL OF THIS IS IN THE THIRD
COLUMN.
SO GENERALLY YOU HAVE A
STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIRST
BOARD THAT I WILL DISCUSS IS
CALLED THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE IN THE PREVIOUS
STEERING WHEN HE.
THAT IS A GROUP COMPOSED
PRIMARILY OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT
EITHER HAVE PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS OR
ARE RESPONSIVE AND
REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE GROUPS
AND THEY WOULD BE
NOMINATED BY PEOPLE WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCE OF
HOMELESSNESS.
THAT GROUP, I'LL GO INTO
PARTICULAR DETAIL ABOUT
WHAT THAT GROUP WOULD DO AS WE
GO THROUGH STEP BY
STEP BUT THAT'S A GROUP OF 12
PEOPLE, APOLOGIES FOR
THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN
GOING ON, 12 PEOPLE IN
TOTAL.
THE SECOND GROUP IS A GROUP
PROPOSED PRIMARILY OF
WHAT WE REFER TO AS SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTS OR
TECHNICAL EXPERTS THAT ARE ALSO
CONNECTED WITH A
VARIETY OF SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT
OUR COMMUNITY SUCH AS
CHILD WELFARE, THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, HOUSING
DEVELOPERS, PEOPLE THAT
ACTUALLY PROVIDE SERVICES
AND PEOPLE WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCE AS WELL.
THAT GROUP IS APPOINTED
INITIALLY BY IN THE
CURRENT DRAFT APPOINTED BY
VARIOUS GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES SUCH AS THIS COUNSEL
APPOINTING TO OR THE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPOINTING TO
CONFIRMED BY THAT
FIRST GROUP THAT I DISCUSSED,
THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE AND THAT GROUP WOULD
BE WORKING
EXTENSIVELY AND REALLY WOULD BE
MANAGING THE
DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AND OVER
SITE OF THIS COMBINED
REGIONAL AUTHORITY THAT WOULD
HAVE ALL OF THE FUNDS
FROM THE COUNTY AND THE CITY
THAT HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED SO FAR PUT INTO IT TO
PROVIDE HOMELESSNESS
SERVICES.
AND ON BOTH OF THOSE GROUPS I
WANT TO EMPHASIZE
AGAIN THAT PEOPLE WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCE HAVE
REPRESENTATION OF THREE
INDIVIDUALS ON BOTH OF THEM.
SO TURNING TO SPECIFICS I'LL GO
THROUGH
LINE--BROADLY IN THE SORT OF
FOLLOWS WITH THE MEMO
THAT WAS PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY AS
WELL AS THE
STRUCTURE OF THE ACTUAL
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT
WOULD BE PASSED.
THE FIRST ITEM THAT IS A MAJOR
CHANGE THAT WAS
MADE OVER THE LAST LET'S SAY
WEEK AND A HALF OR TWO
WEEKS AND CONTINUES NOW RATHER
THAN PUTTING FORWARD
A PUBLIC DEVELOPMENTAL
AUTHORITY THAT WOULD HAVE TWO
CORE RESPONDING DOCUMENTS THAT
NEEDED TO BE PASSED.
THE VERSION PASSED BY THE
REGIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE IS A--CREATES AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY
OF SEATTLE TO CREATE
A SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE TECHNICAL
TERM.
YOU CAN SEE THE STATUTORY
CITATION THEY ARE
REFERRING TO.
ESSENTIALLY IT IS WORKING
TOGETHER TO CREATE A
SEPARATE AGENCY THAT COMBINES
OUR FUNDING BUT IS AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND THE CITY.
IT'S NOTABLE AND THIS IS WHAT
WAS INITIALLY
PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PARTIES IE
OTHER CITIES
THROUGHOUT KING COUNTY COULD
BECOME PARTIES TO THAT
SAME AGREEMENT.
UNDER WHAT IS PASSED THIS
MORNING THAT IS BY THE
REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE THE
OTHER CITIES IN THE
COUNTY CAN BE SUBSCRIBING
AGENCIES TO THIS AUTHORITY
AND IN DOING SO WOULD BE ASKED
TO PROVIDE SOME SORT
OF RESOURCES OR CONTRIBUTION
AND BROADLY ALIGN WITH
THE GOALS AND THE FIVE YEAR
PLAN OF THAT AGENCY.
BUT AT THIS TIME, IT IS ONLY
BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND THE CITY AND THOUGH THERE
IS REPRESENTATION FOR
OTHER CITIES ON THE GOVERNING
BOARD AND--SORRY THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD.
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
>> IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE
EXTENT THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND--THAT ISN'T THE
RIGHT WORD, I'M SORRY.
I HAVE A HEAD COLD TODAY.
BUT YOUR ANALYSIS OF WHY THE
DECISION WAS MADE TO
NOT PURSUE A PDA MODEL INSTEAD
GO WITH THIS
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION ONE
OF THE BENEFITS OF
A PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IS THE ABILITY TO
ISSUE BONDS AND THAT WHEREAS
THERE WAS STILL WITH
THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS THERE
WOULD STILL NEED TO BE A
REVENUE STREAM IN ORDER TO PAY
THOSE BONDS BACK AT A
LOCAL PDA THAT WOULDN'T HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO RAISE
TAXES ON ITS OWN WITHOUT
GETTING THAT AUTHORITY FROM
THE STATE.
THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS WAS
SOMETHING THAT WAS
ATTRACTIVE IN THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE NEXT STEP
AFTER CREATING A GOVERNANCE
AUTHORITY WOULD BE TO
START HAVING THE FUNDING STREAM
CONVERSATION AND
THAT THAT WOULD BE A VALUABLE
TOOL TO HAVE AS PART
OF THAT CONVERSATION.
>> YOU'RE CORRECT ON ALL OF
YOUR DESCRIPTIONS THERE
AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT
WAS PASSED THIS
MORNING AND WHAT INITIALLY
WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPOSED
AS A PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO ALL OF THE
MOTIVATION BEHIND WHY
A PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WAS NOT DESIRABLE BY
COUNTY COUNCIL STAFF OR I'M
SORRY COUNTY COUNCIL
MEMBERS HOWEVER I--WHAT WAS
ARTICULATED FREQUENTLY
WAS A DESIRE NOT TO GO SO FAR
IN CREATING SUCH A
WHOLELY DIFFERENT AGENCY AND
THEN ALSO AS I WILL
HIGHLIGHT LATER THE IDEAS BEING
ABLE TO BOND OR HAVE
TAXING AUTHORITY WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN PROVIDED.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED
LATER BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE AND ALSO AN ISSUE
THAT WAS RAISED AND
ACTUALLY IN WHAT WAS PASSED
THIS MORNING IS
EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED FOR--IN
THIS ENTITY SO THERE
WOULD--EVEN IF THE STATE TOOK
ACTION THERE NEEDS TO
BE CHANGES TO THIS INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT NO TAXING
AUTHORITY PERMITTED.
.
>> YEAH I GUESS I'VE ALWAYS
BEEN UNDER THE
IMPRESSION GOING WAY BACK TO
ONE STABLE THAT WE WERE
EVENTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION AROUND OUR
NEEDS AS DESCRIBED BY THE AND
THAT THIS WAS THE
FIRST STEP TO GET US ON THAT
PATH AND I DON'T KNOW
WHY WE WOULD IN THIS STRUCTURE
FORECLOSE OUR
OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT AT
THIS STAGE.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THE
BACKGROUND.
>> RIGHT.
IF I CAN LEAP IN HERE.
HONESTLY, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE
ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN
NEGOTIATED FOR MONTHS AND SOUND
CITY'S ASSOCIATION
MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY
WERE UNWILLING TO BE
TAXED.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN AN
ORGANIZATION THAT COULD
EFFECTIVELY TAX THEM.
SO CLEARLY IF WE MOVE FORWARD
AND THERE'S
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IT'S GOING
TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH
KING COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE
REGIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE WOULD BE AN ADVISOR
SO IT WOULD BE COUNTY
WIDE, KING COUNTY COUNCIL WILL
WORK WITH US TO
IDENTIFY WHAT REVENUE SOURCES
MIGHT BE AVAILABLE
WHETHER THAT GOES--WE GO TO THE
STATE AND WE GET
ADDITIONAL REVENUES OR THE
AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IN
THE FUTURE.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE DO NOT HAVE
THAT AUTHORITY TO
EITHER BOND OR TAX UNDER THE
CURRENT STRUCTURE.
.
>> CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING
QUESTION AS A FOLLOW
UP TO YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR
BAGSHAW.
SO DOES THE--I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT OR IN THE
PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE US THAT
CAME OUT OF THE
REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE JUST
A COUPLE OF HOURS
AGO.
THE IMPACTS OR FACTS MODIFIES
OR RESTRICTS THE
CITY OF SEATTLE'S TAXATION
AUTHORITY.
.
>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN WHAT HAS
PASSED THIS MORNING BY
RPC THAT WOULD DO THAT.
>> SO CHAIR BAGSHAW WHEN YOU
SAY THAT ANY ADDITIONAL
REVENUE SOURCES NEED TO BE DONE
BY KING COUNTY, WHAT
DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT.
>> IF IT WOULD IMPACT THE SOUND
CITY'S--WE CAN TAX
OURSELVES THROUGH ANY KIND OF A-
-EITHER AUTHORITY
THAT WE HAVE AS CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS OR IF WE GO
BACK TO OUR VOTING PUBLIC AND
ASK FOR A LEVY.
THAT MONEY WOULD COME BACK TO
THE CITY.
THAT MONEY WOULD NOT GO INTO
THE REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE AS PROPOSED RIGHT
NOW.
SO IF WE NEEDED TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL REVENUES THAT
WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR THE
ENTIRE KING COUNTY REGION,
THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THE KING COUNTY
COUNCIL AND VOTERS.
>> OKAY.
AND SO AGAIN WE'RE IN A
POSITION THOUGH THAT IF
KING COUNTY WASN'T TO DO THAT
THEN IT'S LEFT TO
SEATTLE TO BE FUNDING THE NEEDS
ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT
WE HAVE ALL AGREED IS A
REGIONAL PROBLEM.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
.
>> AND THAT'S THE CONCERN I'M
EXPRESSING HERE IS
THAT MAKING THIS NEGOTIATED
AGREEMENT THAT TO BE
FAIR ONLY INCLUDED A SMALL
MINORITY OF COUNCIL
MEMBERS FOR AT LEAST THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S--I
CONTINUE TO HAVE
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S
WISE TO STRUCTURE IT IN
A FASHION WHERE WE ARE AS
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD HAS
ALREADY ARTICULATED FOR CLOSING
EVEN THE
CONVERSATION OF HAVING REGIONAL
FINANCING TOOLS TO
ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE ALL SAID
IS A REGIONAL ISSUE.
SO I JUST AM A LITTLE
FRUSTRATED WITH FIGURING OUT
WHAT THE SOLUTION FOR IT IS ON
THAT IF ALL WE'RE
HEARING FROM SUBURBAN CITIES IS
NO.
>> RIGHT, AND SUBURBAN CITIES
ARE VERY INTERESTED IN
MAINTAINING THEIR INDEPENDENCE
AT THIS POINT THERE
IS NO CITY THAT HAS STEPPED
FORWARD IN SAYING THAT
THEY WILL OFFER LAND OR
RESOURCES.
WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT IF WE HAVE
SOMETHING THAT IS
CLEARLY A REGIONAL AUTHORITY
AND THAT PROGRESS IS
BEING MADE WE'RE GOING TO SEE
MORE CITIES INVOLVED.
AND THAT SAID, THIS AGREEMENT
IS FOR THE INITIAL
TERM OF FIVE YEARS AND AT ANY
POINT IT CAN--IF THE
PARTIES AGREE, WE CAN WITHDRAW
AND AFTER FIVE YEARS
INDIVIDUAL.
>> BUT IN THOSE FIVE YEARS,
WE'RE COMMITTING
$73 MILLION OF CITY OF SEATTLE
TAXPAYER FUNDS;
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
>> AND THOSE $73 MILLION WILL
BE CO MINGLED WITH
KING COUNTY FUNDS; CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND SO THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE ILA THAT SAYS THAT
SEATTLE DOLLARS WILL BE USED
ONLY TO THE BENEFIT OF
SEATTLE RESIDENTS.
>> AND I JUST WILL.
>> I'M SORRY.
I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER ON
THAT ONE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE'S NOT AN EXPLICIT
STATEMENT THAT IT CAN ONLY
BENEFIT SEATTLE RESIDENTS.
I WOULD POINT TO SOME OF OUR
CURRENT INVESTMENTS
RIGHT NOW SUCH AS A DIVERSION
PROGRAM WHERE AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO MIGHT NOT
PHYSICALLY BE IN THE
BOUNDARIES OF SEATTLE CURRENTLY
BUT WITH POSSIBLY
PRESENTING GOING TO BE COMING
TO ONE OF OUR SHELTERS
THAT INDIVIDUAL COULD BE FOR
EXAMPLE GIVEN DIVERSION
ASSISTANCE TO NOT THEREFORE
NEED TO STAY AT ONE OF
OUR SHELTERS SO OUR CURRENT
SYSTEM DOES NOT SAY YOU
HAVE TO BE FULLY WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF OUR SYSTEM AS
LONG AS IT'S BENEFITING THE
SEATTLE SYSTEM OVERALL.
>> BUT I THINK YOU'RE MAKING MY
POINT WHICH SEATTLE
HAS A HISTORY OF BEING VERY
GENEROUS IN SUBSIDIZING
THE NEEDS OF NON SEATTLE
RESIDENTS IN ADDITION TO
TAKING CARE OF THE BASIC NEEDS
OF SEATTLE RESIDENTS
WHO ARE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS AND YET THAT
ISN'T--IS PRETTY MUCH NON
EXISTENT IN TERMS OF HOW
THIS DEAL IS STRUCTURED FROM
SOUND CITIES TO US.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT UNDERSTANDING IS
CLEAR.
SO SEATTLE CITIES WILL BENEFIT
FROM CITY OF
SEATTLE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BUT
THE OTHER WAY AROUND IS
NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS I'M NOT GOING
TO GET MONEY FROM
A MEMBER OF SOUND CITY'S
ASSOCIATION TO BENEFIT OUR
RESIDENTS.
>> YOU'RE CORRECT THAT
INITIALLY--WELL, COUNTY FUNDS
ARE PUT INTO THE ENTITY.
THERE ARE NO SUBURBAN CITY
COMMUNITY FUNDS THAT
ARE PUT INTO THE REGIONAL
AUTHORITY.
TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT SEATTLE FUNDS
COULD BE USED MORE BROADLY IN
SUBURBAN REGIONS, WE
COULD ALSO--WE WOULD HAVE A
VARIETY OF AVENUES BY
WHICH THAT COULD BE RESTRICTED
INCLUDING THROUGH OUR
BUDGET PROCESSES OR WITH THE
CONTRACT THROUGH THE
REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT CURRENTLY TO
MAKE SURE I'M
ADDRESSING EXACTLY WHAT YOUR
CONCERN IS I WANT TO GO
THROUGH AND VET THE LANGUAGE
AGAIN BUT I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN
THE LANGUAGE AT THIS
TIME.
>> YEAH AND I DON'T HAVE--I
THINK WHEN WE
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT WAS A
REGIONAL PROBLEM THEN WE
HAVE TO ALL BE WILLING TO
CONTRIBUTE TO ADDRESSING
THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE
IDENTIFIED AND CHARACTERIZED
AS BEING REGIONAL SO I'M NOT
MINGLING OF THE FUNDS
NECESSARILY.
WHAT I AM OBJECTING TO IS
EXPRESSING A CONCERN
ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THERE
SEEMS TO BE AN APPARENT
LACK OF PRINCIPAL IN TERMS OF
THE REALITIES OF WHAT
THE SCALE OF THE NEED IS AND
WHAT FUNDING WILL BE
REQUIRED TO MEANINGFULLY
ADDRESS THE SCALE OF THE
NEED AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT AS WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WE ARE
NOT FRAMING UP A
CONVERSATION IN A MANNER THAT
COMMUNICATES TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THEY SHOULD
HAVE EXPECTATIONS
THAT ARE GREATER THAN WHAT THEY
MIGHT AND SHOULD BE.
RIGHT?
SO IF WE STILL HAVE A LIMITED
AMOUNT OF MONEY TO
DEAL WITH A VERY LARGE PROBLEM
AND LARGE PART
BECAUSE WE IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE ARE THE ONES THAT
ARE MAKING THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENT THEN I
DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE
COMMUNICATING TO THE
PUBLIC THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS
GOING TO BE FIXED IN
SHORT ORDER BECAUSE THAT'S JUST
NOT REAL.
.
>> RIGHT.
AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT.
AND I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY
EVERYTHING THAT YOU
ARTICULATED IS SOMETHING THAT
HAS BEEN UNDER
DISCUSSION FOR MONTHS.
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR
ULTIMATELY IS TO HAVE
SOUND CITY'S BE REAL PARTNERS
IN TERMS OF OFFERING
LAND, OFFERING SPACE FOR
PEOPLE, STEPPING FORWARD
AND HAVING CREATING THEIR OWN
SHELTERS AS WE MOVE
FORWARD.
RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THAT
COMMITMENT FROM THEM.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON.
>> JUST A QUESTION TO CLARIFY
WHERE THE REVENUE IS
COMING FROM FROM WHEN WE SAY
IT'S COMING FROM KING
COUNTY.
SO IS IT--IS THE REVENUE THAT
KING COUNTY'S
PROVIDING TO THIS COMING FROM
OTHER CITIES OR PEOPLE
WHO LIVE IN THOSE OTHER CITIES
ALREADY?
>> YES.
THEY ARE COUNTY WIDE FUNDING
STREAMS.
>> OKAY.
>> A PORTION OF WHICH IS
SEATTLE AND A PORTION OF
WHICH IS SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH EXACTLY
IF YOU WENT INTO THE
PARTICULAR LEVY OR THE SOURCE
OF THOSE FUNDS HOW THE
DISTRIBUTION BREAKS DOWN.
>> SO IT'S NOT JUST COMING FROM
KING COUNTY.
IT'S COMING FROM INCORPORATED
CITIES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES,
INCLUDING SEATTLE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> INCLUDING US?
>> YES.
>> GOOD.
PLEASE PROCEED.
.
>> MOVING TO OUR THIRD ROW
THERE'S A SECTION IN
ARTICLE 4 OF THIS AND YOUR
LOCAL AGREEMENT WHERE IT
CALLS FOR A VARIETY OF
PRINCIPALS SUCH AS SEEKING TO
OFFSET THE DISPROPORTION ATE
IMPACTS OF HOMELESSNESS
ON MINORITIES OR UTILIZING DATA
DRIVEN PRACTICES.
INITIALLY THOSE PRINCIPALS WERE
IN THE TRANSMITTED
LEGISLATION OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS THEY WERE PUT
BACK INTO THE PROPOSAL AS IT
WAS DRAFTED.
HOWEVER LANGUAGE AROUND MONDAY
NIGHT WAS ADDED
THAT WOULD SAY THAT WE WOULD
ONLY STRIVE TO MAKE
THOSE PRINCIPALS RATHER THAN
THE AUTHORITY SHALL
MEET THOSE PRINCIPALS.
AS OF THIS MORNING THE STRIVE
TO WAS REREMOVED SO
THE TITLE IS PROBABLY CONFUSING
BUT THOSE PRINCIPALS
DO STAND FULLY IN TACT AND THEY
ARE REQUIRED USING
THE WORDS SHALL IN EACH OF
THOSE SECTIONS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> I'LL MOVE NEXT TO THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE THAT
WAS PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE
STEERING COMMITTEE.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE GROUP
THAT IS PEOPLE WITH
EXPERIENCE OR ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
THERE ARE A VARIETY OF CHANGES
THAT HAVE TAKEN
PLACE FROM WHAT WAS
TRANSMITTED.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OF WHICH
WAS THAT SOUND
CITY'S ASSOCIATION WAS PROVIDED
REPRESENTATION ON
THIS AND THAT ALL OF THE
COUNTY, THE CITY, SOWN
CITY'S ASSOCIATION AND
REPRESENTATIVES FOR PEOPLE
WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE ALL HAVE
AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
IN OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST
FEW WEEKS OR DAYS,
A CHANGE WAS MADE SO THAT ONE
OF THE PEOPLE WITH
LIVED EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE
CURRENTLY LOCATED OUTSIDE
OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE SO THAT
FOR EXAMPLE IF IT'S
ALL CONSUMERS IT WOULD NOT ONLY
BE PEOPLE THAT ARE
CURRENTLY UTILIZING SEATTLE
SERVICES AND ALSO THIS
MORNING A CHANGE WAS MADE TO
REQUIRE THAT OF THE TWO
KING COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS ONE
OF THEM SHALL COME
FROM--SHALL BE A MEMBER WHOSE
DISTRICT AT LEAST IN
PART INCLUDES SEATTLE WHILE THE
OTHER ONE SHALL BE A
MEMBER THAT HAS A DISTRICT
ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF
SEATTLE STEMMING FROM CONCERNS
THAT I'LL DIVE INTO A
LITTLE BIT MORE IN A MOMENT BUT
WERE EXPRESSED IN
THIS COUNCIL AND THESE
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF SEATTLE FUNDING BEING
PUT INTO THE JUST
NOTING.
IN ADDITION, ANOTHER AMENDMENT
THAT WAS MADE THIS
MORNING WAS TO REQUIRE THAT
THAT BOTH THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE AND THE IMPLEMENTING
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD
HAVE COMPOSITIONS THAT ARE
REFLECTIVE OF THE RACIAL
AND ETHNIC POPULATIONS IN KING
COUNTY.
THAT WAS PHRASED AS STRIVE TO
WHEN IN THE CASE OF
THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PEOPLE OF
COLOR ARE NOT CLEARLY
PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED ON
THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL AT THIS
TIME AND SO THERE
MAY HAVE BEEN CHALLENGES IN
MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT
IF IT WAS PHRASED AS SHALL.
HOWEVER ON THE IMPLEMENTING
BOARD STATED AS A GOAL
AND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS IS
TO MAKE SURE THAT
POPULATIONS THAT ARE BEING
IMPACTED BY HOMELESSNESS
SUCH AS NATIVE AMERICANS OR
SUCH AS ALL BASICALLY
ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR WOULD HAVE
ADEQUATE
REPRESENTATION ON THESE BOARDS
AND THAT THE VOICES
WOULD BE HEARD.
.
>> CAN I GET SOME CLARIFICATION
ON THAT, JEFF?
SO THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE OF
REPRESENTATION ON THAT
COMMITTEE ARE YOU SAYING THERE
NEEDS TO BE AN OVER
LAY AS TO THE RACIAL
COMPOSITION OF THAT GOVERNING
COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE OR JUST
FOR THOSE REPRESENTING
LIVED EXPERIENCES.
>> THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE AS A
WHOLE.
>> SO YOU NEED TO ELECT MORE
PEOPLE OF COLOR IS WHAT
I JUST HEARD YOU SAY.
>> ESSENTIALLY.
>> OKAY.
SO HOW DO YOU COMPLY WITH THAT
GIVEN--I MEAN, I'M
VERY CONFUSED AS TO HOW THIS IN
PRACTICE PLAYS OUT.
>> I SEE.
THAT IS WHY THE LANGUAGE IS
SPECIFIC TO SAY SHALL
STRIVE TO SO TO THE DEGREE
PERMISSIBLE BUT AS YOU
NOTED THAT WOULD NOT BE
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED AT THIS
TIME GIVEN WHO IS
CURRENTLY HOLDING OFFICE.
>> WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
BECAUSE WE'RE MAJORITY WOMEN
MAJORITY PEOPLE OF
COLOR SO WE'RE DOING FINE.
[LAUGHTER].
JEFF IS LIKE I DON'T WANT TO
SAY ANYTHING.
I'M SO UNCOMFORTABLE.
LOOK AT YOU.
>> ARE YOU CLEAR WITH THE IDEA
THAT KING COUNTY THE
KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND TWO
PEOPLE FROM KING
COUNTY COUNCIL WILL BE THE
FIRST THREE?
>> THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS SORT OF WAS
AROUND THE CHANGES
THAT OCCURRED I THINK JUST THIS
MORNING AROUND
HAVING A DESIRED AND STATED
INTENT TO ENSURE THAT
THE REPRESENTATION ON THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE WAS
MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE
POPULATION OF KING COUNTY BUT
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE IT IS
MADE UP OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
THREE PEOPLE.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOAL
ON PAPER BUT PERHAPS
NOT IN REALITY UNTIL WE SEE
CHANGES TO WHO IS
REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE
COUNTY AND THE CITY.
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION BOARD,
THE SAME PHILOSOPHY
WAS INCLUDED BY THE REGIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE THIS
MORNING BUT INSTEAD OF SAYING
THAT IT NEEDS TO
REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF KING
COUNTY, IT SAYS THAT
IT NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTATIVE
OF COMMUNITIES THAT
DISPROPORTION ATELY EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS.
DID I HEAR THAT DISTINCTION
CORRECTLY?
>> YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT DOES
NOT USE STRIVE.
IT SAYS IT MUST AND EXACTLY
WHICH.
>> IT'S IDENTICAL.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S IDENTICAL.
>> IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE,
YEAH.
>> SO IT IS NOT PEOPLE--IT IS
NOT POPULATIONS
DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED.
RATHER IT WOULD BE
REFLECTIVE OF THE POPULATION OF
KING COUNTY.
>> OKAY.
SO BREAK THAT DOWN FOR ME IN
TERMS OF WHAT THAT
WOULD MEAN IN PRACTICE.
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT KING COUNTY ISN'T
PARTICULARLY DIVERSE.
>> SO I THINK THERE'S ALSO
LANGUAGE IN THAT SAME
SECTION THAT CALLS ON THAT
BOARD TO STRIVE TO MAKE
SURE THAT POPULATIONS THAT ARE
DISPROPORTION ATELY
REPRESENTED WHICH WE KNOW ARE
PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE
REFLECTED ON THAT SO YOUR
POPULATION OF PEOPLE THAT
ARE HOMELESS WHICH IS PEOPLE OF
COLOR WOULD BE
REFLECTED ON THIS IMPLEMENTING
BOARD AND THIS
ESSENTIALLY ADDS TO THAT SAYING
ALSO THE RACIAL AND
ETHNIC MAKE UP OF THE COUNTY SO
OVERALL THE EFFECT
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE OF
COLOR ARE REPRESENTED
ON THE IMPLEMENTING BOARD.
.
>> OKAY.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME THE
LANGUAGE OFF LINE PLEASE?
>> SURE.
.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I NEED STO UNDERSTAND THE
HIGHLIGHTING ON THIS
DOCUMENT MEANS WHAT?
>> THE HIGHLIGHTING IS WHAT WAS
ADDED AT THE
REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
MEETING THIS MORNING.
>> OKAY.
SO WE'VE GOT BACK IN THE
AGREEMENT ONE COUNCIL
MEMBER HAVING A DISTRICT THAT
INCLUDES SEATTLE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AS OF
THE SECOND SO WE'VE GOT
THAT BACK IN.
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THAT'S GOOD NEWS.
.
>> YES IT IS.
.
>> THAT'S GOOD NEWS AND I'M
JUST GOING TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS
AMENDMENT IS NOW
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE THAT BACK
IN.
>> DO YOU WANT TO GET YOUR
MICROPHONE.
>> YEAH, SORRY.
THANK YOU.
I DID HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I
WAS CONSIDERING
BRINGING FORWARD NEXT WEEK.
I THINK AS A PRINCIPAL IT MIGHT
BE STILL
WORTHWHILE.
IT DOESN'T GET SPECIFIC TO THE
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
REPRESENTATION BUT IT SPEAKS TO
A PRINCIPAL THAT I
THINK EVERYBODY MIGHT AGREE TO
BECAUSE IT IS NOT
SPECIFIC TO ANY PARTICULAR
JURISDICTION BUT IT
SPEAKS TO THE PRINCIPAL THAT IT
IS THE INTENT TO
HAVE A GOVERNING COMMITTEE WITH
REPRESENTATION
RELATIVELY PROPORTIONALLY BASED
ON CONTRIBUTIONS
MADE BY GIVEN MUNICIPALITIES TO
THE REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY.
SO I HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED
THIS BECAUSE I WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DECEMBER 2
VERSION THAT DID NOT
HAVE THE INCLUSION OF ONE OF
THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL
MEMBERS BEING FROM SEATTLE.
I AM LESS CONCERNED.
I HAVE THAT BACK IN THERE BUT
STILL GOING TO
RESERVE MY INTEREST IN
POTENTIALLY BRINGING THIS
FORWARD NEXT WEEK.
>> SO TELL ME ABOUT HOW THIS
WOULD WORK, COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD THE WAY IT LOOKS
TO ME IT IS THE
INTENT TO HAVE THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE WITH
REPRESENTATION RELATIVELY
PROPORTIONALLY BASED ON
THE CONTRIBUTIONS GIVEN BY
MUNICIPALITY?
WOULD THAT BE LIKE AN 8 TO 4, 8
CITY OF SEATTLE
REPRESENTATIVES AND 4 KING
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES?
>> NO.
IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A LITTLE
BIT MORE THAN HALF
TO A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF,
RIGHT?
I MEAN, BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT
NOW BUT OF COURSE AS
WE KNOW, I'M THINKING SORT OF
KING COUNTY AS
INCLUSIVE OF THE SOUND CITY
INTERESTS.
AS OPPOSED TO A SEPARATE GROUP.
SO THIS ONE COULD THINK OF THE
SOUND CITY
REPRESENTATION AS A SEPARATE
GROUP AS IT RELATES TO
THIS PROPORTIONALITY THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT BUT
GIVEN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY
SKIN IN THE GAME
RIGHT NOW I'M KIND OF JUST
THINKING OF THE
PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN SEATTLE
AND KING COUNTY IF
THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> WELL, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
TELL YOU THAT IF SOUND
CITIES IS NOT PART OF THIS
GOVERNING BOARD.
>> NO, THIS ISN'T--THE INTENT
IS NOT TO NOT HAVE
THEM ON THE GOVERNING BOARD BUT
I MEAN YOU RAISE A
GOOD POINT.
.
>> RIGHT.
SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT.
>> THAT IS NOT THE INTENT BUT
YOU RAISE GOOD POINTS
SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE.
>> MADAME CHAIR IF I MAY?
>> THANK YOU.
>> IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO
IMPLEMENT SUCH A
PROVISION CERTAINLY
REPRESENTATIVES COMING FROM THE
SOUND CITY'S ASSOCIATION WOULD
STILL BE FROM THE
SOUND CITY'S ASSOCIATION WHICH
ARE NOT PUTTING ANY
FUNDS IN.
THE ONLY AVENUE BY WHICH YOU
COULD REALLY EFFECT
THAT INTENT WOULD BE WITH THE
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
MEMBERS BUT BECAUSE OF THE
LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED
THIS MORNING SAYING ONE MUST
REPRESENT A DISTRICT
THAT AT LEAST IN PART COVERS
SEATTLE BUT PARALLEL
LANGUAGE WAS ALSO ADDED SAYING
THAT THE OTHER KING
COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER MUST BE
FROM OUTSIDE OF
SEATTLE SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO
SEE WHERE LEEWAY WOULD
BE TO CHANGE WHO GETS APPOINTED
FOR THAT REFLECTION.
>> RIGHT.
THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE.
.
>> PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
FOR SOME REASON MY--THE SCREEN
IS GOING TO LOCK UP
ON ME BUT I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU
HAVE THIS IN HARD
COPY AS WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> OKAY GRET.
MOVING TO THE ROLES OF THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE
THERE WERE A VARIETY OF CHANGES
DISCUSSED IN YOUR
MEMO NOT LARGELY AFFECTED THIS
MORNING.
THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE WOULD
BE ABLE TO APPROVE
AND AMEND MAJOR PLANS.
THIS WAS A CHANGE FROM THE
INITIAL TRANSMISSION
WHICH WOULD JUST HAVE PROVIDED
THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE THE ABILITY TO DO AN
UP OR DOWN VOTE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE THRESHOLD
BY WHICH A CHANGE SHOULD BE
POSSIBLE AND I'LL GO
INTO THAT MORE WHEN I GET SOME
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
HERE BUT THAT WAS A PROPOSAL
PUT FORWARD BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL AND JUAREZ
THIS MORNING.
IT FAILED ON A 4-8 VOTE.
IN ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO
AMEND MAJOR PLANS AND
THE BUDGETS ALSO HAVING
AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AGAIN
WITH THE SAME
THRESHOLD AND THIS IS THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE REQUIRING
A VOTE OF NINE MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE.
THAT'S NOT BASED--THAT DOES NOT
CHANGE BASED ON
DECORUM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT IS NINE AT LEAST MUST VOTE
TO REMOVE BCEO.
>> TELL ME I KNOW THERE'S BEEN
LOTS OF DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS ON THIS BUT
CURRENTLY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
TWO THIRDS AND SUPER MAJORITIES
AND ALL OF THAT AND
IT STRIKES ME THAT FOR THE SAKE
OF CONSISTENCY AND
CLARITY IF NINE PEOPLE HAD TO
VOTE FOR EITHER A
CHANGE IN CEO AND AMENDMENT
THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT A
MUCH CLEARER REQUIREMENT
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO IS TO GET THE
IMPLEMENTING COMMITTEE, THE
BOARD THERE TO PROVIDE THEIR
INPUT, THEIR EXPERTISE
FOR THEM TO BE PROVIDING TO THE
GOVERNING BOARD
THEIR BEST RECOMMENDATIONS AND
FRANKLY THE GOVERNING
BOARD AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS
ONLY GOING TO BE MEETING
QUARTERLY.
AND THE HOPE IS THAT AND THE
BIG CHANGE THE THING
THAT IS MAKING THIS DIFFERENT
IS THAT WE'RE HAVING
AN IMPLEMENTING BOARD WITH THE
EXPERIENCE THAT WE
WANT TO TELL AS ACROSS THE
COUNTY HOW THINGS ARE
GOING TO BE MADE BETTER AND WE
DON'T FRANKLY WANT TO
MAKE IT EASY ON THE GOVERNING
BOARD TO MOCK WHAT
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SO CAN
YOU TELL ME WHERE WE
ARE NOW FROM AFTER RPC
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL OF
THE BACK AND FORTHS?
>> YES.
IF I COULD CLARIFY WHERE WE'RE
AT NOW BUT STEP
BACK A LITTLE BIT.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE
CHANGE YOU JUST
DISCUSSED WERE A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF
PROPORTIONS BEING SET AT A
CERTAIN NUMBER WAS
ACTUALLY THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS
AGREED UPON JUST
BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
MERE HOURS BEFORE THAT.
THE CHANGES THAT OCCURRED I'VE
DETERMINED IT AS ON
DECEMBER 2 CHANGE THAT.
THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE AND
WHAT IS KRRD FORWARD
TO WHAT WAS PASSED BY THE RPC
THIS MORNING IS THAT
CORE YUM IS NINE OUT OF THE
TWELVE POTENTIAL MEMBERS
AND THAT FOR AN ACTION TO
EITHER AMEND OR MAJOR PLAN
OR AMEND THE BUDGET YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A TWO THIRDS
MAJORITY THAT COULD BE ARRANGED
THEN IF YOU HAVE ALL
12 MEMBERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE AT
THAT PARTICULAR
MEETING YOU REQUIRE EIGHT
INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
IF IT WAS ONLY NINE PEOPLE IN
ATTENDANCE AT THAT
MEETING THEN YOU HAVE A PLAN
AMENDED WITH ONLY SIX
VOTES.
>> I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM TO
HAVE JUST EIGHT--OR
TO HAVE SIX VOTES OUT OF TWELVE
BEING ABLE TO SHOW
UP AND THIS IS I KNOW HOW
DIFFICULT AND HOW
STRETCHED THIN ELECTED
OFFICIALS ARE.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT EASY
AND IF SOMEBODY IS
GOING TO COMMIT TO BEING ON THE
BOARD AND THE
REQUIREMENT OR THE REQUEST IS
THAT THEY BE THERE
FOUR TIMES A YEAR I REALLY WANT
THEM TO BE THERE AND
TO HAVE MAJOR ACTIONS TAKEN
POTENTIALLY BY JUST SIX
PEOPLE THAT REALLY UNDOES THE
WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN
TRYING TO DO AND TO BRING
FORWARD ONCE AGAIN IS TO
HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE BOARD SOMETHING THAT
WE LIVE WITH UNLESS
THERE IS A MAJOR REASON NOT TO
AND I DON'T WANT TO
MAKE IT EASY THAT SIX PEOPLE
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
HOW MANY VOTES WHEN -- THE WAY
I'VE SEEN IT AND DESCRIBED IT
IS WE'RE BASICALLY CREATING TWO
DIFFERENT STANDARDS WITHIN THIS
AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF VOTING
REQUIREMENTS.
SO TO HIRE AN OFFICER, IT'S THE
HIGHEST STANDARD BEING NINE OUT
OF 12 GOVERNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS NEED TO SIGNAL SUPPORT
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OR TO FIRE THEM.
BUT DECISIONS THAT ARE RELATED
TO THE BUDGET, AMENDMENTS TO
THE BUDGET, OR -- OR WHAT?
>> OR REMOVING A C.E.O.
>> NO, NO, NO!
IT'S THE -- IT'S THE CONFIRMING
THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, THE
FIVE-YEAR PLAN, OR AMENDING
BUDGETARY DECISIONS IMPLEMENTED
BY THAT BOARD, THOSE DECISIONS
ARE SUBJECT TO A LOWER STANDARD
IN THE SENSE THAT IT ONLY
REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO
SHOW UP FOR THE MEETING TO TAKE
THOSE AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS IT
RELATES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
COMING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD.
SO I AM NOT SEEING A RATIONALE
BASIS BY WHICH TO SUBJECT A
FIRING/HIRING DECISION OF A
C.E.O.
TO A HIGHER REQUIREMENT AND
STRICTER SCRUTINY BUT NOT HAVE
THAT SAME LEVEL OF STRICT
SCRUTINY APPLYING TO REALLY
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS AROUND
POLICY CHOICES FOR OUR FIVE-
YEAR PLAN AND STRATEGY ON HOW
TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE ISSUES
OF HOMELESSNESS AND THE
FINANCING DECISIONS.
IT MAKES ALMOST NO SENSE TO ME
TO CREATE TWO DIFFERENT
STANDARDS OF VOTING FOR THOSE.
AND IF ANYTHING, IT SHOULD BE
IN THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS --
WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE US
THAT CAME OUT OF THE RPC THIS
MORNING.
SO I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
AROUND WHAT I SEE AS THOSE
DOUBLE STANDARDS AND DOUBLE
STANDARDS IN A WAY THAT REALLY
SORT OF SLICES AGAINST WHAT I
THINK THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE AND
INTENT SHOULD BE HERE, WHICH IS
TO HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER,
STRICTER STANDARD AROUND SOME
OF THESE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
DECISIONS.
>> JEFF, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT
THE POTENTIAL OF BRINGING
FORWARD AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
JUST MAKE THIS STREAMLINED AND
IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ IS
RECOMMENDING ON ANY OF THESE
MAJOR VOTES -- AND I'M GOING
SAY NINE MEMBERS -- WOULD HAVE
TO BE IN AGREEMENT TO MAKE A
CHANGE EITHER FOR THE C.E.O.,
FOR THE BUDGET, OR A CHANGE IN
THE PLAN.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN
BRING FORWARD AND DISCUSS?
>> YES.
I HAVE PUT IT ON SCREEN.
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PREPARED
AND ANTICIPATING FOR THAT
MADAME CHAIR.
WHAT YOU SEE ON SCREEN, THE
GREEN CHANGES -- I'M SORRY,
THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO READ
ON THE OVERHEAD.
WOULD EFFECTUATE WHAT YOU AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ HAVE
SPOKEN TO.
A RETURN TO THAT NIGHT BEFORE
THANKSGIVING PROPOSAL WHERE THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE CAN GIVE AN
UP OR DOWN VOTE WITH A SIMPLE
MAJORITY.
TO DO -- THAT'S AN UP OR DOWN
VOTE OF A MAJOR POLICY OR PLAN
THAT AN IMPLEMENTING BOARD HAS
PROVIDED THEM OR A BUDGET
PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED
TO THEM.
THEY CAN ALSO CONFIRM THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER WHICH, AGAIN,
WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE IMPLEMENTING BOARD, WITH
JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
HOWEVER -- AND WE'LL SEE IF I
CAN SCROLL DOWN HERE.
IF YOU CAN SEE FURTHER DOWN,
THIS WOULD RETURN TO -- THE
LANGUAGE IS HARD TO READ AND
TRACK CHANGES HERE.
BUT THE EFFECT OF IT IS TO SEE
THAT ON AMENDING ANY GOAL
POLICY PLAN -- ON AMENDING THE
ANNUAL BUDGET OR REMOVING THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER WOULD
ALL REQUIRE AN ABSOLUTE VOTE OF
NINE MEMBERS OR MORE.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OF
QUORUM OR NONQUORUM, IT'S NINE
MEMBERS OR MORE TO REMOVE THE
C.E.O.
>> IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE
BUDGET, THAT'S AN UP OR DOWN
VOTE AND THAT'S A MAJORITY
VOTE?
>> CORRECT.
>> THEY CAN'T BE GETTING INTO
THE INTRICACIES OR GETTING AN
AMENDMENT UNLESS THEY HAVE NINE
AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FROM THE
GOVERNING BOARD.
>> CORRECT.
>> I WOULD SUPPORT THIS AND I
HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE AN
AMENDMENT COMING FORWARD IN THE
NEXT DAY OR SO THAT WE CAN
SHARE WITH OUR KING COUNTY
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES AND MEMBERS
OF THE SUBURBAN CITIES TO SEE
IF WE CAN BRING THIS BACK AGAIN
NEXT WEEK TO THEM.
>> OKAY.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
I'M NOT SEEING FURTHER COMMENTS
ON THAT -- WHAT IS WRONG WITH
YOUR SCREEN BY THE WAY?
IT KEEPS FUZZING OUT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS MY GLASSES.
>> I'M EXPERIENCING THE SAME
ISSUES.
SO WE'LL KEEP MOVING ALONG.
THOSE WERE GENERALLY THE
CHANGES -- THE PRIMARY AND MOST
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE
ROLES OF THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE.
NEXT LET'S TURN TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON -- YOU CAN'T
SEE ON SCREEN NOW.
INITIALLY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
A TOTAL OF 11 MEMBERS.
AND WHAT WAS AGREED TO EVEN
PRIOR TO THIS MORNING WAS TO
ADD TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO
THAT.
THAT WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE
SOUND CITY'S ASSOCIATION.
AND ALSO A BROADER CHANGE FROM
WHAT WAS TRANSMITTED BACK IN
SEPTEMBER TO WHERE WHAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED EVEN AS
LATE AS JUST BEFORE
THANKSGIVING WOULD BE THAT THE
GOVERNING BOARD WOULD CONFIRM
ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
REGARDLESS OF IF IT WAS THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL OR THE
KING COUNTY COUNCIL OR THE
MAYOR OR FCA, WHOEVER PUT THAT
FORWARD.
THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE
CONFIRMED BY THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE.
THIS MORNING, ONE OF THE --
AGAIN, THE -- SORRY.
WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR PAPER HAS
SOMETHING HIGHLIGHTED THAT
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
HIGHLIGHTED.
IT SAYS THAT ONE OF -- I'M ON
THE WRONG PAGE.
I'M SORRY.
JUST A MOMENT.
>> THAT'S NOT IMPLEMENTATION.
>> I'M SORRY.
THERE'S AN ERROR ON -- IN THIS
COLUMN AND ON THIS ROW.
THERE'S NOT A RESTRICTION ABOUT
WHERE THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL
APPOINTEES TO THE AMENDING
BOARD SHOULD COME FROM.
IN A RUSH TO GET THIS PREPARED
IN THE LAST HOUR, A MISTAKE WAS
MADE.
THERE WOULD BE TWO APPOINTED BY
THE EXECUTIVE.
TWO BY THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
THE MAYOR.
AND TWO FROM THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WITH PEOPLE WITH
EXPERIENCE.
GOING BACK TO THE CHANGE THAT
WAS DOCUMENTED THIS MORNING
RELATED TO ENSURING THE MAKEUP
OF THIS BOARD IS REPRESENTED OF
THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC MAKEUP OF
THE COUNTY, THAT'S NOTEDS A
HIGHLIGHT.
WE'VE GONE INTO THAT A LITTLE
BIT.
THAT WAS THE PRIMARY CHANGE
ADDED THIS MORNING.
WERE THERE QUESTIONS ON THAT?
>> YES.
I KNOW WE'VE GONE AROUND ON
THIS QUESTION AS WELL.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE EXPECTING
OF THESE DIFFERENT GROUPS TO
APPOINT PEOPLE IN A VACUUM.
WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN
HAVING PEOPLE WITH -- IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD THAT HAVE
THE LIST OF LITANY OF
EXPERIENCES WHETHER THEY'RE
PROVIDERS NOW, WHETHER THEY'VE
LIVED EXPERIENCE, WHETHER
THEY'RE OUT OF A FACT BASED
INSTITUTION, WHATEVER IT MAY
BE.
THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF
EXPERIENCES THAT WE WANT TO
HAVE INCLUDED IN THE MEMBERS OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION BOARD.
SO SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN A
LITTLE BIT LEERY OF IS HOW DO
WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
COORDINATING THIS WELL ENOUGH.
AND I'VE BEEN ASSURED IT CAN BE
DONE AND I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN SPOKE TO THIS.
WHEN WE ARE ADOPTING BOARD
MEMBERS AND PEOPLE COME
TOGETHER AND THEY IDENTIFY WHO
HAS THESE EXPERIENCES AND THEY
BELIEVE WE'LL BE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT.
BUT HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WHEN
WE HAVE PEOPLE WALKING THE
SAUSAGE BEING MADE, YES, WE'RE
GETTING THE VERY BEST PEOPLE OF
THESE 13 MEMBERS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD THAT COVER
THE GAMUT OF EXPERIENCES AND
ABILITY THAT IS WE'RE LOOKING
FOR?
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY, TO YOUR
POINT, THE THIRD HIGHLIGHTED
SENTENCED THIS BOX.
THIS MORNING, WHAT WAS
ENVISIONED -- THEY ADDED A
REQUIREMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE
A NOMINATED COMMITTEE THAT
WOULD CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS, THAT NEEDED
SKILLS AND EXPERTISE, MAKING
SURE OVERALL THIS HAS THE
ETHNIC AND RACIAL COMPOSITION
THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED.
ALL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS
WOULD BE TAKEN BY A NOMINATING
COMMITTEE THAT WOULD GUIDE
WHERE THE VARIOUS PARTY --
WHOEVER IT IS ACTUALLY MAKING
THE APPOINTMENT, WHO THEY WOULD
PUT FORWARD AS APPOINTMENT.
>> THAT NOMINATING COMMITTEE
HELPS A LOT.
UP UNTIL THEN, WELL, OKAY, ONE
PERSON FROM EACH GROUP WILL
COME TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT
THIS.
BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A VERY
DEDICATED BOARD HELPING US
SELECT THAT SO THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE MAKES SENSE.
>> THE PRIOR LANGUAGE WAS CLEAR
THAT COLLABORATION AND
COORDINATION WAS ANTICIPATED
BUT THIS FORMALIZES THE NEED TO
HAVE A NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> WHO IS THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE?
>> THAT WAS NOT OUTLINED
SPECIFICALLY THOUGH THERE ARE
SOME BROAD GUIDELINES.
THERE WASN'T INDIVIDUALS
IDENTIFIED, CERTAIN PARTIES OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> BECAUSE IT'S THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD, RIGHT?
>> SELECTING IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD.
>> SO WHO'S THE NOMINATING --
>> IT'LL BE THE MEMBERS OF THE
KING COUNTY COUNCIL, THE CITY
COUNCIL, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE,
THE COUNTY COUNCIL -- THOSE ARE
ALL THE APPOINTING ENTITIES --
>> SO IT'S THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE.
>> THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE
WOULD BE THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WHO REPRESENT LIVED EXPERIENCE.
>> OR DESIGNEES, RIGHT?
>> IT COULD BE.
IT COULD BE.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT WOULD BE
-- HAS TO BE THOSE GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBERS PART OF THAT
NOMINATING COMMITTEE BUT IT
COULD BE.
>> EXACTLY WHAT THE
COUNCILMEMBER SAID,
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
APPOINTED ENTITIES.
SO SINCE YOU HAVE THE COUNTY
EXECUTIVE, THE MAYOR, BOTH
COUNCILS, SCA AND PEOPLE WITH
LIVED EXPERIENCE, IT WOULD
NOTLY THOSE PEOPLE WITH THE
COMMITTEE BUT AT LEAST
REPRESENTING EACH OF THOSE
ENTITIES.
>> OKAY.
SO IS THAT IT?
THAT TAKES NOTE OF THE DETAILS
THAT WAS INCLUDED BY THE RPC
THIS MORNING?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
SO WHO'S GOING TO FILL THE
DETAILS?
>> THAT IS NOT ARTICULATED
HERE.
>> OKAY.
AND WE DON'T HAVE AN INDICATION
OF WHO IS GONNA OWN THIS BODY
OF WORK?
>> AS WE'VE HAD EARLIER
CONVERSATIONS BEFORE A
NOMINATING COMMITTEE WAS
FORMALIZED, THE CONCEPT WAS
DISCUSSED, THIS WAS AN AREA OF
BEING AN IOA WAS DISCUSSED IN
ORDER TO ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE,
THIS CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE ITS
OWN INTERNAL PROCESS.
WHATEVER WAS DEEMED BY THIS
COUNCIL TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR
IDENTIFYING THOSE
REPRESENTATIVES.
>> OKAY.
I'M AT A LITTLE BIT OF AN LOSS
IN UNDERSTANDING OR
COMPREHENDING HOW THISOM NO
NATEING COMMITTEE IS COMING
TOGETHER, WHEN IT'S GOING TO
COME TOGETHER, AND HOW IT'S
GOING TO DO THE WORK NECESSARY
TO EFFECTIVELY IDENTIFY THE
INDIIDUALS WHO WILL -- WHO
WILL BE NOMINATED TO BE ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO PUT A
LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT INTO
SOME OF THOSE DETAILS.
AND AT A MINIMUM, CREATE
EXPECTATIONS ON OUR END WHAT
THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.
>> WE CAN GET MORE DETAILS ON
THE SPONSOR OF THIS AMENDMENT.
AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
LATE BREAKING ITEMS THAT SHOWED
UP THIS MORNING.
>> UH-HUH.
WHO WAS THE SPONSOR OF THAT
ONE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STOKES BUT I'M
NOT FAMILIAR WHERE.
>> BECAUSE AS IT IS WRITTEN
NOW, IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT
WE'RE GIVING -- IF WE'RE
CREATING A NOMINATING COMMITTEE
THAT INCLUDES FOLKS FROM THE
OTHER JURISDICTIONS, WE'RE
GIVING THEM, SAY, WHOEVER OUR
COUNCIL DECIDES THAT WE WANT TO
PUT FORWARD WHEREAS NORMALLY,
YOU KNOW, OUR DECISIONS AROUND
WHO GETS TO BE ON THE REGIONAL
COMMITTEES THAT NEED CITY
COUNCIL REPRESENTATION IS A
DECISION THAT OUR COUNCIL MAKES
INTERNALLY AS OPPOSED TO
EXTERNALLY WITH OTHER
REPRESENTATION FROM OTHER
BODIES.
THING -- OR DID YOU WANT?
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAYBE
PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE
CONTEXT.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> BUT COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW,
YOU CAN DO THIS AS WELL BECAUSE
I THINK YOU HEARD THE SAME
CONCERNS IN THE CONVERSATIONS.
SO WHEN WE WERE TALKING AMONG
KING COUNTY COUNCILMEMBERS,
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW, THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, MAYOR'S
OFFICE, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS
ISSUE OF APPOINTMENT, THE SAME
LEVEL OF SORT OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY OF IT
CAME UP.
THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT I
THINK MAY STILL BE IN HERE BUT
WAS TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT
ESSENTIALLY A GUARANTEE OR A
COMMITMENT THAT ALL PARTIES
WOULD COLLABORATE.
THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT, I BELIEVE,
TO PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH
INTO THAT.
AND I THINK THAT THE REASON
BEHIND THIS IS BECAUSE THE
KINDS OF EXPERIENCE AND THE
SORTS OF REPRESENTATION THAT
ARE EXPECTED TO EXIST ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD ARE VAST.
AND THERE -- THEY WANTED
COLLECTIVELY -- I SUPPOSE WE
ALL WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT
WASN'T JUST ONE OR TWO MEMBERS
-- THAT ONE OF THOSE SEATS
DIDN'T GET NOMINATED BY THREE
OR FOUR DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS
BUT THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT GRID, IF YOU
WILL, OF EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS
TO BE -- ALL THE DIFFERENT
CHARACTERISTICS THAT NEED TO BE
MET.
AND THAT COLLECTIVELY FOLKS
WERE WORKING TOGETHER.
AND I AGREE WITH JEFF'S
REPRESENTATION THAT PART OF THE
REASON THAT IT IS REMAINING
VAGUE ABOUT HOW THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE GETS PUT TOGETHER IS
BECAUSE THAT WAS LEFT TO THE
DISCRETION OF EACH OF THE
COUNCIL BODIES AND EACH OF THE
JURISDICTIONS.
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE MADE CLEAR
THAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE COUNCIL'S
ENGAGED COUNCILS AS A WHOLE, AS
A BODY, TO BE ENGAGED IN THIS
PIECE OF THE WORK IN WHATEVER
MANNER THE COUNCIL CHOSE TO.
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT IS
SUCH A CRITICAL PIECE OF THE
WORK THAT IS HAPPENING.
>> SO I JUST WANT TO HAVE A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS VERSUS WHAT -- AT
LEAST THE DRAFT OF THE IOA
CONTAINS.
SO THE AMENDMENT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY CHANGE THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITIES.
>> NO.
>> IT SIMPLY SAYS THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITIES HAVE TO
COORDINATE AND CONFER WITH EACH
OTHER.
>> CORRECT.
>> BUT THEY HAVE TEED THAT VIA
A NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
THEY HAVE TO DO THAT A VIA
NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
THAT'S WHAT IT LITERALLY SAYS,
THAT THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE
IS DESIGNED TO APPARENTLY
ORGANIZE A MEETING BETWEEN THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITIES SO THEY
CAN CONFER UPON APPOINTMENTS
WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION BOARD.
>> CORRECTLY.
AND THAT THE APPOINTED
AMENDMENT WILL CONFER.
SO IT IS -- THAT IS PLACING A
STRUCTURE AROUND THAT
CONFERRING AND CONVENING
CONCEPT.
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS THE
BODY, IF YOU WILL, THAT WOULD
COME TOGETHER.
AND I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, IT COULD BE
SIMPLY THE TWO MEMBERS FROM
COUNCIL -- EACH OF THE COUNCILS
THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE OR THE
COUNCILS COULD MAKE A DECISION
THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND
THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS
PROCESS AND APPOINT TWO OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THIS
NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
IT IS -- IT WILL TRULY BE UP TO
EACH COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHO
WILL GO ON TO THAT NOMINATING
COMMITTEE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, I MADE AN
ERROR EARLIER.
I READ THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE APPOINTED ENTITIES.
THE LANGUAGE IS THE APPOINTED
ENTITIES DESCRIBED IN SECTION
2CV85 SHOULD CONFER A
NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO
COORDINATE AND CONFER ON
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD MEMBERS IN
ORDER TO ENSURE EACH SKILL AND
EXPERTISE IS SPECIFIED AND GOES
ON.
IT'S ON THE REPRESENTATION
BOARD.
SO IT DOES NOT DEFINE IT THAT
IT NEEDS TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE
OF EACH.
IT SAYS EACH OF THESE FOUR
ENTITIES -- FIVE ENTITIES, WILL
SOMEHOW CONVENE.
>> AND I KNOW THAT -- I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU WERE
SAYING.
A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO ARE
EITHER HAVING LIVED EXPERIENCE
OR PROVIDERS THEMSELVES.
THEY SAID THEY WERE WORRIED
ABOUT HOW DO WE GET 13 MEMBERS
THAT ACTUALLY HAVE THESE
EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE THAT
WE WERE INTERESTED IN?
AND THEY WERE AFRAID THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE WOULD GO TWO PEOPLE
HERE AND TWO PEOPLE HERE AND
TWO PEOPLE AND WE WOULDN'T
COVER THE GAMUT OF EXPERIENCE
AND EXPERTISE THAT WE WERE
LOOKING FOR.
AND SO HAVING A NOMINATING
COMMITTEE DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS
DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HELP
US COORDINATE IT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR COUNCIL
IS NOT RESTRICTED.
THAT OUR COUNCIL COULD NOMINATE
25 PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS LONG AS
ULTIMATELY WE GET THAT GROUP OF
PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE EXPERTISE
WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> SO JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT
THIS NOMINATING COMMITTEE --
WHICH I AM NOW GOING TO
AFFECTIONATELY REFER TO AS A
MEETING ABOUT THE MEETING
COMMITTEE -- THEY DON'T, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS NOMINATING
COMMITTEE ARE SATISFIED BY THE
SIMPLE ACT OF COMING TOGETHER
AND COURT CONFERRING.
BUT THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE
DOESN'T HAVE ANY VOTING POWER
OR AUTHORITY TO VETO THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITIES
NOMINATION.
>> CORRECT.
THE APPOINTMENTS THEMSELVES
STILL COME FROM THIS COUNCIL,
TWO, TWO FROM THE MAYOR, AND SO
FORTH.
>> GOOD.
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T
REMISS ON THE BOARD -- AND THIS
IS IN YOUR MEMO, THAT HAVING
PEOPLE -- OR HAD BEEN
PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED -- PEOPLE
THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH YOUTH
HOMELESSNESS IN PARTICULAR AND
ALSO CONNECTIONS TO THE CHILD
WELFARE SYSTEM WERE BOTH ADDED
AS SKILLS AND EXPERTISE AND
CONNECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE
EXPECTED OF THIS IMPLEMENTING
BOARD.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING NOT
DONE THIS MORNING BUT SOMETHING
DONE IN THE COURSE OF CREATING
THIS DRAFT.
IF I MAY NEXT, LET'S MOVE TO
THE NEXT ISSUE OF SUB REGIONAL
PLANNING.
THIS WAS A MAJOR ADDITION ADDED
WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED BY THE
MAYOR AND EXECUTIVE IN
SEPTEMBER TO NOW WHAT IS IN THE
CURRENT DRAFT WHERE THE
STATEMENT THAT SUB REGIONAL
PLANNING NEEDED TO OCCUR TOOK
PLACE AND ALSO THAT AS OF THIS
MORNING, A CHANGE THAT WAS
MADE, IS THAT THE RESULTING SUB
REGIONAL PLANS WILL ACTUALLY
FORM THE BASIS OF THE FIVE-YEAR
PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY ITSELF.
THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT WAS MADE
THIS MORNING.
>> CHAIR BAGSHAW?
>> YES, PLEASE.
>> BEFORE WE GET TOO MUCH INTO
THIS STUFF OUTSIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE OF THE TWO BODIES, I
WANT TO JUST GO BACK TO --OUT
IT TO I DON'T WANT IT TO BE
LOST, THE FACT THAT WHAT WE
WERE CALLING A GOVERNING BODY
BEFORE IS NOW AN IMPLEMENTING
BODY.
AND THE THING THAT WAS A
STEERING COMMITTEE IS NOW A
GOVERNING COMMITTEE.
SO I FEEL CONCERNED THAT WE
HAVE FLIPPED THE SCRIPT FOR
WHAT IT IS -- MUCH LIKE I WAS
SAYING EARLIER ABOUT MY CONCERN
THAT ONE OF MY GOALS FOR THIS
REGIONAL ENTITY WAS TO COME
TOGETHER WITH OUR PARTNERS
THROUGHOUT THE REGION WHO ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT HOMELESSNESS IS
A REGIONAL PROBLEM, TO LOOK AT
ONCE WE HAVE A BODY, A DECISION
MAKING BODY IN PLACE THAT WE
COULD TALK ABOUT, A FUNDING
APPROACH AND FUNDING REVENUE.
IDENTIFYING NEW FUNDING REVENUE
THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
WE ARE PUTTING THAT OBJECTIVE
ASIDE RIGHT NOW AND FOR CLOSING
SOME OF THE OPPORTUNITIES.
SIMILARLY, ONE OF THE EARLY
OBJECTIVES THAT I'VE HEARD
COUNTLESS TIMES OVER THE LAST
20 YEARS NOW FROM BACK WHEN WE
HAD THE CEH, THE COMMITTEE TO
END HOMELESSNESS, AND WHEN WE
HAD ALL HOME.
THE FRUSTRATION THAT I'VE
ALWAYS HEARD FROM THOSE BODIES
IS THAT WE HAVE ELECTIVES WHO
ARE IN THE DECISION MAKING
ROLES, IN THE GOVERNING ROLES,
WHEN WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS WE
NEED SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
MAKING THE DECISIONS.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO
STATES THAT THERE'S SOME
CONCERN THAT GIVING ABILITIES
TO THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE
UNDERMINES THE ROLE OF THE
IMPLEMENTING BOARD AS THE
PRIMARY GOVERNING BODY OF THE
RHA AND DOES NOT RETRIEVE
CHANGE TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE
ANOTHER COMMITTEE ON
HOMELESSNESS OR ANOTHER ALL
HOME.
I WANT US TO BE MOVING TOWARDS
TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE.
AND FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN
DOING THIS WORK FOR DECADES,
THEY'RE SITTING BACK AND
LOOKING AT US.
WE'RE JUST MOVING THE DECK
CHAIRS AND AS COUNCILMEMBER
GONZCEZ SAID EARLIER, WE'RE
ACTING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.
YOU KNOW, AND I REALLY BELIEVED
OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS THAT
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS,
THAT WE WERE GOING MAKING A
DIFFERENCE BECAUSE WE WERE
GOING TO DO SOMETHING RADICAL,
SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS THE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE DEEP EXPERTISE
IN THIS AREA TO BE MAKING THE
DECISIONS FOR HOW WE'RE GOING
TO BE SPENDING OUR RESOURCES.
SO IF WE'RE CLOSING
OPPORTUNITIES AROUND FUNDING
AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING OUR
DECISION MAKING STRUCTURE AND
THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME, I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE PUT FORWARD.
I THINK IT HELPS MAYBE STRIKE A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OF A
BALANCE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN
COMING TO US FROM RPC MOST
RECENTLY BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS
WE HAVE THE ELECTEDS OCCUPYING
THE GOVERNING BOARD.
AND YOU THINK ULTIMATELY, THAT
IS STILL GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE
ON?
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO CAN --
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I GUESS
WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE
QUESTION.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE JUST
WENT OVER, DO YOU FEEL THAT
THOSE AMENDMENTS WHEN WE'RE
CHANGING WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE
DECISIONS FOR THE GOVERNING
BOARD TO MAKE DECISIONS, DOES
THAT IN ANOTHER WAY EMPOWER
WHAT IS NOW THE IMPLEMENTING
BOARD IN A WAY THAT IS MORE
TRANSFORMATIVE?
>> THE INTENTION YOU'RE
REFERRING TO -- THE THRESHOLDS
TO PASS.
THE INTENTION BEHIND THOSE
AMENDMENTS IS TO ACHIEVE THAT,
TO RESTORE SOME OF THE
AUTHORITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE
IMPLEMENTING BOARD IN WHAT WAS
INITIALLY TRANSMITTED AND HAVE
IT RETURN FOR WHAT WAS THE
ORIGINAL POLICY COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I
AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS
BEING MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND THIS CONTEXT.
I ALWAYS APPRECIATE THE
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF OUR
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
I THINK YOU ALL DO AN AMAZING
JOB TO IDENTIFYING AND REALLY
ZERO IN ON WHAT THE EXACT
POLICY ISSUE AND CONCERN MIGHT
BE WITHOUT NECESSARILY
SUGGESTING TO US WHAT THE
SOLUTION SHOULD BE BUT I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
FLAG AND HIGHLIGHT ISSUES THAT
MIGHT DEVIATE FROM THE ORIGINAL
STATED PURPOSE OF AN
OVERARCHING EFFORT.
SO I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MEMO
AND HONE IN ON THE PIECE OF IT
THAT REALLY DOES TALK ABOUT HOW
-- THE SCALES HAVE BEEN TIPPED
QUITE A BIT THROUGH THIS NEW
STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING
TODAY IN TERMS OF THE ROLE OF
THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE WHICH
IS MADE UP LARGELY OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD WHICH IS
INTENDED TO BE THAT SUBJECT
MATTER FORUM.
AND I'M NOT HEARING A RATIONAL
POLICY REASON WHY THAT SCALE
WAS TIPPED.
WHAT I AM HEARING IS A LOT OF
POLITICAL REASONS AS TO WHY
THAT SCALE WAS TIPPED BACK IN
FAVOR OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND
AWAY FROM SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS.
AND I THINK THAT'S AN
UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT WE
FIND OURSELVES IN.
IT IS THE REALITY OF WHERE
WE'RE AT.
AND SO I THINK WE AS A SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL HAVE AN OBLIGATION
AND A DUTY TO NOT JUST RUB OR
STAMP WHAT IS COMING OUT OF THE
ORIGINAL POLICY COMMITTEE BUT
TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AND AS
HONEST AS POSSIBLE IN
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE REALITY
HERE IS THAT WE ARE POTENTIALLY
ABOUT TO TAKE ACTION ON
IMPLEMENTING AN ALL HOME
VERSION 2.0 THAT, YOU KNOW,
DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ADDRESS THE REVENUE ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCALE OF
THE NEED HERE, THAT STILL
RETAINS SIGNIFICANT POWER
AMONGST THE ELECTED OFFICIALS
AND THAT HAS SOME
REPRESENTATION FROM PEOPLE WHO
ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS BUT
THAT THAT VOICE IS CERTAINLY IN
THE SMALL MINORITY IN TERMS OF
REPRESENTATION ON THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT US TO FOOL
OURSELVES IN THINKING THAT
WE'RE DOING SOMETHING
TRANSFORMATIVE WHEN IT APPEARS
THAT WE'RE JUST TAKING ONE
LITTLE TEENY, TINY STEP TOWARDS
TRYING TO DO IT A LITTLE
DIFFERENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING,
ESPECIALLY THE QUESTION AT HAND
AS WELL.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BEYOND OUR
CENTRAL STAFF TO APPLY WHETHER
OR NOT THE CHANGE WAS
TRANSFORMATIVE ENOUGH OR THAT
THOSE MATTERS TO THE PARTICULAR
QUESTION NOW ON WHAT WERE THE
POLICY REASONS THAT LED TO THIS
OUTCOME.
IT WAS A FOCUS ON FEELING THAT
ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE -- THAT
INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTY CAN HOLD AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABLE WITH VOTES
AND THAT TOTALLY ISOLATING
THOSE OUT TO FURTHER REMOVE THE
BOARD AND MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR
AN AVERAGE PERSON OR THE
GENERAL POPULOUS IN KING COUNTY
TO FORCE A VOTE IF THAT WAS THE
MATTER.
>> ELECTION CYCLES ARE ONLY
ABOUT EVERY FOUR YEARS.
SO I'M NOT PERSUADED BY THIS
ARGUMENT OF ELECTORAL
ACCOUNTABILITY.
CERTAINLY ELECTORAL
ACCOUNTABILITY EXISTS.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT OCCURS
EVERY MONTH OR AFTER EVERY
OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU'VE MADE A
DECISION THAT THE ELECTORATE
MAY DISAGREE WITH.
SO I THINK AGAIN, TO ME, THAT
SMACKS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A
POLITICAL MOTIVATION AS OPPOSED
TO A TRUE POLICY RATIONALE AS
TO WHY WE ARE CENTRAL --
FOCUSING ON A MODEL THAT WILL
FURTHER CENTRALIZE POWER
AMONGST ELECTED OFFICIALS AS
OPPOSED TO SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS.
>> SO I WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE EVERYTHING THAT YOU
SAID AND I AGREE THAT IT WAS
MORE OF A POLITICAL ISSUE.
BUT THERE WAS TREMENDOUS
CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE
INVOLVED TO SAY THAT THEY FELT
THAT THEY WERE THE ONES THAT
NEEDED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
ON HOW THIS WAS WORKING.
SO IF YOU CAN GIVE PEOPLE GOOD
INTENTIONS -- AND I BELIEVE
THAT MY OBJECTIVE IS THAT WITH
THE GOVERNING BOARD, IF THEY
ONLY MEET QUARTERLY, THEY ARE
REALLY HAVING TO LISTEN TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD AND TO THE
C.E.O.
THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM THEM.
AND IT'S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNING
BOARD IS GOING TO BE RUBBER
STAMPING.
BUT IT'S THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD WITH THE EXPERIENCES THAT
WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE THAT WILL
ACTUALLY DO THE WORK AND I KNOW
THAT ARE -- CONVERSATIONS WE'VE
HAD WITH OUR RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT WITH KING COUNTY,
THOSE ARE THE REAL EXPERTS.
AND IF WE'RE REACHING OUT INTO
THE COMMITTEE TO BRING THEIR
VOICES IN, THAT THAT
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD IS THE ONE
THAT IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE
ADVICE BASED UPON THIS REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN.
AND WE'VE SEEN DRAFTS OF THE
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LAST NUMBER OF
MONTHS.
WHETHER I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S
TRANSFORMATIONAL, I CAN'T GO
THAT FAR.
BUT IT DOES MOVE US IN
DIRECTIONS THAT ARE MUCH
FURTHER THAN WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
GO IN THE PAST.
AND I -- I WILL HAVE TO SAY AT
THE END OF THIS DAY, I THINK
IT'S -- THOSE ARE -- IT'S A
JOURNEY WORTH TAKING.
IT'S AN EFFORT WORTH MAKING.
AND I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF ALL
THE WORK THAT'S GONE IN, AND
PARTICULARLY WITH THE THREE OF
YOU AT THE TABLE HELPING US
DRAFT THIS.
>> I'LL MOVE FORWARD THEN IF
THAT SOUNDS APPROPRIATE.
>> PLEASE.
>> NEXT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
THE -- THE TRANSMITTED DRAFT
FROM THE MAYOR AND THE
EXECUTIVE WOULD HAVE HAD AN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER -- THE TITLE
HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER -- THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN APPOINTED OR COULD
HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE
GOVERNING BOARD WHICH WE NOW
CALL THE IMPLEMENTING BOARD.
THERE'S -- EASILY THERE COULD
BE CONFUSION FOR TITLES THERE.
SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR THE BOARD
OF EXPERTS IS WHAT PREVIOUSLY
WOULD HAVE HIRED AND FIRED THE
C.E.O.
UNDER THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS
PASSED BY THE RPC THIS MORNING,
THERE WERE NOT CHANGES MADE.
HOWEVER, THE C.E.O.
WOULD BE JOINTLY RECRUITED BY
BOTH BOARDS AND WOULD BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OF
EXPERTS, THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD FOR CONFIRMATION BY THE
GOVERNING COMMITTEE.
SO THAT IS A CHANGE IN ROLE AS
IT GOES TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE
JUST DISCUSSED BY MULTIPLE
COUNCILMEMBERS ABOUT A CHANGE
IN AUTHORITY FROM ONE BOARD TO
ANOTHER.
AND THEN THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD IS ALSO REQUIRED TO
CONDUCT REGULAR EVALUATIONS OF
THE C.E.O.
AS AN ONGOING MATTER THAT IS
NOT SOMETHING GIVEN TO THE
EXECUTIVE BOARD.
THERE ARE NO CHANGES MADE HERE
THIS MORNING.
THE LAST FOUR ITEMS ON OUR
CHART, I THINK -- I BELIEVE
THAT WE GENERALLY ALREADY
COVERED.
WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT
TAXING AUTHORITY IS EXPLICITLY
PROHIBITED.
THE REQUEST WAS MADE BY A
PERFORMANCE AUDIT.
EVERY SIX YEARS, A REQUIREMENT,
I SHOULD SAY.
THERE WERE CHANGES TO INCREASE
THE LANGUAGE WITH BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AND JUSTICE SYSTEMS TO
MAKE SURE THIS AGREEMENT WOULD
BE WORKING IN TANDEM WITH
THOSE.
AND THEN I WANT TO NOTE THAT IN
THE OFFICE OF ENVOYS, SOMETHING
NOT CURRENTLY EXISTING WAS A
NEW OFFICE TO BE ESTABLISHED TO
MAKE SURE COMPLAINTS UTILIZING
OUR SYMPTOM SYSTEMS AND
CONCERNS WOULD HAVE AN AVENUE
TO BE HEARD.
UNDER THE IT RATION EXPRESSED
THIS MORNING, THE OFFICE WOULD
PROVIDE REPORTS TO THE
IMPLEMENTING BOARD AND I
BELIEVE TWICE PER YEAR ON THE
NATURE OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS --
ACTUALLY, IF I COULD JUST IN
SUMMARY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
EASILY LOST.
THERE WERE SIX THINGS PASSED
THIS MORNING BEYOND WHAT YOU
HAVE PROBABLY HEARD MULTIPLE
TIMES BEFORE.
THE GOVERNING BOARD WILL
REFLECT THE ETHNIC AND RACIAL
MAKEUP OF THE COUNTY.
SECOND, IN THE AREA OF
"STRIVE" WAS REMOVED AND IT
WILL BE "SHALL" MEET CERTAIN
PRINCIPLES.
THAT'S ARTICLE 4. THE THIRD
WOULD ADD THE GEOGRAPHICAL
REQUIREMENTS.
ONE ASPECT REPRESENTING
SEATTLE.
THE OTHER MUST BE OUTSIDE OF
IT.
FOURTH, THE IMPLEMENTING BOARD,
THEY IDENTIFIED -- OH.
FOURTH IS THAT THE IMPLEMENTING
BOARD MEMBERS WOULD COME FROM A
NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
FIFTH PRESCRIBES THAT THE SUB
REGIONAL PLANS WILL BE THE
BASIS FOR THE FULL PLAN FOR THE
REGIONAL HOMELESS AUTHORITY.
AND THEN SIXTH -- AND THIS IS
ACTUALLY I DID NOT GO INTO.
IT'S RATHER MINOR.
REQUIRING THAT REPORTS BE
PRESENTED IN WRITING.
THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN WAS
EARLIER DETAIL THAN ADDED BACK
THIS MORNING.
AND THEN DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY
-- WE'VE ALREADY GONE INTO IT
-- IS THE PROPORTION OF ACTIONS
NEED TO APPROVE THE BUDGETS.
>> ONE THING YOU REALLY
MENTIONED THAT WE GLOSSED OVER
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RAISE AGAIN.
AND THAT'S THE QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER IT FORMS THE BASIS OF
OR IT WAS INTEGRAL TO.
AND I THINK IT WAS LANGUAGE WE
HAD INITIALLY SAID THAT THE SUB
REGIONAL GROUPS WOULD PROVIDE
INFORMATION AND THAT IT WOULD
BE INTEGRAL IN MAKING OUR
DECISIONS BUT NOT JUST FORM THE
BASIS OF.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT AND THE
IMPLICATION WILL BE?
>> YEAH.
I THINK THE CHANGE RELATED ALSO
TO THE PRINCIPLES, I THINK,
COMES INTO PLAY HERE WHERE
PRINCIPLES DO REQUIRE THE
AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT DATA
DRIVEN -- THE DATA OF THE
ENTITY AND THEIR SERVICES.
BUT THERE IS NOT REQUIREMENTS
ON WHAT THOSE SUB REGIONAL
PLANS MUST STAY.
OTHER THAN THEY MUST -- THAT
THE PARTS OF KING COUNTY THAT
WOULD BE REPRESENTED BY THOSE
PLANS HAVE THE SAY ON HOW WHO
IS GOING TO WRITE THOSE PLANS
AND WOULD SAY OVER WHAT THOSE
PLANS ENTAIL.
AND PREVIOUSLY, THERE WAS
LANGUAG THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
OVERALL FIVE-YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THAT WOULD
ALIGN WITH THE REGIONAL ACTION
PLAN THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED
WITH THIS COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY.
IT'LL GO INTO THINGS LIKE
EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES,
BROADLY RECOGNIZED BEST
PRACTICES.
POTENTIALLY WILL INCLUDE
PERFORMANCE METRICS IN TERMS OF
ACHIEVING GOALS AND HOW THAT
WOULD BE DONE.
THAT LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WERE
TWO REASONS FOR THAT.
FIRST, BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE
THE REGIONAL ACTION PLAN UNTIL
FEBRUARY.
AND THIS WOULD BE PAST PRIOR TO
THAT PRESUMABLY.
AND SECOND, THAT THERE -- THE
LACK OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT
WAS IN THERE BUT A DESIRE TO
ALLOW THE REGIONS TO HAVE
AUTONOMY OVER WHAT WOULD GO
INTO THOSE PLANS.
AND BECAUSE I WAS ABOUT TO
SWITCH, THAT WAS ONE AREA
IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY AS A
CONCERN AND EVEN MORE SO BY
CENTRAL STAFF AND BASED LARGELY
ON COMMENTS AND CONVERSATIONS
THAT WE'VE HAD WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT THERE ARE
NOT PRESCRIPTIONS THAT THOSE
PLANS SHOULD ALIGN WITH A
BROADER VISION.
AND GOING BACK TO -- I'LL QUOTE
THE INS REPORT THAT INSTIGATED
A LOT OF THE WORK THIS YEAR,
THAT WE SHOULD BE ACHIEVING A
UNIFORM AND DEFRAGMENTED
APPROACH AND CONCERNS THAT THAT
MAY NOT BE ACHIEVED IN THAT
CASE.
>> THANK YOU FOR GOING BACK TO
THAT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> SO YOU WANT TO DIVE INTO
ISSUE IDENTIFY INDICATION?
>> IF THAT'S OKAY.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S
NOTHING ELSE FROM THIS MORNING
OR OTHER PIECES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT --
THANK YOU.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE --
IT SEEMS -- I WANT TO COMMEND
HARRELL AND COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME
WITH THE EVIDENCE BASED
STRATEGIES THAT THOSE BE A PART
OF THE PLAN.
AND THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY
TRANSFORMATIONAL IF THOSE ARE
ADHERED TO.
AND I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW IT
WOULD BE IMPACTING THE WRAP
VERSUS THE FACT THEY REMOVED
THE STRIVE TO LANGUAGE FOR
THOSE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 3. THEY
REMOVED ALL THOSE "STRIVE
TO's," ACCOUNTABILITY
DECISIONS.
SO IT SEEMS THAT'S GOOD NEWS
THEY DID REMOVE THOSE "STRIVE
TO's" AND THOSE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES ARE AN OVERARCHING
UMBRELLA ON HOW THIS WAS
SUPPOSED TO WORK REGIONALLY.
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU ARE
CORRECT.
THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY DOES
MOVE CLOSER TO REQUIRING DATA
DRIVEN PRACTICES.
AND APOLOGIES.
CERTAINLY SINCE WE MET BRIEFLY,
I'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE
OPPORTUNITY TO DELL OF DELVE
INTO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
THIS IS WHERE THESE ARE
DISCUSSED IN PARTICULAR.
AND THERE ARE NOT -- THERE IS
-- ALTHOUGH DATA DRIVEN
DECISIONS AND THE NEED TO
ANALYZE DATA IS CALLED OUT,
THAT SAME SECTION ALSO CALLS ON
DATA TO TAILOR APPROACHES ON
SPECIFIC COMMITTEES AND THERE'S
NO BEST PRACTICES OR BROAD
PRACTICES IN THAT CURRENT
LANGUAGE.
I DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION
FULLY AVAILABLE WHEN WE SPOKE
PREVIOUSLY.
AND ALSO AS WE LOOK AT THE SUB
REGIONAL PLANS, NOW THEY SHOULD
BE INFORMING THE BROADER PLAN.
BUT THESE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE
OUTLINED HERE ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE FOCUSED ON THE AUTHORITY AT
LARGE BUT DO NOT EXPLICITLY GET
APPLIED TO THE SUB REGIONAL
PLANS.
I DON'T SEE LANGUAGE WHERE
THAT'S OCCURRING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO AT BEST, YOU COULD HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE
CONFLICT, WHERE A SUB REGIONAL
PLAN MAY BE DEVELOPED THAT
DOESN'T CONFER WITH THOSE
PRINCIPALS.
AND SO HOW THAT MAY BE HANDLED
WITH THAT AUTHORITY.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE SHOULD BE
THE BASIS FOR SUBSEQUENT FIVE-
YEAR PLANS.
THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
>> IN THE LONG TERM, YEAH.
>> I WANT TO ADD ONTO THAT.
AND WE HAVE HEAD NODS UP HERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NIH
MENTIONED EARLY ON IN THEIR --
AT LEAST SOME OF THE EARLY
DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, WAS
THE NEED TO HAVE A REALLY
UNIFIED THEORY OF CHANGE AND
THAT UNIFIED MEANS NOT JUST THE
CITY OF SEATTLE OR KING COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BUT TO HAVE OUR
SOUND CITIES ALSO AGREEING WITH
THIS APPROACH.
WHAT DO YOU THINK AT THIS
POINT?
WHAT CAN WE DO TO BRING THEM IN
AND HAVE THEM BE PART OF THESE
DECISIONS?
BECAUSE WHAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE
IS THAT IF -- IF EACH OF THESE
CITIES DECIDED OR WITHIN THE
GROUP OF THE SUB REGIONAL WORK,
THAT THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE
THEORY WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON,
IN PARTICULARLY WITH THE
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN, WHICH WE
KNOW IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE.
>> I BELIEVE AVENUES WOULD BE
AVAILABLE TO COUNCILMEMBERS TO
MAKE A CHANGE.
I THINK THE AREA MOST DIRECTLY
THAT WOULD AFFECT THESE IS IN
ARTICLE 8. DO YOU HAVE THE
EXACT LOCATION?
ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2,
SUBPARAGRAPH -- SUBSECTION I,
PARAGRAPH 9? THE -- GETTING MY
SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS
CONFUSED HERE.
IT'S WHERE SUB REGIONAL PLANS
IS DESCRIBED IN MOST DETAIL AND
WHERE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS
LANGUAGE WITH ALIGNMENT OF
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN.
IT'S NOW CHANGED TO "MAY
PERMISSIVE TO THE ACTION PLAN."
EARLIER IT RATIONS MAY HAVE
USED "INFORM" BUT DID NOT USE
"MAY."
IT SAID "SHALL BE INFORMED."
>> AND I KNOW THE SOUND CITIES
WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT -- AND
I WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO -- TO
SIGN YOUR NAME ON A REPORT YOU
HAVEN'T SEEN YET.
SO WE WERE OBVIOUSLY GIVING
THEM SUMMARIES AND WHAT WE
BELIEVED WERE THE DIRECTIONS WE
WERE GOING.
BUT THEY SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO SAY SHALL UNTIL WE SEE IT.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO
BALANCE SOME OF THIS SO
EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
COME FORWARD.
BUT I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT UNDERLYING
UNIFORM/UNIFYING THEORY OF
CHANGE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
MOVING FORWARD IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A
REAL QUESTION IN THERE.
I'M JUST STATING THAT I'M
HOPEFUL WE CAN GET THERE.
I'M NOT SURE WE ARE THERE AT
THIS POINT.
>> SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT THERE'S ONLY TWO
AUTHORITIES WHO ARE ASSIGNING
THE IOA, RIGHT?
SO IT'S KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE
AND THE MAYOR?
>> CORRECT.
>> IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
SIGNATURE BY ANYBODY
REPRESENTING THE SOUND CITY'S
ASSOCIATIONS?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
SO IF WE LEAVE THE LANGUAGE THE
WAY IT IS, WHICH IS PERMISSIVE,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO, YOU
CAN, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO --
>> IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT.
THE -- WHAT'S -- OKAY.
I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS,
IS THE IMPACT TO SOUND CITIES,
THAT THEY DON'T GET ACCESS TO
FUNDING?
OR DO THEY STILL -- ARE THEY
STILL IN THE RUNNING FOR
RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE
REGIONAL GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY
IF THEY CHOOSE TO DEVIATE FROM
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND FROM
THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER.
THE LANGUAGE -- SO YOU ARE
CORRECT IN NOTING THE SOUND
CITIES ARE NOT SIGNING IT.
SO IF THE MUNICIPALITY HAS ITS
OWN FUNDING THAT IT'S SPENDING,
THAT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED
HERE.
IF THAT MUNICIPALITY WANTED TO
BECOME A SUBSCRIBING AGENCY TO
THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY, THEY
WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ALIGN WITH
THE BROADER PRINCIPLES AND
GOALS OF THE REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY AND ITS
FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
AND GIVEN THE CHANGES OF THIS
MORNING, THAT FIVE-YEAR PLAN
WILL BE DEVELOPED BY TAKING --
LET'S ASSUME THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A
DESIRE TO HAVE EVERY REGION
MAKING ITS OWN SUB PLAN.
BUT IF THERE WAS A SOUTHERN
COUNTY, EASTERN COUNTY,
NORTHERN COUNTY, AND SEATTLE
SUB REGIONAL PLAN, ONE FOR EACH
AGGREGATE, THAT MAY NOT HAVE
THE SAME -- THEY MAY NOT BE
ADVOCATING FOR THE SAME TYPE OF
APPROACHES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT
ARE HOMELESS.
YOU COULD -- SO YOU COULD HAVE
A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE FROM
THAT MUNICIPALITY -- THIS
MUNICIPALITY COULD BE JOINING
THE -- SUBSCRIBING AGENCY TO
THIS HOMELESS AUTHORITY.
AND THE SERVICES THAT THEY
PROVIDE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY
BE REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING
LIKE A HOUSING FIRST APPROACH
IF THE SUB REGIONAL PLAN FOR
THEIR AREA DID NOT CALL FOR A
HOUSING FIRST APPROACH.
>> RIGHT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT LOCALITIES ARE
ABLE TO CRAFT SOLUTIONS THAT
ARE SPECIFICALLY RESPONSIVE TO
THEIR NEEDS, RIGHT?
WE DON'T WANT TO -- I DON'T
FORECLOSE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
THAT LEVEL OF INDEPENDENCE IN
TERMS OF EVALUATING WHAT MAY BE
BEST SUITED FOR THE POPULATION
IN THEIR COMMUNITY EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
WHAT I GET CONCERNED ABOUT IS
WHEN THOSE -- THOSE TOOLS OR
STRATEGIES THAT ARE BEING
UTILIZED ARE NOT EVIDENCE BASED
OR EVEN PROMISING PRACTICES.
BUT INSTEAD, ARE PUNITIVE OR
PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES THAT WE
KNOW DON'T WORK, HAVEN'T
WORKED, WILL NEVER WORK, LIKE
JAIL FOR EXAMPLE.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO -- I JUST
WANT TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF
HOW THAT PLAYS OUT IN THIS
CONVERSATION OF THE SUB
REGIONAL PLAN, RIGHT?
SO IF YOU ARE A SUBSCRIBING
AGENCY AND YOU'VE SUBMITTED
YOUR SUB REGIONAL PLAN AND
YOU'RE PROPOSING, YOU KNOW, TO
DO YOUR PRIMARY STRATEGY FOR
ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES AS,
LIKE, HIGH BARRIER, 100% SOBER
FOR TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOU CAN
GET INTO A SHELTER PROGRAMMING,
AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU
WANT TO FUND, CAN YOU STILL
QUALIFY FOR FUNDING FOR
REGIONAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY?
>> IF YOUR SUB REGIONAL PLAN
ALLOWED FOR THAT AND THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THEN YES.
>> ESPECIALLY IF THAT HAS TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO A SUBSEQUENT
FIVE-YEAR PLAN WHICH IS REALLY
OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH IS
REALLY THE CONCERN, I THINK.
AND THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE ADDED
TODAY, THAT THOSE SUB REGIONAL
PLANS WOULD FORM THE BASIS FOR
SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR PLANS.
SO THAT PLAN HIGH BARRIER COULD
BECOME THE BASIS -- COULD BE
WRAPPED INTO A SUBSEQUENT FIVE-
YEAR PLAN FOR THE AUTHORITY.
>> SO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD
ORIGINALLY -- OR AT LEAST AT
THE -- AT THE DAY BEFORE
THANKSGIVING PLAN, HAD -- THAT
IT WAS GOING TO BE INTEGRAL BUT
NOT BASED UPON.
AND THAT STRUCK ME AS BEING --
GIVING MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
DATA DRIVEN RESULTS THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THAT WE HAVE TO
-- WE HAVE TO BE LOOKING
FORWARD AND NOT JUST USING THE
PUNITIVE TOOLS BECAUSE THOSE
MIGHT BE EXPEDIENT.
AND EXPEDIENT FOR ONE SMALL --
OR ONE LOCAL ISN'T GOING TO
HELP US REGIONALLY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN EITHER
COME BACK TO THE INTEGRAL
LANGUAGE TO BE THINKING MORE IN
TERMS OF USING OUR REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN TO BUILD THE FIVE-
YEAR PLAN UPON WHICH WE ARE ALL
UNITING AROUND TO SEE US MOVING
FORWARD AND THAT BIG
TRANSFORMATIVE MOVES ARE GOING
TO BE BASED UPON THIS REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN BECAUSE THAT IS
BASED ON NATIONAL BEST
PRACTICES.
>> IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE IN
THIS PROPOSAL THAT WOULD
REQUIRE THAT SOMETHING -- THAT
THE SUB REGIONAL PLANS -- THAT
ACTUALLY REQUIRE THAT THE SUB
REGIONAL PLANS, INCLUDING OUR
OWN, SUBJECTING US TO THIS
STANDARD AS WELL, HAVE TO BE
BASED ON NATIONAL BEST
PRACTICES OR PROMISING
PRACTICES IN THIS SPACE?
>> NO, THERE'S NOT.
THE LANGUAGE IS FOCUSED ON DATA
DRIVEN DECISION MAKING BUT DOES
NOT INFER TO ANY OF THAT THAT
YOU USED.
>> TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY
THAT.
>> THEY'LL USE QUANTITATIVE
DECISIONS BUZZ NOT USE BEST
PRACTICES AS A GUIDANCE FOR
THIS AUTHORITY.
>> AND WHAT IF WE WANTED TO ADD
THAT LANGUAGE?
I DON'T REMEMBER HOW WE ENDED
UP -- AND I'M SURE WE'VE HAD
MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.
MAYBE YOU'LL REMEMBER ON SOME
OF OUR CONVERSATIONS.
BUT IF WE WANTED TO USE
LANGUAGE ON THAT, THAT WE
WANTED TO SEE IT BASED UPON
BEST PRACTICES AND NOT JUST THE
DATA DRIVEN RESULTS?
>> I'M SORRY.
SORRY.
IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW, ONE OF
THE OPTIONS I THINK THAT WE
HAVE IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES -- WHICH
AGAIN HAVE BEEN -- HAVE
REVERTED TO "SHALL" LANGUAGE
AND PLANS ALIGNING WITH THOSE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
BECAUSE THEY ADDRESS, IN FACT,
ALL THE BEST PRACTICES,
EVIDENCE BASE, DATA DRIVEN,
THAT COUNCIL IS TALKING ABOUT
RIGHT NOW.
>> GOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I JUST WANT TO LIFT THE VEIL
HERE FOR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE
WATCHING FROM HOME AND
WONDERING WHY WE'RE STILL
WORRIED ABOUT THESE WORDS.
WE IN SEATTLE, WE -- WE GUIDE
OUR FUNDING DECISIONS ACCORDING
TO A HOUSING FIRST MODEL WHICH
MEANS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT
IN ORDER TO ADDRESS PEOPLE'S
UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE
LED THEM TO HOMELESSNESS, THAT
THEY NEED A ROOF OVER THEIR
HEADS FIRST.
SO THAT MEANS NOT REQUIRING
SOBRIETY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
HOUSING.
AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT
THIS LANGUAGE BEING STRIPPED
OUT BY OUR PARTNERS IS
BASICALLY THEM SAYING, NO, WE
WANT TO HAVE RULES OF OUR
HOUSING THAT RESTRICT PEOPLE
FROM COMING INSIDE, THAT CREATE
BARRIERS FROM PEOPLE COMING
INSIDE AND ENDING OUR
HOMELESSNESS AND ADDRESSING
THEIR UNDERLYING ISSUES.
SO I THINK IT'S -- IT'S
TROUBLING THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE
THE STEP THAT WE'RE STARTING
OUT ON AND I HOPE I'M WRONG IN
THIS.
I -- I HOPE THAT THERE IS A
BROAD RECOGNITION THROUGHOUT --
NOT JUST THAT THIS IS A
REGIONAL ISSUE AND WE NEED
REGIONAL RESOURCES TO ADDRESS
IT AND WE NEED TRANSFORMATIVE
STRUCTURES, BUT ALSO IN ORDER
TO BRING INSIDE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
PROJECTION ISSUES, SUBSTANCE
ABUSE, DISORDERS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE
BASED MODELS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE NOT JUST USING LINGO UP
HERE.
>> AND NOT JUST TO DRAW OUT.
SORT OF I THINK WHAT WE
CONNECTED WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
CREATE HERE, A REGIONAL
GOVERNESS AUTHORITY THAT IS
PULLING ITS RESOURCES TOGETHER.
THE QUESTION THAT COMES IS,
SHOULD MUNICIPALITIES WHO WANT
TO PRIMARILY OR SOLEY FOCUS ON
NONEVIDENCE BASED STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS BE ABLE TO
QUALIFY TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM
THESE POOLED RESOURCES?
AND THE ANSWER FOR ME IS, NO,
THEY SHOULD NOT.
WE WANT TO FUND THOSE PUNITIVE
PROGRAMS, THEN THEY NEED TO
UTILIZE THEIR OWN RESOURCES TO
DO THAT.
BUT THE LIMITED DOLLARS THAT WE
ARE PULLING TOGETHER TO ADDRESS
THE REGIONAL REALITIES OF
HOMELESSNESS SHOULD REMAIN
SQUARELY FOCUSED ON PERFORMANCE
OUTCOMES AND SHOULD BE, I
BELIEVE, UTILIZED TO SUPPORT
EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGIES THAT
ARE EITHER NATIONAL BEST
PRACTICES OR LOCAL BEST
PRACTICES OR EMERGING PROMISING
PRACTICES THAT HAVE SHOWN TO BE
EFFECTIVE IN ADDRESSING THE
NEEDS OF THOSE WHO ARE
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS AND, YOU
KNOW, CONTINUING TO FALL INTO
THE CYCLE OF EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
>> I THINK THOSE ARE VERY GOOD
POINTS.
AND I CAN JUST RECOGNIZE THAT
OF THE MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE'VE HAD, THAT THERE ARE SOME
JURISDICTIONS WHO HAVE SAID TO
ME, WE DON'T WANT TO HITCH OUR
WAGON TO SEATTLE STAR BECAUSE
LOOK AT ALL THE PROBLEMS YOU
HAVE.
I'M LIKE, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.
THIS IS OUR REGION, OUR PEOPLE,
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE
A DIFFERENT MODEL TO CHANGE THE
WAY AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE
OUTSIDE.
BUT THAT SAID, I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO SAY, WELL, IF ONE
JURISDICTION DOESN'T WANT TO
ACCEPT THE MONEY THAT'S COMING
FROM THE REGIONAL ENTITY AND
THEY WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING
THAT SAYS, YES, YOU CAN COME
INSIDE BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE
SOBER AND ONLY IF YOU REMAIN
SOBER OR WHATEVER THE ISSUES
MAY BE AND THEY WANT TO USE
RESOURCES OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE
BRINGING FORWARD FROM THIS
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION, YOU
KNOW, IT'S RIGHT TO DO THAT AND
WE HONOR THAT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE
TO CONSIDER HOW WE SPEND THE
MONEY AND DO IT IN A WAY THAT'S
BASED UPON THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE
COMING OUT OF THE REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN.
SO I REALLY LIKE THIS
CONVERSATION.
IT'S VERY VALUABLE JUST TO
CLARIFY WHERE WE ARE AND ALSO,
TOO, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO DIFFER BUT MAYBE
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
RECIPIENTS TO THE ANNUAL POOL
OF FUNDS WE HAVE.
>> AND THE LANGUAGE USED TO
RESPOND.
THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THE
IOA THAT IS TROUBLING.
>> WE COULD.
>> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING THIS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON, DO YOU
HAVE A POINT?
>> I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
LANGUAGE TOO.
>> VERY GOOD.
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS THAT
WERE IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL
ISSUES FOR COUNCILMEMBERS,
WE'VE ALREADY DELVED INTO AND
LIKELY CONFIRMED THERE WERE
ISSUES.
ONE OF THEM IS RELATED TO THE
RELATIVE PROPORTION OF FUNDING
PUT IN TO SEATTLE COMPARED TO
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND THE
REPUTATION ON GOVERNING
COMMITTEE.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT SUB
REGIONAL PLANS AND WE SPOKE
ABOUT HOW VOTING ON THAT
GOVERNING COMMITTEE WOULD WORK.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE IT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE REGIONAL
ACTION PLAN THAT WAS
HIGHLIGHTED PREVIOUSLY THAT WE
DON'T HAVE THAT IT.
IT'S NOT EXPECTED UNTIL
FEBRUARY.
TWO OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE COME
UP IN VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS.
ONE REFLECTED ON THE REPORTING
STRUCTURE FOR THE ON BUD.
REPORTING PRIMARILY TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD EITHER
THAN BOTH OR TO THE GOVERNING
COMMITTEE AND WHERE THE
APPROPRIATE REPORTING AVENUE OR
PATHWAY SHOULD BE.
AND THEN ALSO A SEPARATE ISSUE
ASKING ABOUT THE PROGRAMS THAT
WOULD BE MOVED TO THE AUTHORITY
AND LOOKING AT SINCE THE
NAVIGATION TEAM WOULD BE KEPT
AT THE CITY, IF MOVING THE
STAFF CURRENTLY, DIRECTLY
EMPLOYEED BY SFD TO THE
AUTHORITY WOULD ENHANCE THE
LOCKAGE TO THE NAVIGATION TEAM
AND OUTLOOK PROVIDERS OR RETAIN
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
>> SO HOW IS THAT DECISION
GOING TO BE MADE?
>> I'M SORRY, HOW WOULD THE
DECISION BE MADE?
>> CORRECT.
I MEAN -- I THOUGHT YOU JUST
RAISED THAT AS A QUESTION.
>> THOSE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS, EITHER
SOMETHING THEY HAD CONCERNED
ABOUT AND WANTED TO
SPECIFICALLY HAVE RAISED AS A
QUESTION.
I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE
NAVIGATION TEAM, THAT'S BEEN
SWAYED AT THIS STAGE.
BUT NONETHELESS, TRYING TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO ALL CONCERNS
EXPRESSED AT THIS POINT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'VE GOT ONE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> JUST AN AMENDMENT AS IT
RELATES TO THE ON BUD.
THE REQUEST THAT I RECEIVED IS
WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY MAKE CLEAR
THAT THE ON BUD CAN ALSO GET
INPUT ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD ITSELF IN THAT WE WOULD
HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION -- I'M SORRY,
THE OFFICE OF THE ON BUD, NOT
ONLY PRESENT TO REPORTS TO THE
AUTHORITY BUT THAT THEY SHOULD
PRESENT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD
AS WELL.
>> THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY
REASONABLE REQUEST.
>> I HOPE SO.
>> ONE THING WHEN YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT FUNDING -- AND I
WILL SAY THAT THIS CONTINUES TO
BE A CONCERN OF MINE -- IS THAT
INITIALLY WE TRIED TO BRING THE
BODIES TOGETHER WITH THE LEAST
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.
SO, YES, WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE A C.E.O.
AND, YES, WE'RE GOING TO BE
INVESTING A LOT OF MONEY INTO
THIS.
BUT PART OF IT IS MONEY THAT
WAS GOING TO OUR HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OR OUTSIDE
CONTRACTORS.
IN THE BODY OF THE ILA NOW, DO
WE MEASURE WHAT THE COSTS ARE
AND APPLY THAT TO THE BENEFIT?
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE
GETTING INSIDE?
HOW MANY MORE BUILDINGS THAT WE
HAVE THAT ARE PROVIDING
SERVICES OR MORE CASE MANAGERS?
IS THERE A WAY WE CAN QUANTIFY
THAT?
I WOULD IMAGINE THREE YEARS
FROM NOW THAT MY SUCCESSORS ARE
GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND
SAY, YES, IT'S WORKING OR NO,
IT'S NOT.
AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MAKE
SURE IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER
GOVERNING BODY THAT ENDS UP NOT
BEING EFFECTIVE AS WE HOPED.
>> IT DOES CONTAIN LANGUAGE
THAT REQUIRES THAT SAME TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE AUDIT THAT WOULD
ASSESS HOW EFFECTIVE THEY'VE
BEEN IN PROVIDING SERVICES AND
ITS MISSION OVERALL.
THERE IS NOT LANGUAGE THAT
REQUIRES OR NECESSITATES THAT
EFFICIENCIES WOULD BE ACHIEVED.
THERE IS A SECTION THAT DEALS
WITH THE BACK OFFICE SO TO
SPEAK SERVICES.
IN CREATING A SEPARATE
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, THOSE
SERVICES WILL STILL BE
REQUIRED.
YOU WON'T BE ELIMINATING THOSE
OR GAINING EFFICIENCIES BY
ELIMINATING THOSE.
SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE ILA
CALLS ON THE AUTHORITY TO
IDENTIFY ITS CHEAPEST APPROACH
TO ACHIEVING THOSE, WHETHER
IT'S DOING IT THEMSELVES OR
CONTRACTING THROUGH EITHER THE
CITY OR THE COUNTY.
IT'S NOT CLEAR IT.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD THE
LEGAL ANALYSIS TO KNOW WHAT
EXACTLY IS AVAILABLE AT THIS
STAGE.
THAT WOULD BE AN AREA THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO BUT
IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN A COUPLE
HOURS.
>> SO SURPRISED AT YOU.
>> AND THEN I ALSO WOULD NOTE
THAT THERE ARE NEW FUNCTIONS
BEING TAKEN ON BY THIS
AUTHORITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFICE OF THE
ON BUD AND SUB REGIONAL
PLANNING.
SO THERE ARE NEW ACTIVITIES
THAT HAVE ASSOCIATED
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT WILL
GO WITH THEM.
SO THERE COULD BE EFFICIENCIES
ACHIEVED IN SOME LOCATIONS, IT
IS LIKELY THAT -- I SHOULD SAY,
IT IS UNLIKELY THERE SHOULD BE
DRAMATIC COST SAVINGS BY THESE.
>> AND I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING FOR IS TO KEEP THOSE IN
CONTROL.
FRANKLY, WE HAVE A NEW OFFICE
OF THE ON BUD THAT'S JUST
GETTING GOING.
SHE'S DOING A GREAT JOB, FAIRLY
NEW.
AND I BELIEVE KING COUNTY HAS
DOE SOMETHING SIMILAR.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY CALL IT
THAT.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING COMPARABLE.
DO WE NEED A THIRD ONE OF
THOSE?
OR CAN WE USE ONE OR THE OTHER?
IS A QUESTION THAT I HOPE THAT
AS WE'RE GETTING GOING, THAT WE
CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
SO I'M NOT MAKING ANY
PRONOUNCEMENT HERE.
I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.
>> THERE IS FURTHER LANGUAGE TO
GO INTO EVEN MORE DETAIL NOT
ONLY ABOUT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE
HR, THE I.T.
THAT INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE THAT
FOR THE OFFICE OF ON BUD
FUNCTIONS, THAT COULD BE
CONTRACTED OUT AND NOT JUST
DONE INTERNALLY IF IT WAS
SUITABLE TO EITHER THE CITY OR
COUNCIL.
>> I REMEMBER WE DISCUSSED
THAT.
I'M JUST GLAD IT'S STILL THERE.
THANK YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS DOWN THERE?
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
LET'S KEEP GOING.
>> ACTUALLY, THAT CONCLUDES --
>> I KNOW IT'S LIKE TWO HOURS
IN.
SO --
>> THAT'S IT.
THAT'S IT.
>> SO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
DOWN HERE?
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> SO COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ
WOULD LIKE TO SPEND ANOTHER
HALF HOUR ASKING QUESTIONS.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> BUT WITH THAT, ANYTHING
ELSE, TESS?
YOU'VE BEEN REMARKABLY QUIET.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE HE'S DONE A
SUPERB JOB WALKING US THROUGH
TODAY.
NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE
TO OFFER.
>> I KNOW!
AND I KNOW THAT EMILY, YOU HAVE
BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL STEPPING
IN ON THIS FOR OUR OFFICE.
I WANT TO SAY, THANK YOU.
SHE'S BEEN ON MANY OF THE PHONE
CALLS, MANY OF THE MEETINGS
TAKING GREAT NOTES AND HELPING
ME JUST GET REORGANIZED.
OKAY.
WELL, IF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS --
ANY OTHER COMMENTS UP HERE?
SO CAN WE TALK ABOUT TIMELINE
PLEASE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
SO IT WAS THE PROPOSAL MUST, OF
COURSE, MATCH WHAT IS
ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL HERE AND THE COUNTY
COUNCIL.
THIS MORNING, AS I MENTIONED,
THE REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
OF THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL
APPROVED A CURRENT DRAFT THAT
DOES NOT HAVE MANY OF THE
AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED HERE OR
POSSIBLY OTHER AMENDMENTS
IDENTIFIED.
IN ORDER FOR THE KING COUNTY
COUNCIL TO PASS SOMETHING, A
FINAL PRODUCT THAT MATCHES AN
AMENDED VERSION, IT'LL NEED TO
GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POLICY
COMMITTEE AT THE COUNTY.
THERE'S A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
THAT COMMITTEE ON THIS COMING
DECEMBER 11TH WHICH IS THIS
WEDNESDAY.
THERE'S ALSO A KING COUNTY
COUNCIL MEETING ON WEDNESDAY,
DECEMBER 11TH, THOUGH IT'S
EARLY IN THE DAY.
SO IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE THOUGH
IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME LIKELY
SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN ROLES
THAT WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL TO
INCORPORATE AMENDMENTS IF THIS
COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO
COMMUNICATE SOMETHING TO THEM
BY EITHER SENDING THE
LEGISLATION BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL POLICY COMMITTEE AND
THEN GOING ON RECESS UNTIL THE
ORIGINAL POLICY COMMITTEE WAS
ABLE TO INCORPORATE SOME OF
THOSE CHANGES AND COULD
PRESUMABLY PASS THOSE CHANGES
BACK TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL
WHICH THE COUNTY COUNCIL COULD
TAKE ACTION ON.
>> WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING WE
WOULD HAVE TO OFFER AMENDMENTS
LIKE AT THIS MONDAY'S MEETING?
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
BUT WOULD IT BE MORE OF A
STATEMENT OF INTENT THAT HERE'S
-- HERE ARE DIRECTIONS OR
AMENDMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE WE
WOULD HAVE A MAJORITY OF
SUPPORT FOR HERE?
HOW DO YOU PERCEIVE THAT
WORKING?
>> I THINK LIKELY THE MORE
CLEAR -- IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY
HAVE THE LANGUAGE CHANGED AS
WAS DONE THIS MORNING -- THAT
UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT WAS
ACCOMPLISHED AND IDENTIFYING
CONCERNS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO
BE DONE LIKE THIS COMMITTEE AND
OUR COUNCIL DO NOT HAVE TO
ADOPT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE FREQUENTLY
COLLABORATE TO GET AMENDMENTS
AND THE PROPER BACK OFFICE WORK
THAT STAFF DO TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHAT COMES FORWARD IS DONE.
SO WE CAN WORK WITH YOU TO
COMMUNICATE ANY CHANGES WITH
THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND WHETHER
OR NOT THEY PREVAIL IS, OF
COURSE, A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
AND THEN PRESUMING THAT OUR PC
AND THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL
PASS SOMETHING, THERE ARE TWO
OPTIONS.
ONE, IF IT IS -- IF THEY'VE
INCORPORATED ALL THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED HERE
TODAY AND THIS COUNCIL
ULTIMATELY WANTS TO SEE
INCORPORATED, THEN NEXT WEEK
WHEN THIS COMMITTEE MEETS OR
SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE 16TH OF
DECEMBER WHEN THE FULL COUNCIL
MEETS, WE CAN INCORPORATE AND
PASS THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
OR IF THAT -- THE DOCUMENT
ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY OR
REGIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE WAS
STILL FOUND TO BE LACKING, WORK
COULD CONTINUE INTO NEXT YEAR.
IN WHICH CASE, IT WOULD LIKELY
BE MORE A BACK AND FORTH OF
EDITS AND GETTING THOSE
INCORPORATED AND VOTED ON OUR
PC.
>> OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ, YOU
HAVE HALF AN HOUR.
>> I ONLY MARGINALLY FOLLOWED
WHAT JEFF WAS SAYING.
>> WELL, WE CAN WORK WITH YOU
VERY EXPEDITIOUSLY IN THE NEXT
FEW DAYS TO THE MATTERS THAT
ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU AND
WE CAN POSITION YOU TO TAKE
ACTION, IF YOU SO DESIRE, NEXT
WEEK.
WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT'S
READY TO BE INTRODUCED AS WELL
COULD HAVE THE DRAFT WITH
AMENDMENTS READY.
>> GOOD.
MY LAST COMMENT IS I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM KING COUNTY, RACHEL SMITH
AND THE EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE.
APRIL PUTNEY.
TREMENDOUS WORK.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK
YOU'VE DONE AND PATIENCE TO US
AND TO YOU THREE, THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
JEFF AND TRACY, FOR ALL YOUR
GOOD WORK.
AND I KNOW IT'S NOT BEEN EASY.
REALLY A VERY RESPECTFUL TEST.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AMY, THANK YOU FOR ORGANIZING
THINGS.
JODI, THANKS FOR BEING HERE
UNTIL 4:06 IN THE AFTERNOON.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>> THANKS.