Seattle Forward

Real Police Response Time Figures by Precinct

The Council’s public safety committee was briefed yesterday on police department response times to high priority 911 calls. It was refreshingly transparent and candid.

The briefing was prompted by an article in The Seattle Times on January 2 that contrasted SPD’s stated goal of responding within seven minutes to the highest priority 911 calls against the reality the Times analysis of response times revealed. (911 calls labeled Priority 1 involve incidents creating risk to life or serious injury, crimes in progress, officer or firefighter safety, and other emergency events.)

I remember attending many similar briefings over the past eight years and hearing police leadership repeat over and over again that they met the seven minute standard consistently and city-wide. Yesterday, we heard a very different report.

Unfortunately, the former leadership in SPD used a calculation methodology that arbitrarily and artificially lowered response time figures.* While this method allowed them to claim they were meeting their goal, it did not match what Seattle residents expected or experienced. Chief Kathy O’Toole and her leadership team acknowledged yesterday that the Times article prompted them to look more closely at the calculations and provide a more accurate assessment. Bravo to Chief O’Toole and her team.

Before sharing the new numbers, it’s important to keep several factors in mind.

Seattle’s Clean Water Supply

I’ve been reading about the city of Flint, Michigan, where local, state, and federal government agencies utterly failed to protect its population from lead in its water supply. When that city switched its water supply to the Flint River, it did not add to the water anti-corrosive chemicals that prevent lead in pipes from seeping into the water. As a result, the residents have been poisoned by their own water for nearly two years. It’s a horrible story.

Lead poisoning is not to be taken lightly. The Centers for Disease Control states that there is no safe blood lead level in children; the damage to development can be permanent.

Flint’s story led me to ask Seattle Public Utilities about our drinking water here in Seattle. Fortunately, we have a much better system in place to protect our water supply: We have protected watersheds that supply excellent source water. We have a state accredited lab that runs every day of the year, where chemists, microbiologists and limnologists (what is limnology?) analyze more than 20,000 samples and produce more than 150,000 test results annually. We have more than 150 sampling stations throughout Seattle and the Utility’s wholesale systems. We monitor for lead continuously and don’t have it in our source water.

The Utility’s latest water quality report is here. We are indeed blessed with an abundant and very clean city water supply.

But, individual users still could have water quality issues if the pipes between the city supply pipes and your faucet are bad. Older homes may also contain lead contamination from lead paint. If you are planning a remodel or a demolition of an older home, make sure you take steps to mitigate for lead exposure.

The Confusion Surrounding Encampments

Once again, our city is struggling with how to best respond to the very real crisis of unsheltered people living outdoors in unauthorized encampments. The “One Night Count” on January 29, an annual survey of the homeless population, is sure to further intensify the discussion as we wrestle with very conflicting opinions about what city government should or should not do to address this issue.

Some argue that living anywhere in a tent is a personal choice and a right. Even though it runs counter to all sorts of generally accepted policies, such as minimum standards of living for health and safety and zoning rules that separate residential areas from non-residential areas, this perspective is held by some. City government should firmly reject this perspective.

A more nuanced position—and more widely held—is that encampments must be accommodated as long as there is nowhere else for these individuals to live safely. While potentially attractive at first glance, this position must be considered alongside the very real public health and safety risks unauthorized encampments inherently create.

Maintaining the Rental Housing Market: Regulating Short Term Rentals

Left unchecked, there is concern that online rental platforms, like Airbnb and VRBO, just might provide enough financial incentives to cause homeowners to switch long-term rentals to short-term vacation rentals. The number of short-term rentals available through these platforms has been rapidly increasing and there are now spin-off businesses that make it easier for individuals to manage short-term rentals. At a time when we face a shortage of affordable rental housing, this issue deserves a closer look.

In the coming months, my City Council committee will explore a regulatory framework for short-term vacation rentals. This work aligns with the Council’s work plan issued in response to the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda recommendations.

On the other side of the coin, however, short-term rentals can boost incomes for those struggling with their own home payments. Airbnb, one of the major players in this arena, recently released data about their users and emphasized that the vast majority of their hosts live in the unit they rent; they either share their home or rent it while out of town themselves.

The City has a regulatory role to play here, with three potential policy goals as I see it:

1. Ensure a level playing field for individuals and companies in the short-term rental market.
2. Balance the economic opportunity created by short-term rentals with the need to maintain supply of long-term rental housing stock available at a range of prices.
3. Protect the rights and safety of owners, guests and neighbors of these units.

Sustainable Retirement Plan Saves Taxpayers $200 Million Over 30 Years

The City Council unanimously approved legislation yesterday afternoon that will lead to a new defined benefit retirement plan for City employees. The plan is expected to save the City $200 million over the next 30 years.

This new retirement plan is a win-win-win. We've managed to retain a defined benefit pension system, which will help attract top talent to City agencies. Employees will contribute less from their salary, which means more money in their pockets now. And, over time, the City will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

The retirement plan, called Seattle City Employees' Retirement System (SCERS) II, will be available for new employees hired on and after January 1, 2017. The new retirement system benefits better align with other public agencies in the Puget Sound region and were developed collaboratively with City labor unions.

Following the 2008 recession, the City’s retirement system faced financial challenges after experiencing a 26.8% loss. In 2011, a City Council-sponsored report defined the challenges facing the system and offered alternatives to ensure the future sustainability of the system.

The plan approved today is structured similarly to the current retirement plan, SCERS I, and will still provide an adequate retirement benefit to employees. Both employees and the City will contribute less to the program.  Currently the City and its employees contribute 15.8% of payroll to fund the benefits earned during the year.  In the new plan the contribution will drop to 11.9% of payroll.

We’re saving money, ensuring a healthy retirement system going forward, and providing competitive benefits for our employees. I'm grateful for the collaborative effort by the Mayor, Council and the City’s labor unions to reach this outcome.

2016 Inauguration Remarks

 

This week I was honored to be sworn in for a third term to the Seattle City Council. You can watch my speech here, or read my speech below:

 

Thank you, Joleen, Elisabeth and Katharine. I’d also like to recognize my son-in-law, Dahm Choi, who is with us this afternoon, and his father, Sang Choi, from Seoul, South Korea.

            I’m grateful to all of the voters of Seattle for electing me to my third term on the City Council. All of us up here are very fortunate. Our job is very rewarding, sometimes challenging, but all of us are honored to serve the people of Seattle.

            In a few minutes I will pass the responsibilities of being Council president to Councilmember Harrell. I know he will do a good job. Good luck, Bruce.

            My new primary committee assignment includes oversight of the city government’s finances, our neighborhood planning and outreach work and affordable housing. This last part of my portfolio is very important because later this year we will submit the Affordable Housing Levy to the voters for renewal and potentially a significant expansion.

Seattle voters in their wisdom always step up and invest in the future . . . we saw this last November with approval of the Move Seattle transportation levy and we saw it a year ago when our voters approved a permanent source of funding for our parks and open spaces and when they approved the Seattle Preschool Program.

            The Preschool Program is off to a great start—15 classrooms, one more than planned,  and 288 kids, eight more than anticipated. This program is especially important because we know that many of our children are being left behind. Tragically, many of Seattle’s kids enter Kindergarten already behind their peers and it will be nearly impossible for them to catch up. New research clearly shows that compared to other Western countries, the United States is leaving many of our children behind and this gap is persistent well into adulthood. The same is true here in our good city.

            In the coming weeks, we will start a conversation about what additional steps we can take to remedy this decades-long problem. Universal, high-quality preschool is a crucial first step, so are programs like the Nurse Family Partnership, but there are other evidence-based efforts we can implement as well. I’m looking forward to this important discussion.

So, to frame my approach to public policy, I will end with a Burgess haiku:

 

Always serve humbly

Do things that really matter

Focus most on the kids