A MOTION relating to identifying the future allocation of Puget Sound Taxpayers Accountability Account proceeds to priority educational areas and requesting the executive to develop plans to allocate proceeds within the priority educational areas.
See, no one else to offer public comment will close the public hearing. And that leaves us with one item on today's agenda. That's Motion 2019 245. This is the Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Act, which, as you know, directs $318 million to King County over the next 15 years due to spent on the educational needs of students in and youth in King County. I want to highlight the population that we are seeking to support and in fact are clear in the legislation before us today, in our previous work about who we intend, the past funds to support that would be children and youth of color, children and youth from families at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Children and youth who are homeless in the in the foster care system, in the child welfare system, are involved in the juvenile justice system. Children and youth with disabilities. Children and youth who identify as LGBTQ or otherwise vulnerable. Children and youth. Those populations have really been at the focus of our work and our analysis over the last two years, where we've held over a dozen committee and council meetings, 21 public listening sessions with over 650 public participants, and had more one on one conversations than I think any one of us could count. It's truly a significant body of work, and today is the point where we'll be fully engaging and taking up legislation to bring all of that input together. I've shared a Stryker with my colleagues last week striking an amendment, S-1, that I proposed as a place to form and begin our conversations and. I could. Let me not go. Let me stop there only to introduce Jeff Mumm, our chief policy or to policy officer, to speak to S-1. And also let me introduce the concept of striking amendment as to since S-1 was released on Thursday, there are primarily some technical and grammatical and some clarifying of intent has been needed. And so that is shaped in as to there's no intent to have a policy change in as to. But I'll ask Jeff to present on particularly as to and the other amendments before us. Mr.. Ma'am. Great afternoon. Chair. Jeff, Ma'am. Council Staff And so yet, as you said today, only briefing the committee on the strike, an amendment as to which is substantially the same as the amendment that that you shared with your colleagues on Thursday. And as I go to the briefing where there are changes, I will I will call those out and explain them so that we're all on the same page. So the staff report begins on page seven of your packet, but I think we can probably skip to page nine. The pages prior to that are all the background information that you've already been briefed on. So on page nine, we can start with the with the analysis. And as you'll recall, the committee was briefed on the Interline Motion, which set out three educational areas for to provide future positive proceeds to those being early learning K-12 and higher education. But that that motion left these allocation percentages blank. It also called out the target populations, which you just described. And then it also asked for the executive to come up with an implementation plan that includes things such as governance, structure, financial plan, policies around facilities and evaluations. So the striking amendment makes changes to the underlying motion. And first it adds in and clarifies as more specific needs of the targeted populations. Specifically, it calls out. It also adds children or youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered to the target populations. And then it also refines the definition of low income to mean kids in families that have incomes below 200 200% of the federal poverty level. And so a family of four, that's about $50,000. Next, the striking amendment allocates future pots of resources, and at first that it allows up to 10% of the funds to be used for evaluation administration. Mr. Mom, for clarity, I'm you're addressing striking the amendment as to. That's correct. As I go I mean they're very similar in as were there are differences I will specifically call those out and hopefully that's a smooth and that's confusing way of doing things if if you want to follow along at home and if you look at the piece, if you look at the chart on page 11, this shows how the striking amendment allocates the funds. So you'll see that first there's the up to 10% allocation for evaluation, administration and technical support, and then it allocates 55% of the remaining funds to early learning programs and facilities. And included in that is facilities for early interventions. Now, of this of these dollars, the the the striking amendments, they they specify that for effort for facility. If you're just use it to build an early learning facility those facilities have to serve a population that is at least 70% made up of kids of from low income families . Of that 200 families that are at or below that 200% federal poverty level and also says that these facilities should be in access deserts, which is a term that the amendments ask the executive to more precisely find later on in the motion. And if we can interrupt. Councilmember Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Jeff. On the 70%, what was that on this staff report? I'm not seeing that number. Oh. Page ten. Yes. The chart just simply is a. Shows the allocations and then the definitions are in the stack. So how would it do that? My question on the 70% is that would use the support facilities that are comprised of at least 70% of children from families with income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. So how would we determine and or and or force that? What are the practical implications of that? I understand generally we want to aim these funds towards some communities or families or children. Narrowing it down so that who can't otherwise afford it. So how do we how do we do that? Why are we picking 70% as opposed to some other number? I have some concerns about the rigidity of that with respect to the long term share nature of these dollars and making sure that they're we're not putting unnecessary barriers to deploying these facilities and services in communities that really need it. So the motion says to the extent possible, and then do this, and then it asks the executive that come up with the way to figure this out. So it's not simply individual. But individual pre-K facility have to have 70% of its enrollees at or below 200%. Is that the intent of. That's the desire? Yes, I see. Okay. I need to share with my colleagues then that some of the feedback I've heard about that is a question about whether that works in the marketplace. With respect to having enough, I'll call the market rate children who are paying close to full tuition make it work economically. So I would want to have some more dialog with the community about whether that is practical. I share the goal of prioritizing these resources to the children and communities that need them most from an economic disadvantage perspective. But the specificity of that gets my attention. Councilmember Debusk If I can add in striking the amendment as to line 69, it does say to the greatest extent possible. And then later when we address the implementation plan, it asks as to be returned as part of the implementation plan. Thoughts on how to do more specific proposals on how to ensure that children are being served by those facilities are the target populations and at what balance. I see, that's helpful. And can somebody help me understand the choosing of the 70% numbers that in some of our client and some of our consultants recommendations or. Councilmember up the Grove? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm one of those who have been pushing for as strong of language as we can, because I have some concerns that this is that that it will not be targeted as effectively at our target to be focused as effectively in our target population. And quite frankly, I got the 70% recommendation. I was recommending 70% in part because of some communication I had received from the coalition saying they serve 50 to 70%. So it's and then the language here is soft enough that my desire is to push, I guess, into if we have multiple opportunities to invest, to prioritize those that best serve our targeted population. Would be the goal. But I so I. Might have been responsible for the magic 70 figure and it came from a rough the high end of a rough range that came from a representative, the coalition. They were not advocating for that, but that's where that number at least came from. If I might, I want to express publicly that I share your objective there and just want to make sure that we're not unnecessarily tying our hands or putting barriers by choosing that number. So I would be happy to engage and work on that. If there's some way with that, with the community that's focused on this part of the puzzle, if there is a way to achieve that objective effectively. One more question, Mr. Martin, before you continue. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. When you were talking about who this applies to. You didn't mention faster kids. But at the bottom of page nine, it lists all of them. So did you just leave that out or did you mean by to a page? And I'm still unclear. I just made a mistake. You know, you can make mistakes, but make sure that's okay. And then you said access deserts. So are you talking about this having a county wide impact or just where there are access deserts or access deserts having the priority? So the the way the motion is structured, it would say that we put these facilities in access deserts and then it then later on in the plantation plan and asks the executive to come up with them and to work with them, be working at all sorts of take all this, but to come up with the definition for access desert. So I think the idea is to put the facilities and the places of the highest need. But the motion then. Sort of. It doesn't define it and is asked for that definition to be developed later. So I would suggest that there are kids all across this county who have high needs and to to discriminate, that there would be places in this county that wouldn't even be eligible is probably not that appropriate. Thank you. In, Mr. Mom, I misspoke, but I'm sure not for the last time today. Another question, this one from Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff, back to the 70 or at least 70% and with regard to the supporting facilities, is that about the percentage that would like be the maximum without including private paid families? Because my understanding has traditionally has been that there has to be a certain amount of private paid facilities that those who can afford the full cost in order to make the center survive financially. I don't know the answer to that question. I can look into it further. I can tell you that the consultant in the report that the council commissioned from Ken Thompson in the financial analysis, it contemplated facilities that were more of a 6040 split or 60% of low income and then and then 40% at market rate. But I don't know where between 67, where that where that threshold is. But I can give as much information for you as possible. Thank you. And maybe you addressed that already. I stepped out to talk with staff for a moment. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. If my memory serves me right, in one of the reports that we got from that gentleman that was doing the studies, it talked about that. But I thought he gave us a range of what was viable. And I don't remember the range, but I think it was like 50 to 70% needing could be market rate. So you might want to look there to some extent. Yeah, I'll call Ken and I will call Ken the consultant. And that's when Mr. Mumm. Mr. Chair. Let's see. So we're still in the early learning bucket and just wanted to ask and you need to also call out that within the and that's the striking amendment. It sets aside 20, 20% of these funds to be for in-home care providers. And facilities there. Okay. Now, moving on to the the remaining funds of the remaining 45% of the funds. These would go to support services in K through 12 and higher education and 40% would go to K through 12 age kids through the King County promise. And this is one of the differences between S1 and S to S two makes it clear that these funds need to go through the King County promise. It was unclear under S1, but this clarifies and then also that groups that that apply for these funds also have to bring matching contributions. The same goes for the higher ed, the 40% that's allocated to higher ed and that this this as to have that going through the King County promise and then also makes a requirement for matching funds in the remaining funds which is the 20% of the of the 45%. And as that chart on page 11 makes us a little more clear, I know it's a little hard to follow. 20% would go to community based organizations that are integrated with K to 312 system. And here are a couple of differences between one and two in S2. It makes it clear that the community based organizations only need to be integrated with the K through 12 systems. In the first strike, it also had post-secondary. But this makes it clear that these funds are to go just to K through 12 activities or community organizations that help keep the 12 youth. And then it also, Striker two makes it clear that these community based organizations need to work with the target populations in it in any of the target populations. And then finally, the striker sets for ask the executives to bring an implementation plan back to the back to the council. It asks for a governance structure and a small change between its two points. One is that the government, this governance structure only requires one advisory group. The first strike contemplated multiple. It asks for a process to allocate funds and ask for strategies to ensure that funded programs are culturally appropriate and trauma informed and asked for a financial plan and ask for policies when especially specifically related to facilities which we just talked about a little bit earlier. And in that, it asks for that definition of access dessert and asks for policies to align with current county investments and priorities. So like best starts for Kids Youth Action Plan, things like that. And then it asks for policies for post-secondary system alignment and opportunities to leverage state and federal funds. And then it calls for periodic evaluations of the outcomes. The report is this implementation plan is due back to the Council in eight months, which is also a change from the original speaker, which asked for six months. But I think that this is going to be a pretty detailed body of work for the executive to undertake. And those are that's the briefing of the strike. Are happy to answer questions. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a couple questions, and I want to start on your last set of comments when you were clarifying the differences between a striker as one and as two, you said as two makes it clear that the committee wants 45% of the money to go to King County, I promise. And I interpret that to mean nothing goes for K 12. But then when you explain how the 45% that's going to King County promises 40% of it goes to programs that improve the quality of education. K to 12 And then earlier during the testimony, I heard that the King County promise is only being asked to support programs that work with high school age youngsters through 12th grade. Completely leaving out k. Okay. Yeah. So what is the truth? What is the. I'm not clear. What is the recommendation that has been proposed in terms of the 45% and the 55%? And so. Let's see here, trying to defy a council member. But yes. Of that, 45%, 40% would go to, as you accurately pointed out, higher ed activities through the King County promise. And then 40% would go to K through 12 activity to the King County promise. And as but as you're as I understand my understanding, the campaign promises similar to yours is that it's primarily focused on that high school population. But I would like to get some more information to see if there's junior high or elementary activities conceived within the King. Counties then and there just focus on the high school. So I don't know why we do a proposal where no money goes to the well and that's 45%. Well and then 20% of that. So there's there's a 45% bucket that's divided into three buckets. 40, 40 and 20 and 20% would go to community based organizations to help out that serve youth and the target population. And that would be k k through 12. K-through-12. And we don't make any distinction between minority community orientation or immigrant and refugee and other kinds, do we? In terms of the community based organization. Right. I think they actually let me know. I don't I don't believe so. But I want to I want to read the language language in Stratford a couple of times. So I need to read it to. To answer your questions with. All right. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. Well, looking up, I think I. Didn't look in answer to my question. I had two questions when they're ready. Councilmember Lambert, if I can, council member Balducci has a comment on that point. To Councilmember Gossage point, if I may, Mr. Chair. Please. Thank you. I don't I'm not sure exactly how we're going to walk through this, but some of us brought some at least attempts at amendments. And I have some half baked but proposed amendments to try to call out what you're talking about. I read it the same way you did. Councilmember Gossett and was concerned that there was not I was not seeing elementary school or middle school programs and that they might get lost the way this was written. And so when we get to that point, I'm going to be proposing to my colleagues that we actually call out elementary and middle school as somehow separate from the high school promise work and the post-secondary promise work. I just wanted you to know that that was in a green folder somewhere to be distributed sometime. Thank you. He's got it. I got it. Yeah. And. And if it helps. The intent is that of the 45%. 40% is for the King County promise work in high schools. It's worded K-12, but the assumption is it would be primarily in high schools. 40% would be king having promised work in colleges. Yeah. And 20% would be community based organizations supporting K-12. And we have correspondence. We have correspondence today inquiring about a match. No, there would not be a match required for that 20%. And. But there was an even better question about that, that this is keeping me at the moment. But even listening to you, Mr. Chair, all three categories how that emphasis on helping people to get into post-secondary. If I said that about the 20%, I was mistaken. That's not the emphasis of the 20%. But it would be managed by King County Province. No, in fact, that's. Thank you. That's the question I wanted to respond to that we have in writing as well. The 20% is not subordinate to the King County Promise program. With administered off, but. It would be allocated through the executive branch in grants. Like. Like we do another applications. It would not be overseen and run by the King County Promise Program. It would not be subordinate. Subordinate to King County promise. All right. And that was the other question I couldn't recall. Mr. Mom, were you looking for something and we were stalling for you? Or am I? Yeah, I think I believe. Customer Gauthier was also curious about whether the the nature of the organizations were combat. But it's really the nature of the work that the organizations provide. Leadership, leadership, makeup or things like that are not called out. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I appreciate the clarifications, because they're much more clear now. Thank you. So two things. So in the 20%, there's no requirement for matching funds. But in the other 40%, there's matching funds. If this be from, organizations would have to do that. Are we talking about school districts? When you're talking about the 40 in the 40 on the bottom of page ten where both of them require matching funds? I think it would be any of the any recipient of the grants through those two parties would would need to provide matching funds. So for some of the smaller organizations, providing matching funds would be really difficult. So I'm concerned about that. And then on the next page, I like the idea that we have flexibility most of the time. But if we're going to be putting money into a capital asset and a place wants to do a mortgage on their capital asset, it would be very difficult if in a subsequent year we changed the percentage formula and then they don't have the equity, not the equity, but the collateral that they had before. So how are we going to preserve the ability of the people who might be wanting to build the facilities to be able to qualify for a mortgage? Sounds like something that should be worked out in the policies identified. And I think it's part five of the employment implementation plan for facilities. Yeah, I think that's going to be really important that we allow them to do that because that's what it's all about to get these facilities built. But that is a concern that we have to prepare for. Thank you. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of providing a little bit of response to my colleague in terms of the matching. Funds the. King County promise. The significant part of it is student support counselors in our college system, in our K-12 system, targeted at the student, at the high need population, in the high need schools. And the folks who developed it propose using the Lapp funds, the learning assistance funds from the state that go to high needs schools. Their intention is to leverage these dollars with those state funds and match it. So that's where they envisioned the match coming from to fund the student sports. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. That is very helpful because some of this is, I believe, a state responsibility and really concerns me that we're starting to do things that the state is supposed to do. And I like that answer. But I thought you also said that an organization that would get that money would still have to have that, too, if it wasn't a school. It's correct. So, Councilmember Grove, if we could tighten the language, you said I like what you said. They didn't like what he said. So we can make it changed a little bit. That would be better, I think. And just work your councilmember. To. Clarify. It. No one. Confused. If I may. Council member left it left. Within the 45% bucket. There's 20% for community based organizations at all age levels K through 12. Does that require a match? No. Okay. Okay. Say that again and again. I want you to say it again. For the funding that's provided to community based organizations in the striking amendment. Does that require a match of any kind? No, it doesn't. You know, getting better. Mr. Mom, did you have more on as to. I do not, Councilmember. All right. We'll take a we'll take more questions on this, too, but then we will move to the amendments as well. And I'll look for some advice from the committee about whether you want to be briefed on all the amendments and then take them up in turn or be briefed on them as we take them up. Meanwhile, any more general questions comes up or questions particularly? And as to Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This may be a rhetorical question. Excellent. On page seven, D under D 2d refers to a draft implementation plan being developed and reflecting the priorities identified. And one of those would be for a governance structure. So two parts to my question here. One is, I have heard that some of us have discussed the concept of having the Children Youth Advisory Board and become the governance structure, which would make some sense. And I wondering if there have been other suggestions made when this was being developed. Are we thinking more a brand new board? Is that just totally open to whatever they are? Are you asking me? Totally open. Striking and totally open. Okay. And the second part of this really is to reminder the the draft and the implementation plan that will be worked out with council staff and executive staff and others will be coming to the council. So I want to just make sure everybody knows that that there will be a final vote by the council to approve any implementation plans. So there's still a lot of room in the next few months, regardless of what we do in terms of how all of this will be implemented. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. See no other questions. Now, Mr. Mumma, if you would, walk us through the amendments to the striking amendment as to what colleagues I would propose that we go through. We have a presentation on all of the amendments so we know what's before us and then take them up in turn. Councilmember Bell, do you see a. Couple of points of order? First one. Are we going to get the green folders? I don't have one. I don't know if anybody else has one. There's no green folders. You should have this. Okay. It's the packet. Yeah, yeah. Separate us to. To compare. Thank you. Second point of order. Since I have a number of amendments, they're not all in order. And they sort of are meant to go together. And I don't know if I'm prepared to offer all of them. I would love the opportunity to just speak for a moment before or after we ask staff to brief them to and to explain what I was trying to do with these amendments. What would be most helpful to do that is as we take a beach amendment or free rein for a moment. Right now. I would I will take the opportunity to preface if that's okay, because this is my amendments are on here as one, two, three, four, five, seven and eight. Yeah, I know. It sounds terrible. That's why I want to. That's why it's not as bad as it sounds. I have questions. Circles around four of those. Just ask you. Please tell me about the intent of those. It's not as. Bad and how they work together. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me a moment to to sort of explain my thinking behind these. There's a few themes, and I just want to start by, first of all, thanking you, Mr. Chair, for taking the laboring or of taking all the different ideas and concepts that we have had up and down this dais and that we've heard from the community and trying to put them together into a proposal that could move us forward so we could debate it, amend it, etc.. I know I've heard you say many times, this is not the McDermott Stryker, this is the Council Stryker for us to work on. And I know that's hard to do and put your name on it. So I want to thank you for doing that. Thank you. Okay. I have these these proposals hang together, I believe, with a number of teams. First and foremost, they are not fully baked. I'm still working on a lot of these ideas. And so they may not do exactly what I say they intend to do. So I want you to know my intent. The next one is, I think I agree with those who have said we should reduce the amount of money going to administration. I think there's good justifications for that, which we can talk about when that comes up. The second theme is since the beginning, since our very first public discussion about this at our. On our. Call meeting in Kent two years ago, my hope was and I was very pleased that the council seems to agree that we would take this money and it sounds like a ton of money, but when you lay it out over a series of years, it actually isn't as much as you think. And so what I wanted to do is make the most use of this money by having a small number of areas of focus that get deep investment and deep attention so that we can move the needle. It's enough money to move the needle in a few areas. It's not enough money that it could like not just disappear if we try to spread it all over everything. So that's a theme that I will talk about. And I think some of the ways we need to maximize this is by focus, not peanut butter in the money, making sure we support all levels of education. That has been a theme of ours throughout this entire discussion, and that's pre-K K through 12, but not just high school and then post-secondary. I think it's important that all of the investments that we make are laser focused on educational outcomes. And there's three of the major educational outcomes that I think we should be focused on kindergarten readiness. High school graduation and post-secondary credential credential attainment of some kind. And it's been said here before, that's not just college to your college. It's also trades. And I think and then the last theme is that throughout this complicated piece of legislation, I want to make sure we're focusing on the target populations, but not having one target population predominate over others. So that's by way of preface. And then I'm with with that, I think I, I will want to pipe up again when you get to Amendment four, if I may. Thank you. Jeff. Counselor. So we've already talked about striker team momentum. One would it's as you see, it's sort of a place within it when it contemplates reducing the amount of money that is dedicated to administration and evaluation. However, the reduction is left blank. Mr. Chair. Council Member about duty. I thought you were going to speak when you got to four. Well, this is my topic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you look at some of our other county administered funds, 10% is a little high. I think 5% is a little low. To tell you the truth. We don't normally we're not able normally to do the kind of evaluation and administration we want to with that. But I think we should work further with the executive branch to see if we can come up with a number that's more ambitious than just allowing up to 10%. I don't know if it's worth moving an amendment with a blank in it, but I want like sort of putting my colleagues on notice that I'm looking for a number to fill in there. The average from conversations with the executive branch, I understand the average administration valuation number for best starts for kids, veterans, seniors and Human Services levy in mid is seven and a half percent and with these beans on the high end of that range of the three and this the thought was that this was closer to BSC than the other two and therefore that's why a ten is in the striker. Yes, that's less than an ardent offense of 10%, but an explanation. Understood. And it's not an unreasonable number. I mean, I'm not suggesting an unreasonable number. I just think we could be I would hope that the administration is less complex than best start for kids, because the whole concept of being focused and targeted is that there should be fewer sub buckets. They shouldn't be a couple of dozen different programs with multiple different reps per program. That's not what we're looking for here. We're looking for very targeted chunks of investment. And I hope that that takes less administration. Right. I'm amendment. To I think we have a couple more comments on one a process question. Council member up there. We're going to say the substance the discussion for if we take action or do we want to discuss are you is the intent to discuss the amendments now. Or I would hope to combine it confine our conversations now to what the amendment would do and have the debate on it if it's offered. Questions about what Amendment one does. Senate Amendment two. It's quite all right. Councilmember Gossett has distributed four draft amendments as well. So we're trying to figure out what the new perfecting order is so I can get you a new distribution. Okay. So while we're working that out, a brief overview is understood. We may jump to gossip amendments that would have come earlier, but we will continue with this list as we have it before us now. Okay. So I will. So you. I'm sorry, Mr. Schrader, would you like me to brief a moment deeply to amendment to offer by Councilmember Banducci and would remove early learning programs from the eligible use of funds in the early learning set aside? Mr. Chair. Councilmember Balducci. The key word is programs not early learning, not trying to remove early learning from the proposal. It's trying to focus this particular bucket on facilities. The idea has been that we would invest a significant portion in early learning facilities, not programs. And that is my proposal, and I would offer that amendment. I'm clarifying questions. I see none. Amendment three. Thank you. We don't have the legislation before us. Right now we're briefing. Yes. Perfect. We look forward to you offering it. Amendment three would remove the requirement to invest the 20% of funds in the home based care facilities inherent in home based care for home based care providers from the from the motion so that there would no longer be that requirement. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to ask staff to distribute two related. Amendments at this point. I mean, okay. Them before it seems like it's related to three. That's just what just reminded them. I don't know if we were taking action today, so I was going to wait to distribute them. But to more surprise. Great. So, Mr. Chair, to clarify, is the plan to brief the amendments here and then do the ones that are being distributed? I would think so, because that's we're prepared with a list in front of us and then we'll pick up the loose ones. Okay. Armed with a question. Council Member Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff, I a number three which would eliminate the 20% funding of early learning for home based child care. Seems to me this is more programmatic than facilities. So if a number two were to be approved, adopted, then it seems to me number three would be out of order. Is that correct? If I believe in if number two were to be adopted and if three wasn't adopted, then three, then that language would be inconsistent with the rest. The memo would be inconsistent because if we're saying we are going to only permit funding for facilities and not programs, number three, I don't think would be on facilities. Would it be more on. If you. Programs. You would have a situation where if you adopted number limit two and didn't up three. Then that would be clear. But it's just I don't know that three would be in order if it's includes reference to supportive services training. But for Councilmember Caldwell's, it's actually removing what I think you're describing as programmatic. So it would maybe be, in your opinion, more imperative to offer and adopt. Well, or. Then rule it out of order. Well, maybe not out of order is the right term, but if we've already adopted language that says this funding will only be for facilities, not for services and programs, it seems like number three then would change that, but only for home facilities. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I. May, council member Balducci. Referring back to my first thing, which is there is a not at all not not all entirely fully baked the target of these two amendments, from my perspective as the offer is not to single out home child care providers, but to make sure that this bucket is particularly focused on facilities. My understanding is that we can't really effectively subsidize home based facilities. If we wanted to talk about a separate section that somebody else could insert that would say some amount of money would be dedicated towards improving educational outcomes via investments in home based early learning. I would certainly consider that amendment, but I think that this bucket was meant to be about early learning facilities and that my my intent with both of these amendments is to return this bucket to that focus, not to exclude, although it has the intent of excluding at this point. Thank you. A moment for. I'm sorry. If I might think the. Ones that I distributed were identified as three, a one and a two. It might be appropriate time to brief them if they've made it around yet. They haven't made it around yet. It was going to be just my recommendation since they're directly relevant to that last one. You're right. All right, Mr. Muhammad, can you address Amendment three, a two and three A1? Yes, I can. 3a1 would reduce the 20% set aside to 10%. This is for the home based care providers. And then three two would reduce it from 20% to 5%. So two different meats, two different reduction levels. Okay. So, Amendment four. Mr. Chair. Amendment four. And the percentage a c this would reduce the King County promise percent from 45 to 30% of the available funds after evaluation administration expenditures. Councilmember Bell Dutchie. And. Can I ask you to comment on it seems to me amendments four or five, seven and eight are all adjusting percentages and wow, check that out. She has a color chart down there. I think we're all going to get a copy of it in a second. Mr. Chair, I will be happy to speak to those four amendments because you are correct. They do all sort of hang together. I hope I can describe in words because I don't have copies of this picture. Okay. But the idea is to ensure that we are funding programs that improve educational outcomes for all the target populations at each level of education. And it does that by calling out early learning stays the same. But then what is now? Just a second bucket that is entire all of K-through-12 and post-secondary together breaks that out into three areas, which is elementary and middle school. The Promise high school and the promise post-secondary. And for purposes of discussion awaits them all equally. At 15%, a piece of the funds is left over after you take out administration. That's the intent. I am not married to this approach, nor to these numbers. But I was trying to find a way colleagues to make sure that there was elementary and middle school kid aged youth called out in the program so that kids at that age level who meet the target populations could be addressed. And one of these buckets, maybe elementary, middle could be a place where you call out the community based organizations. But these amendments speak just are meant to speak just to making sure we have elementary and middle school kids defined as a level that is funded for some programing that is related to the purpose of this fund. Does that make sense or should I have copies of the pie charts made. Make sense to. Make copies of the pie chart or have them. Oops. There goes. Thank you. These were made by my office. They are not official in any way. Thank you. Except for their official documents of my office. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. Just clarifications. And are they copyright? I'm getting so in that bucket. You had 315, so that's 45%. Where's the rest going? 55% to early learning as as previously stated in the motion. Okay. And then the 5% is in increased strategy. So the way the math works and there's three different pie charts in it, so it stated three different ways. You take we were at this time considering 10% for administration and evaluation. If you take 10% off the top, what remains of the fund, 55% to early learning, which is the current proposal in the Stryker, and then 45% to the remainder broken out in three equal buckets of 15% each to elementary, middle, high school and post-secondary. That said, I'm not married to those numbers and I want everybody to know that. I'm just trying to I was trying to propose a counter-proposal, I guess, because there is a proposal, a way to make sure that every level of education is being addressed. For the further questions discussion on Amendment 457, eight. All right. Mr. Mum, should I be asking you to breathe a sigh of yours? Councilmember Gossett. I'd be happy to do anything. Five A's offered by Councilmember Gossett, and it would require 30% of the funds to be invested in improving educational outcomes for vulnerable and underserved K-through-12 students rather than the 40% funds to be focused on K-through-12 age, children and youth in the King County Promise Program. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Mr.. Could you say that again slowly? I'm sorry, I'm reading it, but I want to try and share. Councilmember So ID it would require that 30% of the funds be invested to improve educational outcomes for vulnerable and underserved K-through-12 students. This is instead of the 40% of the funds that are focused on the K-12 age children through the King County promise. All right. And would that equate if I'm tracking math here to a basically the 30% under Councilmember Baldacci is the effect would be 30% of elementary middle and promise high school dollars if you're amendments were adopted. Is that is that how that would correlate? Or are we dividing the pie differently here? This would take. Yes. Is Councilmember. And your question is, is this the same? It is the 30% and this the same as the 30% contemplated under Councilmember Dickey's amendment? Yeah, her amendment, which would do elementary and middle 15% after overhead and promised high school, 15% after overhead. And the 30% that seems to match. Yes, that 30% here. Would be the same again. Okay. All right. Yeah, maybe there's some agreement there. And I remember Gosset. And I want to comment about due to their math and I agree with their just completed assessment. It's about the same concern about those you put before us. Yeah. Just to repeat it. At the risk of repeating, it looks like Councilmember Gossage Amendment five allocates 30% of the dollars outside of pre-K facilities. And it looks like you're some combination of your amendments allocates a 30% to the same population with the remaining 15% going to promise post-secondary. Yeah. So I think there there may be agreement at least on the percentages. Unless. There's some overlap. I see that. Yes, I think that's right. I think it's because we all do very simple math. Three divided by three. Yeah. I thought it was because great minds think alike. And. Right. I remember I. I have not known how her great mine was. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brubaker. Thank you. Mr. Chair. The effects statement was very much generalized, it said, improving educational outcomes. But does this require some very specific body of work? And if so, could you enumerate that for the record, where the funds would. Yeah. It it and then. Does it tie up other funding for school districts also in any way. So this amendment strikes a bunch of language that's in there as to now starting at 997, on page five strikes all the language through to the next page on line 114, and then instead has the 30% that's focused on examining the multicultural curriculum and inclusion in history, science, arts, extracurricular activities, etc. Looks at reforming discipline, precede policies toward a restorative justice model, inhibits ongoing military training for teachers and administrators, and finds anti-bias training of staff at early childhood and kick off systems and then requires to access any of these funds. The districts agree to all elements of this legislation and subsequent work plans of the advisory group. A clarification to access funds for these purposes or to access any pastor funds they would need to. It's a sub under this so it's for this fund these under. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you I'm looking at the language online 15 subsection C. If you look up at line eight, it says the procedure precedes shall. And then in C number line 15, it does implement ongoing mandatory training for teachers and administrators and it gives the list that's pretty much done at the state level, ongoing training. I realize that each district can do their own thing, but in the existing language it says may. And I think it's important that each district decide what they want for their teacher training. And I like the May language and the existing language better than the shall. So I just want to point that difference and. I'm going to make an attempt to have our questions confined to understanding the amendments before us. But remember, we have no legislation before us at this point. We have just covered Amendment five a. If we can address the Amendment six. Amendment Six would dedicate at least 5% of the funds for improving educational outcomes for school aged students. For training of kinship care providers. All right. Questions on that. Councilmember Lambert, if it's. Oh, and explain kinship care. When we were working with calling people to see various ideas, one of our providers said, You know, it's really sad that family, which is kinship care in the foster system, gets $0. So when other foster kids, foster parents get information on and all kinds of different things like how to form an IEP , where to ask for an an ISP, which is an individualized education plan. You've never been through one of those before. It's voluminous and in a variety other things that they get training. So almost half of the foster parents in our state don't get that training. And so that's how I found out about it. And that's exactly what it does, because they currently get zero. Amendment seven. Seven would increase percentage of funds that are dedicated to higher education from 40 to 50% within the King County Province allocations. I think it's part of the suite of amendments that Councilmember Belge spoke to earlier. Seven a. Yeah. Seven eight would reduce the percentage of funds dedicate to higher education from 40% to 20%. Yes. All right. Okay. Amendment eight, the last of the quadrennial. I know what a trilogy is. What's for? It's a lot. Yeah. All right. And then they would dedicate 15% of the pastor funds to community based organizations to work with K-through-12 students to close opportunity gaps. Very good amendment. Amendment nine. Amendment nine would add represented representative from each council district to the list of people the executive will work with when developing the implementation plan. Amendment 9.5. This amendment would add criteria for the Advisory Board to have experience in racism, systemic racism, multicultural curriculum, childhood trauma, and best practices in corrective action. Restorative Justice. Amendment ten. An Amendment ten would add a lens of geographic equity to the criteria that the executive would follow in developing policies for funding facilities. Thank you. With with the amendments briefed, I would entertain a motion to put the legislation in striking amendment S1 before us. Councilmember Raquel Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I proposed motion number 2019 0245. Councilmember calls this move to adopt motion. We give it to pass recommendation to motion 2019 245. Councilmember Caldwell's if you move striking amendments to. Thank you. Chair And I mean I know the striking amendment has to. Strike an amendment as to is before us. Are there any amendments? Councilmember Bell duty. I would like to move Amendment one with the number 7.5%. Councilmember Bell duty has moved adoption of Amendment One with the verbal amendment inserting 7.5% as the percentage. Councilmember Bell duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did discuss this a little bit during the briefing of the amendments. There was a blank in the amendment. I have verbally added 7.5% because that is a number that is consistent with administrative overhead for some of our other funding sources. And that, I fear is I feel is pushing as as we said we should without pushing too hard. But I would welcome further amendments further on down the road. I just think that this would be a nice placeholder. Thank you. Pence Member Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilman, about the issue, does that still include funding for evaluation? I will submit to a question. And yes, this doesn't change any of the language. It just changes the number. Okay. Councilmember approve. Thank you. I think it's a great idea. I'm open. As we get to full council to even considering a smaller number, perhaps in part because this is one time funding the role of evaluations a little bit different when we have best starts for kids or these levees that we want to renew and do on an. Ongoing basis, that. Evaluation. Piece becomes more. Critical here for providing funding for a defined period of time. It's great to get some lessons learned from it, but it isn't as if that evaluation is necessarily going to shape our investments because this investment, this funding stream stops. So there may be an opportunity to do some cost savings along the way. And I also, depending on how the money is driven out, some of our partners may also be able to provide some of their own evaluation back to us in terms of outcomes. So that I'm just sort of arguing for this being 7.5 being a maximum as we move forward. Councilmember Dombroski, thank you. I want to echo Councilmember up the Grove's comments. I would lean and there isn't a lot of science to this, but toward the 5% number, the rationale there being a good percentage of these dollars, 55%, it seems, are more will be for capital grants to early learning facilities. And I think that that is inherently compared to programing requires less evaluation and perhaps less administration. Those are probably going to be fairly significant grants. I think that there should be and probably are some efficiencies that have that we can take advantage of in our best starts for kids evaluation system, which the advocates have said. And I've also heard from providers that as part of the contracts, you know, that evaluation and reporting is built in. So I would I would lean for those reasons toward an initial 5% goal. I think if it turns out we needed to adjust that in the future, if it just was squeezing us too hard, we could. But I wanted to put my cards out there on the table for five 5%. Maybe Councilman Belushi would consider that as a friendly amendment, depending on what colleagues thought. Mr. Chair, I would prefer to start high and push lower than to start too low and have to come back higher. I just that as feels better to me so. But I'm also getting better. We may not be ready to vote on this amendment right now, so but I would just say, why don't we put 7.5 in and then work on making it smaller? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor of Amendment One please signify by saying I name. The ayes have it. With that I'm taken as to amendment to a. Councilmember Gossett I just want to remind you that two a conflicts with 233. A1 and three dot A2 if two A is adopted, then you cannot take action on the rest of the four point of order. Councilmember Balducci. Which which amendment comes first in perfecting order two? Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett, do you care to offer Amendment two? I wanted to offer two because I thought that the 5050 5% amount that could only be used for education outcomes for early learning was too high. Given the limits of the amount of money we have available and the very significant needs we have in K-12. That's why I am presenting this lower number. And I think in the passing out of amendments, this is one we did not brief earlier. Right. Erin or Jeff could speak to it. This would reduce the 55% number and to 40%, I believe, is you correct to the amendment customer? Yes. It also modifies the where what it can go to. It strikes line 66 through 84 on page four of the S-2 and replaces it with investments in improving educational outcomes for early learning age of vulnerable and underserved youth identified in Section eight. And then there's language that ensures geographic proximity to areas of particular need are achieved when investing these funds. Demographic data of areas with highest need based upon race, income, foster care, childbirth and juvenile justice system involvement and lack of early childhood educational services will be used to prioritize the investments. And I thought these emphasis are the same ones that the original providers of this of past put forth. They put forth four or five specific categories that mirrored the ones that you just named. And I don't I'm not understood why 55% of the total needed to go just for the zero, the five. I think that 40% is higher than the other two areas and is more reasonable than the 55. And that's what I wanted us to debate. Thank you. Discussion, Councilmember Lambert. Just clarification. What is geographic proximity? I know geographic equity, but I have never seen geographic proximity before. I know what both of those words mean, but I don't know what they mean together because I've never seen them in the law together. I'd have to defer to the sponsor of that. That's an issue. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett The difference between I didn't really understand our question and Mr. Chair, the difference between geographic proximity angiographic by proximity has to do at how close you are to the affected parties. Equity is what we're trying to achieve in spending these new government funding so that we move closer to a fuller support for these population groups that have been. Or. Are currently excluded from having these equitable opportunities. And I keep thinking about all of that when I wrote it up. This point of clarification, the summary sheet that some may be working from, has it listed at 50%? It is 40%, actually. Okay. Thank you. It's it's not 55. The striker the striking amendment as to is 55%. Your amendment would move it to 40%. Yeah. All right. Thank you for the discussion. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not planning to vote for this today, but I am very open to it, kind of depending on how the rest of the package comes together. I appreciate the the way in which it's focused around that geographic areas with the highest need. And I would be open to reducing that amount potentially in order as the puzzle pieces come together. So I just didn't want to think my no vote wasn't me. I'm open to this as it moves forward. Councilmember DEMBOSKY Hey, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to be supporting Councilmember Goss. It's well intentioned amendment today. I've just done this particular set of funding. Given it's a one time nature, I have a strong desire to ensure an investment in a very strong and deep way in capital facilities to benefit generations of young people in King County. I take a lesson from the forward thrust investments made 50 years ago and their continual return on investment to community after community, generation after generation. And I think my dear colleague, Councilmember Gossett, I appreciate where you're coming from on this, but on that particular piece of this pie, I'm pleased that I was hoping to get we can get to 60%. I'm pleased at 55. And and I want to make sure that we do that the the language in here about prioritizing particular communities in need. I'm particularly interested in as we move forward and making sure that we get that right here for all of these investments. And I appreciate your advocacy there, but for those reasons. So I'm going to not be supporting this particular amendment today. Councilmember Gossett, that's the process. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In recent years, about two and a half years ago, we had a measure that came forth and the leadership of the King County Council, and it was in the cultural area where we said we're going to get a windfall profits. I think it was like $80 million or something. And in the wisdom of the county council, we said we want it all on a very large portion of the money to go for capital investments, maybe new facilities or improved facilities to provide the cultural services. But I raised and I'm raising again now when you are just focusing all the money on building and you're asking that the parties that apply for the money invest some themselves year by year nature of how our economic system works and urban America, disadvantaged minority communities and other disadvantaged communities who don't have the agencies, for the most part don't have very much money to put into building expansion, building development. Matter of fact, 88% of them rent facilities for cultural purposes. I don't know what the percentage is for child care, and I just don't think that much of this child care money will go to build the facilities that benefit the poorest of the poor, like the originators of this pot for money have consistently indicated. I just don't see where they end up in middle upper middle class agencies building bigger facilities. And then asking a few, oh, families with lower income kids to come in. And I don't think that's the intent and I don't think that's something that we have been very good at achieving here in our government. Thus, that is why I put forth this amendment. Others in favor of amendment to please signify by saying I oppose name no. If the amendment is not adopted amendment to Councilmember Bell duty. Amendment to. Councilman Bill Duke's moved adoption of amendment to Councilmember Bell duty. Just as a reminder, this is intended to, I believe, restore language from an earlier version that focuses the early learning segment on facilities rather than programs. And again, I want to signal a willingness to work between now and final passage on language and what might end up being a side fund of some sort that could fund things that are left out. But in keeping with our theory that we want to make strong as make strong and deep impact in each of these areas, I think that the intent here was for early learning facilities, not for programs for home based childcare. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Dombroski. Hey, Mr. Chair. So speaking in support of the amendment, in addition to the reasons articulated just a moment ago in response to the amendment to a in my discussions with advocates and experts in the earlier, I feel it's my understanding that the state is making significant investment in operational resources in this space. In addition, the City of Seattle has a particular levy for early childhood education to fund operations. And I believe, Mr. Chair, as we move toward renewal of BSC, that there will be a space and an opportunity to talk about countywide operations funding to help organizations run the space. I just kind of want to set that out there that it is hopefully an ongoing and renewable revenue stream. Again, the quasi one time nature of these, I think, provides a very special opportunity to build facilities that will invest in in multiple, perhaps even seven generations of kids in this county. And so I think this amendment is well taken, and I like the direction. I'm happy to support it. And thank Councilmember Modiji for bring it forward. For the discussion. Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I may be outnumbered on this one. I'm going to, even though I agree with 90% of it, I'm going to be a no vote, in part because I think my primary interest is in the family home, early learning programs. That's where I see a lot of the immigrant refugee families in my district and a lot of families get there early learning and get their child care. And while they have significant capital needs, we can talk about that at the future amendments. I think there also are some missed opportunities to make investments, you know, through B, s K, we invest in one of the strategies that the child care health consultations that writes culturally diverse coaching and training to child care providers. And I think we could enhance some of that with this work. And I appreciate the comments about if we can enhance our with this work and maybe continue to look at best starts for kids that is that gets renewed as well. So my preference in part because of my interest in the family child care space would be to keep some flexibility here. But I certainly understand the other arguments as well. Councilmember Gossett And then Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be joining Councilmember of the Grove on this amendment because the overwhelming majority of the child care facilities available more easily to African-Americans, immigrants, refugees and low income inner city people are the home based child care centers. And why we can't dedicate a minimum 20% of the funds for that portion of the child care providers is very difficult for me to understand. Yes, easier and better. If you have a institution that's big and not just based on the house you own. Or. Or in your own. Eric able to keep six kids, but collectively this is a large percentage of the current child care providers and I would like for them to have more funds available for their development to. Therefore I will vote no. On. Amendment number three. Okay. Thank you. I thank you. Councilmember Gossett. I will call on myself now. And I have this I did bring this up earlier when we first started discussing amendments that I was concerned that if we voted for amendment number two, that we would be forgoing any ability to provide any amount of funding for home based early learning programs. And I'm wondering, Councilmember Bell, do Chee and by the way, I also support completely what Councilmember DEMBOSKY said. However, I'm wondering if we could amend you have a friendly amendment to your amendment number two, and that would have the effect of this, including home based programs without giving any amount. Councilmember Upton Grove has amendments coming up that would lower the amount from 20%, which I would favor. I'm not sure what I'm being asked. Can you say one more time, please? If we were to amend your amendment with the friendly amendment for language that would exclude home based, early learning, family, friends and so forth, so that we would eliminate remove early learning programs from eligible use of funds so that we would have only capital funding. Can I try? Yeah, because it seems we're conflating who gets the money with what kind of money, and that's confusing me. Sorry. So that's right. Looking at the striker as to you on page four. Customer Duties Amendment is on line 68. So I think what you're saying has overt goals is that the investments would be for facilities that support early learning and early interventions for children, King County and for programs and facilities for home based providers. Or it could be words differently, excluding vending for home based. But I think I could be convinced to support one or both of councilmember up the clubs amendments but still want the what I think of as the child care early learning centers rather than the home based ones to be strictly used. The funding would be strictly used for the development and construction and so forth of the facilities not providing programs, not me, not providing any funds for operations and programing. My amendment is intended to direct 55% of this funding towards early learning facilities period. And you're suggesting that there would be some unspecified as yet carve out for facilities and programs for home based learning? And that is, I think, contrary in part to the intent of the amendment. So I would not consider a differently amendment. Thank you, though, for attempting to be friendly semantics here. Yeah, that may be different, but further discussion. Anything to close? Which which? No. My amendment to all those in favor of amendment two, please say I oppose. Nay. No, no. A division has been called for all those in favor of Amendment two. Please raise your hand. All those opposed. I'm reading right now. I see you, Reagan. All right. The amendment carries. With the vote 4 to 5. Yes, sir. Okay. Amendment three. Councilmember Belushi. November three Council Member Bill duties moved adoption of Amendment three. Council Member Bill BTP. To go. Ahead. Point of order. Point of Order. Council Member up the growth. Would adoption of this amendment preclude consideration of a different amendment on the same topic? Yes. Oh yeah. Is there. Is it. First come first served for motions. It's perfecting the order is the order in which we're going through. Councilmember Bell duty touches line 80 and you touch line 81. Mr. Chair. Council Member Bell Duchy. This may be for staff. It's a procedural question and it may actually be for a council member up the grove. It's like negotiating in public, which is always fun. I, I would be willing to hold this whole topic for further discussion as opposed to trying to resolve it now by a 4 to 5 or 5 to 4 vote, if you would be willing to do so. And I would yield my pole position, if you will, in order to try to figure out a way to deal with Homebase. Because I don't want the record to reflect that I am opposed to funding home based programs. I just don't think it belongs here. So if you'd be willing to do two reserve three for our next meeting, I would be as well. Council member of the Guild. Short answer. Yes, thank you. And then to, as they say, home a few bars so people understand my interest and we go on to the next next phase. As I mentioned, you know, there's a lot of a lot of families rely on these family day care providers and family home early learning programs. And I think one of the advantages of investing here is we can very much target focus at our targeted. Population, where. We can maximize our investments in the most vulnerable. And many of these family child care license providers have had challenges meeting some new state requirements that are necessary to even sustain their businesses. Things like dedicated water heaters, new enclosed spaces, and other requirements that require large capital investments there. Also, you know, our challenges meeting, training needs, there are operational costs. But I did want to be clear that these smaller family home programs have capital needs. In fact, the state of Washington funds at about an 8 to 1 ratio there, capital investments in early childhood facilities for about every 800,000. They invest in large grants to the big facilities. They spend about 100,000 on minor repairs and renovations for these licensed family based providers. So they take about 11% in terms of a benchmark, about 11% of their funds for capital upgrades and maintenance go into the smaller providers. And so that's sort of the strategy I'm interested in continuing to discuss whether it's focusing in on just the capital, whether it's a lower amount, what the amount is, what that balance is. And I'm not flexible. I just wanted to. Kind of keep that. Topic under discussion as we move forward. And in the interest of I mean, if you bars or sharing sharing interests, I'm not opposed to and might be interested in providing funding for some of the home based care. But I'm have concerns that 20% of this bucket of this allocation is significantly large, in my opinion. Councilmember Demovsky name is Chair and not having given this piece of a lot of thought candidly, but I my reaction is this the interest that I have in in kind of the child care centers and the investment in them is the semi permanency of them and the ability, again, to handle thousands and thousands of youngsters to use an old term over the course of their life. The intriguing piece of the home based system which is integral to delivering this is it can be closer to neighborhoods, right? It's barriers to starting them up can be lower and they can, in cases, provide more culturally relevant and responsive care to our individualized communities that want that. So if there were a piece of this funding stream that could help stem that up, I'm not categorically opposed to it, but I would want to see some parameters around protecting the public investment in terms of time, you know, if you're going to buy some capital improvements, you want to see in our in our grantmaking and be interesting to see what the state has, that we get a return on that investment. It wouldn't have to. As long as a dedicated child care facility. Right. But something something to address that particular piece of it. There you go. I think a free pass. Councilmember Oh. Gee, I want to retract amendment number three. Amendment three is withdrawn. Do I understand that three, a one and two will not be offered. Amendment four. Councilmember Councilmember. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to not offer amendments four, five, seven and eight on a similar theory that I withdrew Amendment three because I feel like these are major changes to what's in front of us, that people have somewhat similar ideas that they're working on, but they're just a little bit off from one another in terms of some of the expenditures, and the community hasn't had an opportunity to react to any of it. So I would like to suggest that maybe in terms of making changes to the allocations that we reserve that topic for our next meeting, whether that be another committee meeting or the final council meeting. I'm a little nervous about this because once again, because I submitted my amendments for a change on time or earlier, less, less late than my colleagues. I get annoyed about that one. Okay. No time like the. I'm giving up my pole position here. But I would like to ask that we work together with our staff between now and the next meeting to try to figure out what changes. I think we've had some good discussion about changes to the buckets that are in order, and we've heard some good testimony today, and I would like to take those into account before moving four, five, seven or eight. But I'd also like to ask my colleagues who have five A's and seven A's and whatnot, to join me in holding off until we can work through some issues. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett, as the maker of five and seven A, are you willing to hold off as well? I concur with Counselor about that. She. All right, then. Lightning speed run to Amendment six. Councilmember Lambert. 600. Thank you, Mr. Chair. End with Amendment number six. Councilmember Lambert moved adoption of Amendment six. Council Member Lambert. Thank you and dedicates to one of our groups that's important to all of us is our foster care children. And it dedicates at least 5% of the 25% for improving educational outcomes for school aged students. So for school age, students that are in kinship care with prospective foster parents provided are undergoing training and licensing. They receive training on how to shepherd the children through the K-12 system. This includes learning how to get children into the individual education program, which I said earlier is an IEP. If you haven't seen an IEP, it's not easy. And a lot of times minority parents get overwhelmed. Everybody gets overwhelmed, actually, sometimes, including the teachers, by how voluminous these things are. And so if you don't have somebody shepherding you through it or helping you, it's very difficult. And with 45 to 50% of the foster children who are placed with family members in kinship care, they get $0 zero help from the state and they have to figure this out on their own. Well, 15 to 20% of these families do seek licensure. Many kinship care providers do not. And there is no requirement they need to because it's family members taking care of families. So I feel that we need to support family members taking on the responsibility of caring for children that would otherwise be placed in regular foster care homes. Not familiar and providing funding for kinship care, educational advocacy training will not only provide necessary support to kinship care providers, but will also lead to a noticeable difference in their educational outcomes for these children. So I was really surprised to find out that these kids get nothing and they're providers. And as a a parent or grandparent, if I were to get new children coming into my family, obviously coming from a situation where they were in stress, taking on new kids with issues and starting all over again and then finding out that I wasn't able to get any help would add more stress to the situation. So I hope that we will be able to support them with about 5% of the money. Councilmember Belge Mr. Chair, thank you. I don't I don't know, frankly, whether I support this or don't support this. Obviously, I support the idea and the and the the work that needs to be done to make sure that kids in foster care have well-trained foster care parents. We also just need flat out more foster care parents. I mean, you could put a whole lot of money into foster care and still not meet the need. But this funding is targeted specifically at increasing educational outcomes for foster care youth. And I just don't know enough sitting here today to know whether these programs do that. And so if it's offered today, I'm going to have to vote no today, also, partially because I don't see any other places where we're pointing out specific, smaller, targeted programs. We're trying to is we're trying to focus on the big impacts like early learning facilities and the promise program. And and this just to me is it moves in the direction of targeted call outs, which looks like we're starting to peanut butter the money. And it also I'm not sure that it meets the goal of the money. If it wasn't offered today, I would certainly spend more time learning how it might fit or if it might fit. But if it's offered today, I'm just reluctantly going to have to be a no on this amendment, I'm sorry to say. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for our staff. I have historically been a frequent visitor to the Atlanta Street Center programs. One of their primary programs over the last 12 years that they've been noted for is their kinship program. And when I last visited it a couple of years ago, just generally thinking back, about 60% of the grandmothers and grandfathers who were, for the most part in kinship providers were getting foster care money. The other 35 to 40% were not. So my question to you is, we already have foster children as a designated group that can receive these funds. Is that do we not have any knowledge on whether or not the kids were in foster care, but being raised by their grandparents or other relatives are included and eligible for foster care consideration and this funding. I'll have to get back to you on that, counselor. Then I have the same concerns about that you raised, though. We need to get a clarification as to whether or not this class of people are already eligible and they're off the fence. You know the question about the effect statement. I know we have a lot flying around here. Is this delegates at least 5% of the. It says 25%. I believe it's 40. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert, thank you. Well, first of all, the research that we did in calling the state was that these these children and their families, kinship families, get $0 for the training to do their IEPs and help them with whatever they need help with. So if you have a child that's in a foster licensed foster care, they get certain services. And if they're with their families, they don't get those services. So that is of great concern to me. Also, I think that we could put this together with the issue that we're talking about with home daycares, because you can kind of consider kinship a home daycare, although it's longer term with more issues going on. So I'm willing to pay for this, but I would ask that we look at that as part of what we put together with the home daycare issues. Is that okay with that other. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So six is withdrawn. Okay. Taking us to nine. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you very much. I need amendment number nine. Councilmember Lambert moved adoption of amendment number nine. Councilmember Council member Lambert. Thank you. And the stroke of this executive is directed to work in consultation with council staff, service providers and stakeholder representatives. This amendment adds that they will also work with a representative from each of our council districts and that will make the process much smoother between the executive development and transmittal to the council. That way, council members can provide more formalized feedback throughout the process. I urge your support. Council Member. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I am just not clear on the is it with in our council district or with our staff. I just didn't follow the. Yes. That they work with us to make sure that we have somebody that we assigned to be on the committee to report back to us. Yes. I may need staff to reorient me. Then I apologize to the committee. Which committee? This is who the executive is required to consult with on creating the implementation plan. I think so is the suggestion that we. Appoint. A committee made up of representatives from each of us? Is that what the sponsors? I don't know if there was an existing committee or. This is part of when you do the implementation plan that when we get to the next step and on the implementation plan, that they will work more closely with our individual offices. With our offices. Okay. I think. Councilmember Dombrowski. Just speaking briefly in support, but I think it's a clarifying amendment on line 148 where we're already working or the executive will work in consultation with council staff, which typically refers to our central staff. So I think offering the opportunity for individual office staff to participate makes good sense and I look forward to supporting it. Okay. Councilmember Gossett. No, I'm cool. Okay. I know you're cool. I thought you had something to say. No, I don't have anything. Okay. Councilmember Library. Would you like to add the word office after district to clarify? Others in favor of Amendment nine. Please see, I. I oppose nine. The ayes have it. Nine is adopted. 9.5 Councilmember Gossett. Okay. Point by. A 9.5 is one of the later amendments that I put forth, and that is that the advisory group should have expertize to areas of race, systemic racism, multicultural curriculum, childhood trauma and best practices and corrective action and restorative justice. These are the kind of inputs based on best practices that I've seen work best and coming up with evaluation and operational programs aimed at serving the most at risk excluded populations in our community. And that is one summit that the advisory group members or a large proportion thereof have this kind of expertize comes. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. In looking at that. The way it's written, it looks like that's all the expertize is and there could be more expertize. So I'm wondering if online, but we could say instead of the word IRB use the words such as expertize in areas such as and then the list rather than because that makes it look like that's all the list where we may have other skills that we'd like. How about including. Ink? So it requires all of those and is open to even more. Alike, such as better. Because you may have somebody that isn't familiar with one particular area but is really good in all the others. So depending upon their skills, I'd like to see that more broadly, such as. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to follow your advice and I'd be open to including. So I hear you. I hear you change accepting and friendly amendment or change in line five of your amendment to be areas including. Race and and in the others I have listed here. Yes, they're very good. So can I ask for the. Discussion, Councilmember. Lambert? Legal question. So it does including make mandatory or does it make general. Are you asking. That? Well, we're not lawyers, but this is a motion. So. Okay, this is the attorney with their hand up where? Oh, no, I'm an attorney. I start paying my burdens this year. Yes, I know. Mr. Chair. Councilmember, the. Way I would read that language is that the when you look at it in context, is that the advisory group must include this expertize, not that each and every single member of the advisory group must have this expertize. And I agree that it would be very important that the group have this expertize at the table. So I think it's a very fair amendment and I'll support it. And that was my intent. Council member Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps to staff just the way I'm reading the amendment and the original language and striking amendment to appear on line 153. It says the governance structure to include but not be limited to two. So it seems to me that that is more inclusive of other examples. But I would for example, my concern is when we used raised systemic racism, racism, multicultural education and so forth. I mean, we may want to look at ethnicity or individual representing individuals with disabilities and so forth. So it could be much broader. But I think given that we have the language but not be limited to, we would not be proscribing any other group from being changed, being not included. Is that correct? And I think. Pat shaking his hand. I'm not sure we followed the question, but the report, the governance structure that's called for, needs to be an element of the executive's report that comes back to the council. So that would just be a recommendation. Back to you. Yeah. Then that's fine. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Dembele. Mr.. Speaking in support of the amendment but also taking the opportunity to say at a just state that as I understand this language in the striking amendment, even as amended, we don't specify or require that this be a new group and that in fact it would. And that being the case, I would hope we could look at our Children and Youth Advisory Board as the entity that would take on this work. And I think there could be some some synergies there. Understand that there may be a deficiency of expertize in the promise area. We might have to add some awareness to that. But just want to flag that for our colleagues as we move forward, maybe have some refinement there. Councilmember Dombroski, I think you were listening in to the whispered conversation council members Caldwell's and I were having a moment ago. There wasn't, but it's a rare moment of great me like again. And. Mr. Chair. Council Member Well. And just to note, I had brought that up earlier as one possibility, we would have to add language relating to postsecondary higher education. But I think the Children Youth Advisory Board is a good place to look. Thank you. All those in favor of Amendment 9.5, please say I opposed nay. The ayes have it and 85 is adopted. Amendment ten Council Member Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for backing up. I'd like to move Amendment number ten. And now from member Lambert's moved adoption of Amendment ten. Council member Lambert thank you. This amendment at the line within the policy for funding early learning facilities that will lead the implementation plan development process to utilize a lens of geographic equity doesn't mean that you have to divide things in nine districts, but a lens of geographic equity when considering considering potential sites. There are many needs for early learning facilities throughout the entire county, so geographic equity should be a consideration when moving forward. Doesn't mean that it has to be equal, but it should be a consideration. So I urge your support. Further discussion, Councilmember Dombrowski. I want to make sure I understood and maybe staff confirm this, that this would be an additional lens in addition to the other focused language in the legislation. It would not and would not be given any weight beyond the others. Is that is that how it reads if adopted right. In specifically for early setting the early learning facilities? What did you think. Its limited to the early learning facilities? Okay, I'll just say I'll support this. I think it's in a factor and I may be open to refining as we go forward, but I think it's a factor that is not unreasonable to take into account as long as it's not overweighted or predominant. Speaking for myself, I'm going because this is particularly because this is to early learning facilities. I'm not going to be supportive. I believe we've already spoken to a geographic need by addressing service deserts and don't want to. I don't want to overlay or conflate broader geographic equity with service deserts we're trying to address. For the discussion. Councilmember Gossett One of the concerns that I have is that our discussions around equity have frequently entered the arena of members saying, how come none of these programs are in my district? And the foundational basis for some of the issues we've dealt with like that are that we want to target groups that we think have been significantly disadvantaged. And if that group is not in some people's districts, that's used as a basis for objections, I'm trying to figure out how to have the broadest definition of equity possible, but that it not be significantly confined to geographic. And I don't really know if it's avoidable, but I have some uneasiness with geographic equity and there's part of our proposal that we're considering. Thank you, Mr.. For the discussion. Others in favor, please signify by saying I oppose nay. The ayes have it. That takes us to striking amendment eschew division. I'm not sure they did division. All those in favor of Amendment ten. Please raise your hand. And Reagan is on the phone. I'm raising. All right. I see you, Reagan, and all those opposed. Mimicry that takes us to strike an amendment as to as amended discussion. Others in favor of the strike. In amendment as amended, please signify by saying i. I opposed nay. The striking amendment as to was adopted that has motion 2019 245 as amended before US discussion. Councilmember Belushi. I want to suggest that whatever we do, this should be without recommendation because we left significant work on the table. But, you know. We. The the motion was made, I believe, with recommendation, with the makers permission. We will the motion would be to move it to full council without recommendation. Yeah. And I'm right, I would anticipate that being before the council three weeks from this coming Wednesday, which I believe is the 29th, but I shouldn't be guessing calendar dates in my head. 21st. 21st, if I might. Mr. Chair. Argument. Council Member Dombrowski. Just for education or knowledge, but for awareness. That would be the first council meeting after our return from recess. And I would suggest that the Chair, given the timing of that and the significant nature of this work and the opportunity for refining that a one week courtesy delay would be granted and that you could expect action on the tape if we do it at a regular council meeting and not a special. So just for to give colleagues and the community time to understand the schedule and what somebody has strong objection to that, but I'm seeing the same thumbs up for that schedule. So we would shoot for the 28th after the traditional one week courtesy delay in this chair while I have the floor. Thank you for your leadership here in the committee of the hall to advance the ball. And I feel that you've done it in a very balanced way with letting all members in the community participate openly. And we've made a little sausage in front of everybody, which is not how we always do it. But I feel that you've moved this ball forward at an appropriate pace and wanted to thank you for it. Thank you. See no further discussion and with acknowledged significant work in some key areas to be done. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member. Banducci Council Member Dombrowski Council Member. Done. By. Council Member. Gossett I. Council Member Cornwall Council Member Member I. Council Member of the Grove Council. Member one right there. Mr. Chair. All right, Mr. Chair, the vote is nine eyes no nos. Thank you. By your vote, we have advanced motion 2019 245 to full council without recommendation. It would be on the regular agenda on August 21st, but one should expect a courtesy delay with it coming up for action in full council a week following the week following the 28th of August. Council member Lambert Thank you. If we do what we just said, then we'll have a lot of people here on the 21st to speak to it. But you can't say a courtesy to either Kirstie Hall for a week or eight to a date certain. And I'm thinking if we say to a date certain, then it won't show up on the 21st, be on the tape. And I think that sends a more clear message to the public. The Chair is certainly amenable to that. If that's the will of the body here, I'll defer to the chair of this committee to clarify the motion timing and when it will be heard. What would members be willing to expect that we would take action on the 28th and not then have a11 week courtesy delay on the 28th? Yes. Advancing it to the following week. I'm seeing head nods. Councilmember Dunham Senior had nod, too. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All right, then. Then we will move. Motion. The motion out to a date certain of August 28th. Full council and expect action on that day. And with that accomplished and no further business can before the committee.