A MOTION requesting the executive establish an equitable development initiative and prepare an implementation plan.
Okay. Our last agenda item is the motion that was introduced by Councilmember Dombroski, co-sponsored by Councilmember Bizarrely, and my father and my son, all of them we heard. I think all of the people engaged in giving public comment today speak about and that is to establish Japan wide equitable development initiative r e d i i. And is the language included right now is with the priority on unincorporated area communities? This has been a bit of an issue. We had our first discussion on our committee, the whole agenda last at our last meeting on February 2nd, and I found the discussion to be very productive. And I believe it also revealed that we still have some work ahead of us to ensure that we get this proposal right. It's an important one and I would like to see it happen. But I have had a request that we hold the I've taken the taking action on this proposal today. We are going to be having more work going on. And I think we can be optimistic that by the time by next meeting we can reach consensus on a really strong in the eye program for the county. So we'll not be taking action on this today. But we do have some new amendments that have been offered. They are included in the green folder that was sent to you by Jennie Know last night. I hope you've had an opportunity to go over that, those amendments. And what I'd like to do is have Jenni just give us a very brief overview of the motion to remind us all and for those listening in and then go over the amendments, some of which we've already seen last at our last meeting. But there are some new ones. We also have executive staff Karen Gil and Kelly Rider with this, I believe they were supposed to be. And we will have a discussion today and just. Keep working on this and take it up hopefully two weeks from now. Go right ahead, Jen. Thank you for your calls, Dana. Council central staff. The materials for this item again on page 22 of the pack in their view the staff report. In the motion proposed motion 2020 1-0467 would request the executive to establish a countywide Equitable Development Initiative, or ECI with a priority on unincorporated area communities. And the motion also requests that the Executive prepare an implementation plan in two phases that is developed in conjunction with the planning workgroup. The motion identifies that phase one of the implementation plan should include a developed EDI framework information about how the initiative would guide the Best Streets Capital Grants Program, recommendations for County and Community Structure, Capacity and resources for implementing the program in this first phase would be due June 30th, 2022. These two of the plan would include objectives and strategies to reduce disparities, utilize data of displacement risk and other metrics to determine programs and policies. Include metrics for monitoring and evaluating outcomes. Describing partnerships with outside agencies such as community based organization or regional partners. Identify funding sources that could be leveraged. Propose strategies to coordinate across county agencies and programs. Identify community outreach and collaboration process. Utilize the community direct action level of engagement, and propose next steps in a timeline. The second phase would be due June 30th, 2023. As the Chair mentioned, there are a number of amendments that were sent to you last night. I am happy to go through those amendments. I now call Walter. Do you want me to pause? It's. Let's see if there are any questions on your briefing thus far. Can you go right ahead. So the additional packet I was sent out to you, I will just go through the amendments and likely pause if there's any questions . So the First Amendment would be the striking amendment, S-1, and this would revise the two phase implementation plan into a single feasibility analysis. With the following changes. It would revise the scope to reduce disparities in communities that are at the highest risk of displacement based on risk indicators and where other EDR programs are not in place and removes a plan requirement related to the best arts capital grant. The Capital Grant Program Procurement Process. Aaron moves a plan requirement related to recommendations and next steps for the county and community structure and revises a plan requirement for providing objectives and strategies to reduce disparities to recommendations on policy implementation is to reduce disparities. It revises the plan requirement related to data and analysis of the displacement risk indicators. It removes a plan requirement related to outdoor outside partnerships and inter-governmental coordination error. Most plan requirements related to using a specific ESG level of engagement. It revises the composition of the Advisory Committee Group to be comprised of three representatives selected by the executive and more represented selected by each Councilmember office and requires a report deadline of December 31st, 2022. There is in your packet on starting. On Page eight that shows the original motion and then the changes that the striker would make, you know, a concert there. Hmm. Thank you very much. What I'd like to do is have, after each briefing, at the briefing on individual amendments, have the sponsor just be able to speak briefly on it. Again, we're not taking action on any of these to the concerned about the group. Do you have anything to say about your striking the members? Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I spoke to this at a previous meeting and the coalition that brought the original proposal hates this, but I recognize that. But I when I sat down and met and listened to the some of the representatives, the coalition early on, what I heard was a desire to create a funding source. At the end of the day, really what we're doing is this is about funding. And I thought there was a much more direct and clear way to get that outcome, to simply create a fund, because that's what we're talking about. We're going to come up with some new money. We're going to decide where it goes and who decides where it goes. And I thought that the underlying motion complicated a lot of that. And but no one seems to like this one. But I wanted to keep it there as an option for consideration and show something that I could feel comfortable supporting. Thank you. And let's go on now and have Jenny breathe this amendment line amendment point five a also buy up the grove. And I think Councilmember Grove, you have some line amendments that are would pertain to the striking amendment. But there are individual elements that were in the striking amendment in recognition that the strike amendment may not have support. I tried to zoom in on what were a couple of my areas of most interest and most concern have been to bring those ideas forward and light amendments instead. Okay. So this is a pretty straightforward. Jenny, go ahead. Oh, sure. Amendment 0.5 A is on page 12 of your packet. In this letter, the scope of the idea is to focus on displacement risk. How about going ahead and describing all four that pertain, I believe, pertain to the striking and that the next causes are not affecting the striker? This is for the underlying motion. Okay. Yes, you're right. They pretend to know what this is all about. And I'd like you to go through these next four. Oh, sure. Okay. So Amendment 0.68, which is on page 13 of your packet, this is related to the BSE case. Go in this specifies that if the initiative does not impose will not impose additional prioritization to the best or it's implementation plan. Amendment 0.7 and Page 14 revises the group composition. So the Planning Workgroup and permit advisory board composition would be comprised of 13 representatives. Four would be selected by the executive and one selected by each council member in the executive. And Council members will strive to appoint individuals with experience and knowledge on equitable development and issues relating to displacement. Go ahead. The next Amendment 0.7 B is from Council Member Perry, and this letter revised the current composition of the Planning Workgroup and Permanent Advisory Board to have equal geographic representation and adds considerations for individuals with live experience or expertize relative relevant to the initiative. Okay, thank you very much. Cut some about the globe. Would you like to comment on your three amendments? Thank you. Those weren't all mine, but my interest is twofold. Historically, our charter gives the legislative branch of government the policymaking and and budgetary authority. And if we're going to delegate that authority, I think it's most appropriate for us that to be done by council members, not have the county executive choose who will represent us. We have many other models where we do this. And in fact, this body has fought the executive tooth and nail for months on some of our other levies to ensure that our voice is heard. I trust us just as much as I trust DOE to select a good, diverse group of people that represent the values we want . My concern is when we give that appointment authority to one individual in the executive branch, to the executive, that some voices are shut out. I think this should reflect the diversity of the county, not just geographically, but in the true sense of the word. You know, we're all have different interests in focus. We all were selected by our communities to be their voice. And I think it makes sense. If we're going to delegate our authority to have the council members play a more direct role like we do with our other. Fiscal oversight committees in nominating and selecting someone from our community to represent represent those interests. So that's my thinking and bring it forward. I think it also. We're at risk of groupthink when you have one person selecting everyone and when there's a small group that's very, very interested in something behind it, I think there's a risk of sort of a group of insiders and people who are all all have the exact same vision. And I think that's dangerous. And I think we want a diversity of ideas and thoughts of people who are excited about the overall vision but but willing to bring diverse views. So that's my my interest and bring it forward. Thank you. And that's Amendment 0.7. Do you alignment anything? So those. Were. I think it went over. Others were not mine. Was that correct? Jenny We went over a 0.7 B and that's sponsored by Councilmember Perry. And I will get to her. Thank you. Okay. And you had two others there. 0.58 and 0.6 say. I mean, we have we've been briefed on those. Yes. But. Remind me very quickly which those were. Let me pull up my sheet here. 0.5. I don't think he spoke on the edas scope to focus. Yes. Gotcha. Thank you. I am. I'm just thinking the most fair methodology is to target where the need is greatest. You know, there are other grant programs. We have that kind of universal approach and target it based on need. And if we did that, unincorporated areas rise exceptionally well. They're one of the areas our urban unincorporated areas are one where all the is about every indicator and everyone recognizes. And and but there also are some extremely high need areas outside unincorporated areas, some of the areas with the largest black population, with the highest levels of displacement and risk of displacement. And to make those lower priority than the unincorporated areas just strikes me as arbitrary and not particularly fair. Okay. Thank you. End .0.6, say on best case scope? Yes, that's one we've talked quite a bit about. As you may remember, the best starts for kids tax measure. For the first time ever in King County, we have capital funds for youth programing and community centers and something there's a great deal of enthusiasm and interest all over the county. There happens also to be language in the best start for kids implementation plan that says that the grant program will be informed by and made in collaboration with any future. Ed I And my concern was that if we're going to put new parameters on this idea like prioritizing unincorporated areas that I don't think that's what was originally intended when the best start for kids implementation plan was passed, when the, you know, Sound Cities all sat at the table there and it went through the Regional Policy Committee, no one ever suggested that those funds would now be prioritized in unincorporated areas. So this would say. Yes, collaborate, share input on it, but don't apply any new criteria to those best starts. For kids capital grants, they're already targeted very much the same way. I don't have the language in front of me, but they're bipoc communities, community led projects, you know, dealing with many of these same values and those dollars are fairly limited. So prioritizing one community over another could mean certain projects get funded and others don't. So that was my attempt to try to get at that issue. And over that, I've heard some support on the council and even today from some people testifying. I think you and I may not be going through this the most logical way. No, it's great for me. I'm sorry I didn't have my amendments in front of me. And Councilmember DEMBOSKY has an amendment proposed to on that same topic. But we'll complete the first four. We've got Council Member Perry's 60.7 B, which also has to do with group composition. I probably should have had you take that up already. Councilmember Perry, would you like to make comment on that? Thank you, Chair Carl Wells. You know, I very I'm reading a lot and talking a lot with members involved in this. And and I appreciate what this is trying to do. You know, as someone who has 30% of my district in unincorporated King County, I am very appreciative of an emphasis on the voice of folks from unincorporated King County, because simply there is nobody else. If we don't speak to that, there is nobody else speaking for these voices and making sure that the focus is there. And I'm so so I'm interested in in in looking at that. And I'm glad that spring being brought forward. I do. I'm confused about some of the language, so I need to get some more clarity around the best starts for kids and whether the language specifically prioritized cities, which is also a problem. So, you know, I'd like to make sure that what we ask for and best chance for kids is actually what we use the funding for. So there's a an ethic in deciding to uphold the trust of the people. When we ask for funds to be used in a certain way, that that is in fact how we use those funds. That's very, very important. And if we need to create a different mechanism that we do. But that part is very important to me, and it's also important that we are emphasizing the voices of the community with lived experience, bipoc community and those with lived experience. That is the entire intention of EDA and I support that. I, I'm a little confused about I don't know if it's semantics, but I'm a little confused about the distinction that's being made between when Executive Constantine chooses and when the council members choose the makeup of that community group . That's confusing to me. It's a little unclear to me. I thought that the community group is formed with E.D., but it sounds like is sort of a hand-picking by the executive of those advisory members 1 to 1. I'm confused about that. So I need some more information around that, that I'll do that work on my own. But I would like to see representation from all of the districts, with those with lived experience and some bipoc community and expertize, making an equal portion, making up the the folks that decide what their recommendation is to the to the executive. So to me, having everybody in that I think is really important. And we have people who have been displaced or at great risk of being displaced in the community in each of our districts. That would be appropriate. I feel, if we're using the voice, the dollars of the city with that emphasis, that we're actually bringing in voices from each of the districts to help that that discussion happen, but that they're formed together just with the objective, that within their forming of their community group, they're working with people from each area. Thank you very much, Councilmember Perry. I would like to do now is go over the remaining four amendments and have the sponsors have actually, I don't think we actually need to have Jim go brief us on them. They're pretty specific. I'll just ask each sponsor to let us know what they're about and then just open this up for questions, comments, discussion. I perhaps could have done it topic by topic, but I started this way, so we'll continue. Councilmember Dombroski for amendment number one on the best stokes grant steps. Okay. Thank round chair. This was another variation. I think we brought it forward last time to address this little bit of a conundrum around the BSC funding. But I want to say that in general, I think Councilmember Grove has identified an issue that was triggered because of the language elsewhere in the motion that prioritized investment in unincorporated communities. And when you when that lines up with the best capital grants, it created a new a new focus, if you will, that I that I concur was not in the original proposal. And so I think we need to address that one way or another, because I wrote the wrong house language, which I think I'm pretty comfortable with. But I think we went through a very robust process there and the voters approved, you know, the plan. And I know there's a lot of excited around that. So my main message I want to convey on the BSC is I don't think we should was we would saying they don't retread that that we got to a consensus and that was there. So I think, Madam Chair, that with a little more time, we'll be able to address that issue because I sense there's consensus around it on the 1.3 existing funding sources, that's a similar issue, but just broader and I think we need some more dialog around that. The the goal in my mind here is it was to and is to go find. Sustainable funding on an ongoing basis for this initiative. But a little bit or chiseling away from other funds or a one time deal but something that makes it a real robust strong program that can meet the need that is here. And I think that there are some opportunities to do that. Perhaps most near and coming down the pike in the DSH, a cell renewal that could really, if we had this plan in place, served as a as an opportunity to inject real, real money into this. So I think that can have some additional work. And then I'll just jump to my last one. I know I'm jumping out, but it's just the deadline change. Okay. Thank you. And the last one, 1.5 Councilmember of the Grove on the advisory board will. Thank you, Madam Chair. We spoke to I spoke to this at the previous meeting. I don't know. Underlying it says it gives this group of executive appointees the authority to make policy and budget decisions. I don't know how we legally do that, how someone can make a policy decision. The main policy issues are land use and we have very specific state laws around plan updates and and timelines and the rules of the legislative bodies of county governments can do that. I. You know, we we appropriate the dollars. And so I'm worried we're setting up a little bit of a false expectation here. And I was just going to say, you know, I'm not aware of other areas in the county where we do this. We have them. We have often advisory boards, make decisions and then bring those to the elected officials. I think of Conservation Futures Board, great example. We empower them. It's led by those members. They develop a list and then at the end of the day, the county council approves that. And so we might want to either change the name from advisory board or. I think be more honest about what the practical impact is, which is that they're there to inform the executive and legislative branch on these items. I'm not wedded to this because I think it just will be. I mean, our procedures, our procedures and an emotion saying what a committee will do doesn't change those. But I think it's I just thought it was odd to create an advisory committee, but advisory committee, we delegate our policymaking and budgetary authority to them. You add to it that it's a group of executive appointees, and it makes it even more awkward for me. So that was my thinking on that one. I agree and empowering and having the, you know, people who are not elected and who bring some different experience, being at the heart of the discussion and even driving that discussion . And that's not what my concern is. The concern is that we're stating this board can do something for which under state law in our charter and things. I don't know how we really do that. So that was my thinking. Thank you very much. So these are the amendments that we can discuss right now. There may be other ones that are brought up. Hopefully we will have resolution by the time of our next meeting. But it seems to me that some of the major issues here have to do with, as we discussed last time, what? But his priority can be. I mean, we have here an amendment to 0.5 they referring to the scope of the DEA to focus. Is that the same thing as a priority or criteria? Is a term mentioned as well? And is that the same as a priority or would that be a more preferable term? This that's an issue that I think we need to come to grips with. Also, the composition of the working group and then later the advisory board and what their roles would be very important. And there are other ones too, but those are just a couple that we've dealt with. I guess another important one, though, is what's in the motion as it stands now to give a priority to the unincorporated King County areas, urban areas. And some of us have concerns about that. We'd rather have this be open to communities and organizations throughout the county, including the unincorporated King County urban areas. So with that, first of all, are there any questions of any of the sponsors of the amendments or just comments that you might want to make? The whole councilmembers are here. I thought you might want to. I have a I'll start off with a few. A couple quick ones. Can maybe central staff or maybe the sponsors share with us the difference between amendment point seven A and amendment point seven B? Are those, you know, can both of those stand or are they is it one or the other? They're both. That one is from councilmember of the Grove, one from Councilmember Perry. They both relate to group composition. Just talking through what the difference between those two is and are they either or both? They would be either or. Amendment 0.7 A would change the planning workgroup composition to four representative selected by the executive and then one selected by each County Council member. And that amendment would state that the executive and council members would strive to appoint individuals with experience and knowledge about equitable development and issues relating to displaced. That Amendment 0.7 d would maintain the language that's in the underlying motion related to emphasizing black, indigenous and people of color in the leadership. And it changes. There needs to be. There is a reference in the underlying motion about geographic representation, including unincorporated King County. This would be changed and geographic representation for each council district. And then there's also consideration for individuals with experience or expertize relative to the initiative. So there's some overlap. And I would say, Madam Chair, that I actually like Rick Perry's description of what we're looking for on their mind. I think that's an improvement from my amendment. The where we I think we disagree is whether it's the we let down the people from our districts or whether we nominate those people, select them from our districts. But I like her criteria. Thank you. That is the Madam Access Chair Coles. Is it? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. That is the distinction. And I. I want to do what's in that amendment. I'm hoping to encourage the community development as much as possible, and that together the the community would would move forward, bring forward representatives from each of the different districts for consideration by the council and that it not rest with each of the councilmembers. That's correct. Thank you. Council members than anyone else. Yes. Just I'll have a few other thoughts. But just on this point, I want to understand how having a one for one representation on an advisory board fits in with the idea of we are going to prioritize areas of highest displacement. These reports come back and they show that some areas, some districts are have way more higher risk of displacement. How does that fit in with each of us having representation on a board? Those two things for me feel like they are at odds with one another. It's putting geographic quote unquote, geographic equity ahead of displacement equity. So that's that's why I would not support these, but I would welcome thoughts on how. But if anyone has thoughts on that. I'm some member of the Globe and parents. I think it's a fair question. I think and I can wax philosophical on this. I've discussed similar issues with Fort Culture and the Homelessness Authority about the role of appointed versus elected. We have a one person, one vote. Democracy in this county and in our country where the community. The cool thing is the community gets to decide who they want to represent them and everyone has the same say regardless of income background. Everyone gets one vote and they and then the community selects someone and they've selected nine of us. All of those individuals, all of those voters have a stake in the outcome, not in the same direct degree, but they all are funding this. This is all taxpayer dollars from all over the county. How we grow obviously affects how we grow in certain areas, affects people in those areas. But I think when we're setting county wide policies using county wide dollars, everyone deserves a voice, I think using appointees and generally not speaking to this. But I've seen it be used as a way to get around the democratic process, to get around ensuring everyone in the community has a voice and narrowing it to just some in the community have a voice. And I like to define community in an inclusive way. And I sometimes hear people use the term community to define community in an exclusive way that says somebody testified today, spoke about we want people from the community. I'm trying to think of who's not from the community, who isn't from the community. I know nine of us aren't, you know, because we're now elected. But other than that, are there people that aren't from the community? And so I, I think that. All nine council members should have their views and voices and priorities reflected in the decisions made that affect the whole county. I think we should appoint people, and I certainly would from my district, people who bring unique experience, particularly maybe people have been impacted by this. I like prioritizing black indigenous people of color. But I also think that everyone, the diverse, the ideological diversity and geographic diversity, all of that needs to be reflected or else the voters, certain voters are getting cut out of the of the mix. And it's sort of my this weird populist in me isn't just on this issue I just think that we can use appointed bodies in ways that exclude members of the community in order to narrow the perspectives that are brought to bear on a problem. And I think we are better served when we have a larger diversity of views and when everybody in the county gets an equal voice. So I don't know. That was kind of a rambling answer, but it's it's why I'm often very careful about how and when and who we delegate decision making to to ensure that we don't lose that broader definition of community and the pursuit of of goals. So that's at least my thinking. And to Councilmember to Councilmember Perry. Thank you, chair corrals. I think that we are in this situation because we haven't centered people in the community who are most impacted. That's the entire reason for this conversation. And so I think it's important to call out who those community members are and to emphasize the strength and the voice of the community members most affected by the disparity. I don't think we should be emphasizing all community members because that's what got us into this. And we have some work to do to get out of it. And we do that by centering folks who are most impacted and making the decisions that will impact them. So I'm a big supporter of that. I immediately Councilmember Zoabi, maybe I am still not understanding exactly what the intention is in this space, but from for me. If it is much and like it, I would see the city of Seattle, E.D., with King County. You know, you would want to have that. I will speak to that for within King County. I do think we need to be focusing on and not prioritizing the city because the city does have opportunities that unincorporated simply, categorically does not have. So we have an obligation as King County to support those most disaffected in unincorporated King County if we're going to speak to the heart or the intention of that. So in my in my thinking about making sure that we have representation from people who are most impacted from each of the districts. It is because it is community wide in focus. And right now, we're emphasizing and ideally all along in the future, we are emphasizing those who have the greatest need. And everybody would speak to that. So I don't have an expectation that those within each of the different districts would lobby for their own space if it didn't rise to the occasion of the greatest need, but that they would be a voice for all of those most affected, and they would be a voice from throughout the districts. I think it it it doesn't help the strength of it to focus in a very narrow area for funding that affects an entire group of people that's affected throughout the entire area of King County in displacement. I think it's important to have that broad based, some lived experience with the directive that that the intention is to impact those who have the highest level of displacement and negative impact in their communities throughout King County, that everybody would be speaking to that collectively. I don't see it as bifurcating it or separating it then into nine different funding spaces. I don't know if that's coming through clearly, but that's that's my intention in that is that there is a voice for the full community in King County and that the and that the guidance is to vote to impact those that are most affected by potential displacement. Thank you, Councilmember Perry. We're running short on time. This has been a really fruitful discussion. I would first like to find out if Councilmember Sarlo was there because he is a sponsor. I'd like to hear from Councilmember Jim DEMBOSKY, the lead sponsor. And I also would invite Kelly Rider and Karen Gill to give comment. And we want to wrap this up in the next several minutes. So, first of all, Councilman Starlight, anything quick? Yes, quickly. Thank you, Councilmember Coles. I'll have a lot of thoughts later, but I want to quickly point out a place of agreement among all of us. I'm supportive of the amendments that try to decouple the BSA, how BSA is funneled through from the unincorporated priority that I've been advocating for. So with with respect to that, I think we're all on the same page, and I will support that those amendments. Thank you very much. Okay. And Councilmember Dombroski. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I know that there was originally some hope that we would be able to move this forward today out of this committee. But it seems to me it's the right call to have some additional work off line, because in particular, some of the amendments that are here are trying to tackle the same issue. And it looks to me like some of them overlap or get darn close to agreement. This is, well, virtual works pretty good. I think this legislation is one where we would be better off if we were all sitting here on the 12th floor so we could have those in-person conversations and work through them. But I think we're going to be able to do that quickly in the coming days. You know, just one thought on on kind of power sharing here, if you will. And this is a bit of a sea change for me. And that is there are times when having an equal voice from every part of the county is good and works. And I want to make sure that we have a wide variety of views. But one of the aims of this legislation is to not only lift up, but to actually empower, to give power to those who are on the ground and suffering the effects of this bill that we're trying to address this this overrunning of communities with big money and to help them stand up and let them make decisions and let them make investments that. The those in the communities most impacted that are experiencing this challenge are seeing and living. And that, to me, where I got to address it means giving up some of the power that I have in this office and and letting folks decide their own destiny. And it's a bit of a sea change. We just had a good discussion here today. And so I hope that I will there are as concerned rep the girl points out legal constraints from the law and the charter and whose responsibilities are. I hope that we will support a philosophy in this legislation that truly does empower to the greatest extent possible. Maybe policy choice is the wrong word, but you know that that empowers this group with real ability and real authority to tackle this challenge. There's a balance on that in that is you want to bring those who have power, like we do, to secure funding and make investments and and and have trust and kind of the voters to make this thing go. You want to bring bring us along and respect that. But I'm I'm I think that's a very important element to this philosophically. And the discussion we're having here today is good to kind of clear out the concerns and hash that out. I represent, by and large, a very wealthy district. These challenges are in my district in Pinehurst and Lake City and that part of it. But they don't predominate like other parts of our county with respect. And I do think, Councilmember Perry, we do have an extra duty as a local government in our unincorporated areas to pay special attention there and maybe even give an edge on occasion. But I think we should remember, depending on how this is funded, that it comes from. Taxpayers countywide, including in the city of Seattle, including in all of our 39 incorporated cities. And sometimes I would like to remind us that the needs in those incorporated communities can be great, and maybe even a local initiative that might be funded by a city is inadequate to address the need. And I think it's okay if King County comes in as a regional government government working across jurisdictional boundaries to buttress those efforts . I would like us to think about that as we think about where these these funds could go and the priority language. So there's a few thoughts. I'm very, very optimistic and hopeful. I hear that there is great interest across the diocese here in the virtual diocese in doing this, which is pretty cool because the debate could have been, what is this? This isn't a county government role. We don't need to be doing this. I'm not hearing that. I'm hearing people of goodwill and different perspectives and with different ideas saying, Yeah, let's do it, let's get it right and let's make it robust. And so I'm optimistic and I'll leave it out. And on that note. Thank you, Michael. A well served councilmember Dombroski really well serve. I think my scheduler is trying to make arrangements for a meeting of those partners who are involved on the council with staff. And I'm optimistic, too, that we're going to come up with a good outcome at our next meeting. I would like to see if Current Girl or Kelly Rider would like to give any comment before we sign off. Karen. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Karen Gill with the Executive Office, as we said, in support of the vision in the work. Additional clarity is always appreciated in interpreting Council's intent. So appreciate the discussion. Nothing else to add at this point. Okay. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing further that. Do I have a question, though? And we had a discussion at our last meeting about the term priority and what that means. We've also talked today about the term criteria or focus. Is there more of a prevalent term that you tend to use some decent chess? Thank you, Madam Chair. Kelly Writer, government relations manager for Community Human Services. I can't say that there is. I think prioritization is pretty clear, and there are always multiple types of prioritization that we are trying to intersect and understand in our work. So we will do our best to interpret the intent of the council and will absolutely seek more guidance if we get to that point. Okay. Thank you very much. Is anybody else on the council wishing to ask a question or give any any comment? Okay with that, we will close discussion on this proposal and we are now at the end of our agenda. And Madam Clerk, I do not believe that any member missed a vote to my correct. No is correct, Madam Chair. Okay. So with that, our next regularly scheduled, regularly scheduled town meeting is on March 2nd. Appreciate everybody who participated today. I think last discussion was really helpful. And we are now adjourned.