Category: City Council

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson, Police

Seattle Nice Discusses Mayor Katie Wilson’s Track Record at Six Months

By Erica C. Barnett

On Seattle Nice this week, Sandeep, David, and I discussed the mayor’s track record at six months in, starting with her approach to encampment sweeps, which have continued at a steady clip through the new mayor’s tenure.

Some Wilson never promised to “stop the sweeps”—before she ran for mayor, we had her on the podcast to talk about a piece she wrote for the Stranger titled “Where the Left Went Wrong on Homelessness”—but she did say she would moderate the aggressive sweeps of the Harrell administration. Wilson also set an aspirational goal for new shelters (specifically, tiny house village units): 500 by the World Cup, 1,000 by the end of this year.

So far, the Wilson administration has fallen far short of that goal, and sweeps have continued apace. (Wilson has also embraced Purpose Dignity Action’s approach to encampment resolution, which involves longer-term outreach and shelter or housing options that are actually tailored to people’s needs, but that sort of solution is limited by funding and political will).

In an interview published in two parts on PubliCola last week, Wilson said it was important to keep “high-priority” areas like parks and sidewalks clear. Discussing her comments on the podcast, I said sounded an awful lot like the way her predecessor Bruce Harrell justified accelerating sweeps, saying it was important to keep parks and sidewalks open for their intended use.

Sandeep argued that Wilson is “charting a new path for the left” by reversing the “stop the sweeps” attitude that led the city to stop removing encampments during the pandemic. As I repeatedly interjected, the business-backed mayor at the time, Jenny Durkan, actually stopped sweeping encampments in response to guidance from the CDC during Trump’s first term, and the sweeps were quickly resumed once the immediate emergency was over. At no time was “the left” in control of the city’s sweeps team during those years.

Wilson has also faced headwinds that Harrell didn’t, including conflicts with the council—some self-inflicted, others a matter of ideological differences.

As we discussed, one of the items Wilson ticked off in her list of achievements—securing funding in the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise (FEPP) levy plan for universal school meals—was undermined the very day of our interview, when Council President Joy Hollingsworth and Councilmember proposed using the school-meal money to pay for vouchers for weekend and holiday lunches for low-income kids. The debate over whether children’s access to food at school should be means-tested or universal is still ongoing.

The upcoming budget will also be a test of both mayor-council relations and Wilson’s ability to get her priorities through the legislative process. We discussed the challenges the mayor will face while navigating likely spending cuts (Harrell, who was running for reelection when he drafted his final head-in-the-sand budget, knowingly left Wilson with a starting deficit of $140 million, which has risen to around $175 million), including council members who oppose any slowdown in SPD hiring.

During our interview, Wilson said she’s retaining Police Chief Shon Barnes. But I heard an unspoken “for now.” Sandeep, citing unnamed sources “in her orbit,” says I’m wrong. Who’s right? I’m sure we’ll talk about that more on a future episode!

Affordability, City Council, housing, Mayor Wilson, Police, Taxes

Mayor Katie Wilson Says She’s “Doing a Reset” on Housing Agenda, “Very Hopeful” About Police Chief

In Part 2 of our interview, the mayor talks about the police chief and potential cuts to SPD’s budget, the future of the city’s CARE alternative first responder team, and what’s happening with her affordability agenda.

By Erica C. Barnett

PubliCola sat down this week with Mayor Katie Wilson to talk about how her agenda is going at six months in. This is Part 2 of our interview, which took place at City Hall on Tuesday morning. Read Part 1 here.

PubliCola (ECB):  Let’s shift gears to SPD. You decided to keep Police Chief Shon Barnes when you came in. You said you’re going to evaluate his performance and decide how to proceed. Have you made any progress on that evaluation?

Mayor Katie Wilson (KW): I am very hopeful about the relationship that Chief Barnes and I are building, and the work that we’re doing with Chief Barnes and SPD, especially around neighborhood of policing models.

ECB: So are you planning to keep him on as chief?

KW: I’m not making an announcement right now. [Pauses]. Yes, I’m retaining Chief Barnes, and we’re working on a number of things.

ECB: Are you concerned by any of the stuff that has come out on PubliCola and elsewhere about anti-LGBTQ statements and actions by Barnes, his deputies, and SPD officers, and the culture of SPD in general?

KW: Absolutely. And that’s one of the things that we’re working on. I think obviously SPD is a complicated department with a complicated history, and I also don’t think that leadership change changes that. So there’s really deep work that needs to happen within the department, and I’m confident that through a partnership with Chief Barnes, we can make some progress.

ECB: Barnes has said a few times now that he plans to keep hiring at the same pace even though the department’s own budget director said SPD will have to slow down hiring to stay within the budget. Councilmember Bob Kettle has said the same thing. At the same time, I’ve heard that you asked SPD to come up with $20 million in cuts. What would that level of cut look like, and what will you do if the police chief disagrees and keeps hiring?

KW: I’m the mayor. This is ultimately direction that’s coming from my office. We have not directed SPD to slow hiring at this point, and we are working with them very closely with the aim of making sure that they remain within their budget for this year,

ECB: And will there be budget cuts to SPD next year?

KW: We have asked all departments, including SPD, to model cuts, and we’re in that deliberative budget process. There are many things, many variables, but we have asked all departments to model cuts, anticipating that all departments will need to take some kind of cut.

ECB: If you propose an actual cut, conservative media like KOMO are going to scream that you’re defunding the police. How likely is it that we’ll actually see cuts to the police budget?

KW: That’s not just up to me, that’s also up to the council. Big picture, we’re in a very challenging budget situation, where we’re facing a shortfall of $175 million. Plus, JumpStart [tax] revenues are certainly not increasing significantly. And so we’ll have to make some hard decisions across the board.

“It is an option to dig deeper into JumpStart, which means basically cuts to affordable housing. Capital gains tax is an option, but it’s not something where we would see revenue in the short term.  Obviously, raising JumpStart is also an option. We’re still working on other progressive revenue ideas, but we don’t have a silver bullet.”

ECB: Your fire district proposal would have really helped with the budget. Obviously, it’s not happening. So, what else is left? Raiding JumpStart even more?

KW: I mean, yes, it is an option to dig deeper into JumpStart, which means basically cuts to affordable housing. Capital gains tax is an option, but it’s not something where we would see revenue in the short term. It might take a couple years to get that up and running, so that doesn’t [help with] next year’s budget. Obviously, raising JumpStart is also an option. We’re still working on other progressive revenue ideas, but we don’t have a silver bullet.

For me, the bottom line is, we are going to be trying to preserve programs and services that directly serve Seattle residents, that contribute to a city that’s affordable and livable, and support our most vulnerable communities. So there’s definitely values guiding where we might choose to cut. And we’re also in the process now of talking with each council member to understand what their priorities are, the things that they would absolutely want to be preserved, so that we can try to transmit a budget where they see their priorities represented.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

ECB: What’s going to happen to the CARE Team [whose authority was sharply curtailed in the last police contract]? Do you see a way forward for them?

KW: Obviously there are constraints in the police contract, but we’ve been working with the CARE Team and with SPD, and there’s plenty of work out there. There’s plenty of people in crisis, so it’s really a matter of how do we get the CARE team to a place where they’re serving people in crisis. And I think there’s a lot of opportunities to do that, that may be in some cases outside of the 911 dispatch system. So we’re working on making sure that we’re fully utilizing that team.

ECB: CARE is integrated into the 911 dispatch system [911 is known as the CARE Department]—what would it mean to take them out of that system?

KW: I haven’t heard like the latest on what that looks like, but I know that we’ve been working with them and SPD, to try to make sure that they’re not sitting idle.

ECB: If you talk to [CARE Department Chief] Amy Barden, she would say, ‘We’re supposed to be a co-equal department with the fire and police departments, and we can’t go into parking lots‘ [because of the contract].

KW: Yeah, I’m, very, very aware.

ECB: You’ve announced legislation that would ban rental junk fees, and you decided not to move forward with proposals to change the three-day notice requirement for evictions and overturn the roommate law. You’ve also delayed changes to the Mandatory Housing Affordability program that developers say they need to move housing projects forward. The comprehensive plan update is delayed by a lawsuit, which is outside your control. Is there anything else moving forward on affordability this year?

KW: There’s so many pieces to housing. I ran on affordable and abundant housing, and the things that you need to do to advance it are legion. I think what I realized is that for a lot of constituencies on the outside, they want to see more of a vision on housing, and when we’re moving forward with just one piece, then people look at that and they’re like, ‘Oh, that’s your vision on housing, but what about this, what about this, what about this?’ And it kind of accentuates that feeling of, ‘Why weren’t we brought in?’

“In this very difficult budget process, I think the fight is going to be over how to retain funding for existing food security programs at the city. There was a lot that was added in the last budget cycle as one-time, like the expansion of Fresh Bucks, so we are going to have to figure out in this budget how to maintain those.”

So I think what we’re trying to do here is a little bit of a reset, where we can set a table, bring people in, and look at what is it going to take to accelerate housing, from the private market all the way to affordable housing and permanent support housing. Including people’s concerns about displacement, which are totally valid. We’re going to keep it a tight process, but what I’m hoping will come out of that is a little bit more of, ‘Here’s our work plan on housing for the next four years.’ And so that is a process that we’re about to embark on that I think will give us a more coherent vision for housing affordability.

When I think about affordability, housing is core, obviously, but food is a big part of this. Free preschool lunches—I think that’s a really impactful investment that we’re making. Honestly, in this very difficult budget process, I think the fight is going to be over how to retain funding for existing food security programs at the city. There was a lot that was added in the last budget cycle as one-time, like the expansion of Fresh Bucks, so we are going to have to figure out in this budget how to maintain those.

Obviously, the FEPP levy implementation included significant expansions of subsidized child care and preschool program that are certainly affordability investments. I think there’s a larger conversation around child care, which is also not just about subsidy, but also about the supply side, and what it takes to open and operate childcare. We’re working with the business community on what they’re doing to facilitate childcare. That’s a conversation that I think we’re going to be teeing up before the end of the year, but it’s not going to result in policy before the end of the year.

ECB The best thing about the World Cup for me, and I think for a lot of people, has been being able to just walk around in Pioneer Square without cars, and there’s food trucks and there’s excitement and there’s people, and it’s just a vibe. So have you given any thought to taking some of the lessons from that experience, like pedestrianizing the streets, or allowing food trucks, or any of the other things that have made downtown an exciting place to be over these past few weeks?

KW: I think that the last few weeks in Seattle have been amazing, and people are discovering their city anew, and we’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how do we keep that momentum going, how do we do more of this? Obviously, I’m a big fan of pedestrianizing spaces, and I think that the vitality of our city depends on having of people-centered spaces where people can go and hang out and go to restaurants and all that. So yeah, we’re thinking about how we can carry that forward, and I don’t have any specific plans to announce right now, but we’re working on that.

City Council, education, Mayor Wilson

Council Proposal Would Delay Universal School Lunch Program, Fund Means-Tested Food Vouchers Instead
Hanan Sherka, a youth and community organizing coordinator at the food-justice nonprofit FEEST. Seattle Channel screenshot

By Erica C. Barnett

When I spoke to Mayor Katie Wilson on Tuesday, one of the key accomplishments she name-checked was her proposal to provide universal free meals for all students at Seattle Public Schools, which she announced—alongside SPS superintendent Ben Shuldiner—two months ago. Part of Wilson’s Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) levy implementation plan, the program would cost about $3 million a year and would eliminate the stigma of the current free-meal program while establishing food as a basic right for Seattle schoolchildren. (Voters passed the FEPP levy last year.)

Later that same day, City Council President Joy Hollingsworth threw this achievement into question, proposing an amendment (co-sponsored by Councilmember Dionne Foster) that would eliminate funding for free school breakfasts and lunches for at least the first year of the levy to fund a new, means-tested vouchers for low-income kids to get meals during holiday breaks during the school year and on weekends. That program would cost $500,000 year, funded by spreading the $3 million one-year cost for universal meals over the six-year levy term.

Like Wilson’s original plan, Hollingsworth’s proposal assumes the statewide millionaire’s tax will pay for universal school meals after the 2027-2028 school year.

In a statement to PubliCola, Wilson said, “I included universal school meals as a core priority in the FEPP Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan because no child should be expected to learn while hungry. This is a basic human need that reflects a core value of the people in this city. K-12 education is free and universal and the basic nutrition you need to be ready to learn should be free and universal too.

“We estimate that families will save roughly $1,200 per year through this program,” Wilson continued. “Students and families at schools that don’t currently offer universal school meals are counting on us to deliver this for them this school year.”

At a FEPP Committee meeting on Wednesday, Hollingsworth said her amendment was a matter of racial justice for Southeast Seattle, where food insecurity is highest in the city and where there is only one food bank that receives state and federal funding for emergency food assistance.

“I wanted to put this out here for conversation, for us to have a really, really intentional conversation about equity,” Hollingsworth said.

Foster, likewise, argued that feeding the poorest kids should take priority over providing meals to all kids, including those who wouldn’t qualify for free or reduced-price meals under the current means-tested program.

“I am so committed to making sure that our kids, our babies, our students aren’t going hungry in our city, and I think what we are trying to put forward in this amendment is a question and conversation about what is the right way to approach that,” Foster added.

“It’s not about the concept of gutting universal free school lunch. It’s about, we have low-income kids, kids who are qualified for free and reduced lunch … who are also going hungry during school breaks, during week during weekends.”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Public commenters who spoke to the amendment were overwhelmingly opposed to the tradeoff Hollingsworth and Foster are proposing, arguing that requiring parents to prove they’re poor enough to qualify for food vouchers would perpetuate the stigma that surrounds poverty. The voucher proposal, several noted, would exclude kids whose families are just above the income cutoff—less than $60,000 for a family of four—and those who don’t fill out the paperwork to prove they qualify.

“Even if all students who qualify were to apply and use the program, a family of four or two adults are working full time, making just minimum wage would not qualify for free or reduced lunch,” said Hanan Sherka, a youth and community organizing coordinator at the food-justice nonprofit FEEST. Quoting a student at Chief Sealth High School, Sherka continued, “‘Need is defined very narrowly, and universal school lunch would unburden many families who don’t qualify, but are still struggling financially in the current economic climate.'”

Lilliane Ballesteros, the executive director of Latino Community Fund of Washington State, told the council that means-tested programs create barriers to participation, and “we see that when barriers are set up, families suffer. When families face administrative barriers, they do not access the food and resources they need, and students do not thrive.”

Wednesday’s meeting was the first opportunity for councilmembers to explain their proposed changes to Wilson’s proposed implementation plan; the 11 council amendments just became public late Tuesday afternoon.

Rob Saka was the only councilmember to sound a note of alarm about the food-voucher proposal. Saka said that while what Hollingsworth and Foster are ” trying to do here is is expand the pie … I’m just concerned about the potential delay [to universal meals], and what that portends for affordability, what that portends for stigma, social stigma for students, [and] what that portends for the long-term educational readiness of our future workforce.”

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson, Media

Mayor Katie Wilson at Six Months In: “Incredibly Proud of What We’re Accomplishing”

The mayor talks about her shelter plan, encampment sweeps, why news vouchers aren’t happening this year, and more.

By Erica C. Barnett

PubliCola sat down this week with Mayor Katie Wilson to talk about how her agenda is going at six months in, what she’s learned from the setbacks and conflicts she’s encountered (like early, still-reverberating missteps with the city council), and how she plans to deal with this year’s $175 million budget deficit. Will the city’s shelter expansion continue? Will Wilson propose cutting the police budget? Can the schism between the mayor and the city council be repaired? We discussed all of that and much more on Tuesday morning in Wilson’s office at City Hall.

This is Part 1 of our interview; look for Part 2 later today.

PubliCola (ECB): I want to start with a big-picture question: You’re a little over six months in. What’s the most surprising challenge that you’ve encountered so far?

Mayor Katie Wilson (KW): I hate questions like this!

ECB: I’m not giving you a ‘Rate yourself from A to F’ question! It’s your first time in elected office—I just want to know what has surprised you so far.

KW: I’m not sure how surprising this is, but one thing that I’ve been reflecting on is just the tension—and I think that this is a tension which is maybe unique to people coming in with an ambitious progressive left agenda— the tension between wanting to get things done fast, wanting to get results, wanting to cut through the Seattle process, and people and organizations and communities that are like, ‘wait, wait, ask me.’ It’s not surprising in retrospect, but I just didn’t have a lot of time to think about it coming in. It was more like, ‘Okay, we’re here, what can we do?’

ECB: There was some tension with the city council, obviously, early on, like after things kind of hit a wall on your shelter legislation. Have you recalibrated at all?

KW: Well, I wouldn’t say we hit a wall on the shelter stuff at all.

ECB: I’m talking specifically about the conflict with the council—

KW: I mean, we’ve moved on since then, and we got our three pieces of legislation through, right?

ECB: I’m curious if there’s anything that you learned from that experience.

KW: Well, I certainly think that coming in, setting up a new mayoral administration, you’re bringing in 40-some people, assembling a new office, figuring out how to organize yourselves, and so we definitely were slow to staff and figure out our council relations. And so that that was a learning process. We definitely made some missteps, and in retrospect, should have put a lot more focus on that at the outset—[figuring out] what we needed to do in order to build a really good relationship with each council office.

Some of the shelter thing, I think, was that tension between ‘we need this stuff to happen, so let’s just send it down,’ the urgency of trying to start standing up shelter, and not having an entirely thorough understanding—or more, just not having had time to establish our council relations strategy in a really good way. So I think, in retrospect, we did that poorly, and certainly we’re learning from that and trying to try and do better.

“It’s a tension within myself, as someone who’s coming in from an organizing background, wanting to shake things up and get things done. But also, in order to do that in a way that works and that’s sustainable, you actually need to know how the city works. You need to not burn things down in a bad way.”

ECB: Without getting too philosophical, do you think that some of the growing pains—I can feel you getting ready to disagree with the term ‘growing pains,’ but I think there have been growing pains—

KW: I’m not gonna argue that term. I mean, look, I’ve never been the mayor before, and I think anyone coming into this job, even having been an elected official, even having had previous experience as the executive director of an organization, there’s gonna be a steep learning curve. There’s nothing like being the mayor of a major city—just the pace and the number of things coming at you.

ECB: There seems to be a tension between people in your administration who are government veterans, who are like, ‘This is how the process works, and this is what you do, and this is how you compromise in advance so you can get things through’—and then people who worked on your campaign, who are saying ‘We were elected to do these things, we need to do them fast. How is that tension playing out, and is it causing problems?

KW: There is a tension, and I think it’s a productive tension and an inevitable tension. And it’s a tension within myself, as someone who’s coming in from an organizing background, wanting to shake things up and get things done. But also, in order to do that in a way that works and that’s sustainable, you actually need to know how the city works. You need to not burn things down in a bad way. And so, yeah, that tension exists within my office, and I think that’s healthy, and that’s I think why ultimately we’re going to be successful.

And I’m really proud of the things that we’ve accomplished in these first six months. We’ve had a lot of headwinds. We came in with ICE scares, and we had to stand up our federal response work really fast. We moved $4 million out to the community. We had to immediately figure out the library levy and transmit that to council. Our [Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise levy] implementation got free school meals, which was not easy. (After our interview on Tuesday, City Council President Joy Hollingsworth introduced an amendment to the that would delay universal free meals and use the funding instead on vouchers for kids from low-income families to get meals on weekends and holidays during the school year).

We got the Graham Street Station to affordability on Sound Transit. We’ve transmitted a Seattle Transit Measure package that will expand transit at a time when many jurisdictions in the country are pulling back on public transit, when gas is many dollars a gallon. We’re painting bus lanes on Denny. We got our rapid shelter expansion work off the ground. We’ve opened with one big new shelter, which has been key to the success of the Pioneer Square efforts that [Purpose Dignity Action] and others have led [during the World Cup]. And we have a number of additional shelters that are going to be opening up in over the course of the rest of this year.  Obviously, we’ve had to deal with the KCRHA and everything going on there. We launched Taller, Denser, Faster. We transmitted [rental] junk fee legislation, and you know what, we’re the most successful World Cup host city in America.

We are learning a lot, and obviously, there are things that, in hindsight, we could have done better, and are going to do better moving forward, but I’m incredibly proud of what we’re accomplishing.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

ECB: News vouchers [a funding mechanism for local news] are being pushed to next year. Can you tell me why?

KW: I am very, very excited to advance these vouchers, or News Notes. [But] we are looking ahead to a very challenging budget cycle. And we needed more time and attention to work on the policy than we thought we were going to be able to carve out in the next few months, because a lot of energy right now is going into figuring out the budget.

We need to figure out how to fund it, and there’s obviously a few different ways we can do that. We could send a small levy to the ballot, or we could try to find funding within the existing city budget. We couldn’t have gotten the policy ready in time to put a measure on the ballot this November, even if we wanted to, and it also seems like a hard narrative when you’re in the middle of cutting lots of things. So we’ll get there, but it just wasn’t in the cards [this year].

“Politically, to be like ‘We are stopping all sweeps until we have the shelter—the backlash that that would cause both among constituents and among most of my council colleagues would be such that I think we would lose the ability to actually do our shelter work.”

 ECB: You’ve taken some heat in the press for not hitting your goal of 500 new shelter beds by the World Cup. What have some of the unanticipated roadblocks been? I know that you said that goal is aspirational, but we’re at 165 or so in July.

KW: I don’t want to project exactly where we’re going to be by the end of this year, but we’re chugging away. I think there’s a question of, does it make sense to have a big number goal that then you don’t meet, and then people are like, ‘Oh, you failed.’ But we’ve already opened many times the net shelter that the last administration opened in four years.

Putting that goal out there did really give us something to focus toward, and I can see the immense amount of work that has gone on with our interdepartmental team, and all the city departments—they got together and they just hashed it out, like, ‘how do we make this happen faster, how do we make this happen more efficiently?’ And then we were able to rally not just our service provider partners, but philanthropic contributions, and so that part of it has been such a success.

We know what works. People who are really hard to serve, we can get them inside with support, and that new shelter that we opened was instrumental to the success of [the PDA’s Pioneer Square] project, and so now we’re thinking about, how do we replicate this.

ECB: The Unified Care Team, by all accounts, is doing at least as many encampment sweeps with no notice as they ever have—maybe more. I don’t think you came in wanting to be the sweeps mayor, but in some ways you are. What would you say to supporters who are disappointed that you’re still sweeping people without offering shelter and services?

KW:  I think we’re trying to strike a balance here, where the situation you’re trying to get to is one where we have shelter, we have housing, where we’re able to resolve encampments by getting people into that shelter and housing, and that is what opening up these new shelters is going to allow us to do at a much larger scale. And it is important—and I said this during the campaign—that we are maintaining high-priority public spaces for their intended uses, whether that’s a park or a sidewalk.

So there’s that answer, and then there’s also a political answer of doing this in a way that builds political will to do more. Leaving aside the question of the impacts of an encampment removal or sweep versus leaving an encampment there, leaving aside the question of how that affects people’s lives—politically, to be like ‘We are stopping all sweeps until we have the shelter, the backlash that that would cause both among constituents and among most of my council colleagues would be such that I think we would lose the ability to actually do our shelter work.

We are actively working on improving the operations of the UCT in order to get better outcomes for people living in encampments. Months ago, I asked the UCT to come up with recommendations from their experience of how they could operate differently to get better outcomes, and we’re working through those recommendations now. So we are planning to make some changes to how the UCT operates, especially as we start opening up new shelter, to try to shift that model.

ECB: I know a lot of decisions about KCRHA are in the future, so here’s a short term question about something you do have control over over. Should Kelly Kennison continue to be the leader of KCRHA??

KW: I think stability is really important. We’ve taken the steps outlined in the press conference to embed outside financial consultants, and we’re really looking at what do we need to do to make the strongest possible application for [federal Continuum of Care funds, and I think continuity of leadership is really important.

City Council, Density, homelessness, Mayor Wilson, Media

This Week on PubliCola: July 4, 2026
KCRHA CEO Kelly Kinnison

KCRHA contracts yanked, opponents rail against plan to eliminate one avenue for challenging density, news vouchers pushed back a year, and much more.

Monday, June 29

KCRHA Spins the News that Homelessness Is Growing

At a meeting of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority’s governing board, KCRHA leaders put a positive spin on the news that more people are homeless in the region than ever, noting that the overall rate of increase has slowed. As we discussed on the Seattle Nice podcast, however, unsheltered homelessness grew substantially, making Seattle an outlier among US cities.

Tuesday, June 30

News Vouchers Delayed Until 2027

Mayor Katie Wilson’s office confirmed this week that a planned ballot measure to fund local, independent journalism has been delayed a year; initially, the mayor’s office had planned to introduce a proposal this summer.

Stranger’s Editor Out

The Stranger’s editor, Hannah Murphy Winter, was fired this week after two years on the job. The timing—one day before the paper released its primary election endorsements—sparked speculation, but the decision seemed to be unrelated to the endorsements.

Ex-Cop Fired for Punching Handcuffed Woman Involved in Fracas at Pride

Adley Shepherd, a former SPD officer who was fired after punching a woman who was handcuffed in the back of his police car, was apparently providing security for a street preacher at a Pride event when a melee erupted, ending when someone restrained Shepherd to break up the brawl. Shepherd appears to have been standing on someone’s wheelchair, ignoring people who asked him to let the person move.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Wednesday, July 1

Regional Homelessness Agency “Right-Sizing” Will Largely Restore Pre-KCRHA Status Quo

King County Executive Girmay Zahilay and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson announced they’ll transfer the region’s homelessness contracts back to the city and county, effectively ending the King County Regional Homelessness Authority as it has existed for the past five years. Although both demurred when asked if the authority was a failure, KCRHA CEO Kelly Kinnison told reporters, “As it was launched, [KCRHA] is a failed experiment.”

Thursday, July 2

“Ballard is an Environmental Disaster”: Opponents Rail Against Plan to Eliminate One Avenue for Land Use Appeals

A public hearing on a proposal to eliminate one of several avenues for appealing city land use decisions drew the usual crowd of opponents, who argued that allowing more housing for renters in Seattle would kill orcas, “clear-cut” the city, and lead to dangerous urban heat islands. They also testified against planting new trees, arguing that saplings do nothing compared to existing trees.

Friday, July 4

Proposal to Temporarily Cut Fees on New Housing Is Dead (For Now)

In an 11th-hour decision, Mayor Katie Wilson decided not to propose legislation that would temporarily reduce fees on new market-rate housing that help fund affordable housing projects, saying the proposal needed more process. Housing development has fallen off a cliff in the last year, and developers asked for a two-year, 80 percent discount on the fees so that projects that are currently in limbo could move forward.

Council Amendments Would Slash Transit Funding Plan, Subject Measure to Annual Council Vote

The city council has its hands on Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposal to increase the sales tax that funds additional King County Metro bus service in Seattle, and some councilmembers are asking for major changes. Bob Kettle wants to cut the tax to a level that will require cuts to service, and Rob Saka wants to divert funding for service hours to transit police and security officers on buses.

Also this week: On the latest episode of Seattle Nice, posted today, we discussed the big KCRHA news and what it means for the future of the region’s homelessness system, and the arguments for and against giving developers a break on affordable housing fees.

 

City Council, Mayor Wilson, Transit

Council Amendments Would Slash Transit Funding Plan, Subject Measure to Annual Council Vote
Image by Atomic Taco, via Creative Commons

Other amendments would allow the city to divert funding from additional King County Metro bus service to transit security and introduce new levels of micromanagement to the transit funding measure.

By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmembers Rob Saka and Bob Kettle want to heavily amend Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposed renewal of the Seattle Transit Measure—a sales tax that funds extra Metro transit service in Seattle—by cutting it to a level that would require cuts to existing service and lowering the term of the tax from 10 years to a baffling 6.75.

Kettle’s proposal would be the most dramatic change: He wants to reduce the proposed sales tax from 0.3 percent to 0.2 percent—an amount that would result in cuts to service compared to the levels the tax previously funded. Currently, the tax is 0.15 percent, which was enough to preserve existing bus service back in 2020. Because the cost to provide service has increased over the last six years, a 0.2 percent tax would require cuts to service, while a 0.3 percent tax would increase bus service by about 140,000 hours a year.

Or, rather, it could increase service by that much. Because in addition to Kettle’s proposal to cut the tax, Saka and other council members are offering amendments that would carve out part of the money for pet priorities, including many that are not the city’s responsibility or part of the original intent of the service enhancement levy.

Saka came into the amendment process having already won a bizarrely picayune battle that threatened to upend the legislation before it was introduced. During discussions with the mayor’s office, Saka, who heads up the Seattle Transportation Benefit District committee, told the mayor’s office he wouldn’t take up the legislation in his committee unless he got a $5 million annual earmark (up from the $3.5 million in the mayor’s original plan) for capital improvements that enhance bus service, like curb cuts.

Saka later boasted from the council dais that Wilson had agreed to this concession. But that didn’t stop him from proposing five new amendments, including one that could divert transit funding into more King County sheriff’s deputies and private security officers on Metro’s buses, which centrist Seattle leaders continue to insist are unsafe. His amendment would add transit security to the list of items the transit measure can fund, without any specific limits on how much could be diverted from service hours to security.

Many other proposed council amendments are attempts to micromanage Metro—which is, again, run by a completely separate and independent government—by dictating specific details of its service or requesting reports on council members’ pet priorities.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

For example, one Saka amendment would require King County to report on fare compliance, fare recovery ratios, the extent to which service was delivered “consistently and predictably,” and “On-time performance across service hours and routes served.”

The city does not have the authority to require King County Metro to produce reports—because, again, the county is completely separate from the city. But Saka’s amendment would attempt to force Metro’s hand by making the transit measure subject to annual approval, based on these reports, by the city council—a novel overreach designed to hold funding for the county’s bus system hostage to the Seattle City Council’s will.

Saka is also behind the amendment that would change the length of the tax measure from 10 years to 6 years and 9 months, with an expiration date of December 31, 2033. No other current city tax has a term that includes a partial year.

Other amendments—from Kettle and Maritza Rivera—would request reports from the Seattle Department of Transportation, “in partnership with King County Metro,” on “opportunities to expand” the use of shuttle buses rather than real buses during off-peak hours (Kettle); the feasibility of increasing the space between bus stops (Kettle again), the “performance outcomes” and feasibility of expanding service on two northeast Seattle bus routes, the 62 and 65 (Rivera), and more.

While Metro already compiles lots of information on ridership, reliability, and bus stop efficiency already, this level of micro-reporting has never been part of the Seattle transit measure.

The transit benefit district committee will meet to discuss the proposed amendments on Monday, July 6 at 11am.