Speaker 0: That takes us to actually the last item on today's agenda. It's an ordinance that would renew the six year property tax levy and replace it on the November 3rd ballot to support the Best Kid Best Start's for Kids Levy. This ordinance was a mandatory dual referral between the Regional Policy Committee and the Committee of the Hall. It has already been approved with the by the Regional Policy Committee on March 26th with amendments. And so Miranda Ruskin and Wendy Sidhu from Policy Staff will provide this report. That report will focus on the amendments adopted by the Regional Policy Committee. And as members were briefed ahead of time, I'll remind everybody that if we were to adopt further amendments, it would necessarily necessitate a referral to back to the Regional Policy Committee for their consideration, not advancement to full Council for consideration. And with that, I'll turn it over to a much less. And Mr. Who.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, members of the committee. For the record, Miranda less concern with council policy staff and the materials for this item begin on page nine of your committee packet for today. As noted by the chair, I proposed ordinance 2020 162 is a proposition to fund the Best Starts for Kids initiative by replacing an existing property tax levy that is due to expire at the end of this year. The executive's proposal would create a new six year levy with an initial levy rate of $0.19 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2022. As noted, this item was referred first to the Regional Policy Committee as a mandatory referral B and then to this committee, the committee of the whole. The proposed legislation was briefed in the r p c on February the 10th and March the 10th. And in this committee on February the 17th, the proposed legislation passed out of the P c on March 20 marked the 26th as amended and is currently before the committee. A summary of the C adopted amendments is provided in the staff report on page 29 of your packets. I'll run through those quickly. In total, there were six amendments and a title amendment adopted by the r p c. There was Amendment One, which was a largely technical amendment to replace the term local hospital district with public hospital district and made other various technical corrections. And it also deleted attachment age with the proposed ordinance, which was the Escape Blueprint Report. There was Amendment five B, which created A, which creates a capital grants program of up to $50 million over the levy period, subject to total levy revenue projections being at least 822 million. The program would be for facility and building repairs and expansion and to support the construction of new buildings and facilities that'll serve children and youth. Program funding would be subject first to reduction if the total levy revenue projections were to fall below 872 million. The amendment identifies that buildings and facilities that serve children and youth would include but not be limited to housing and child care and early learning and recreational facilities of note program details would be identified in the implementation plan to be translated transmitted later this year, as well as included a policy for prioritizing capital investment in new buildings and facilities as compared to investments in existing buildings and facilities. Next amendment was Amendment six. This adds language relating to eligible expenditures on programs and services that promote social and emotional well-being and mental health. And this was two Section four B, and then it also adds mental health challenges to the examples list of negative outcomes. Next, there was Amendment seven. This added $5 million to the $235 million first allocation for a total of at least $240 million over the levy period and would require that $1,000,000 annually would go towards a grant program to be described in the implementation plan that would support capacity building and developing infrastructure in areas lacking either services or services infrastructure. Next was Amendment eight B. This directs that in the implementation planned that it would require annual reporting, Olympia expenditure services and outcomes, including total expenditures of levy proceeds by program, area by zip code and the number of individuals receiving services by program, area by zip code where the individuals reside at the time of service. There's Amendment nine or note in the staff report there's a typo. So the description should read that the amendment requires the executive in developing the implementation plan to ensure that residents throughout King County and in any city in the county can access levy funded strategies regardless of the availability of similar programing and services already provided by their city or in their community. And then lastly, there was a title amendment which essentially conformed the title of the ordinance to the body of the ordinance, as amended by the committee adopted amendments. I'll note that included in your packet materials for today, just for illustrative purposes, is a copy of the current version of the proposed ordinance as it passed. R.P. C That shows where the ARP adopted amendment language appears in the proposed legislation, essentially to track changes copy of the current version of the proposed legislation relating to next steps and key dates. As I mentioned earlier, this item was referred first. To the Regional Policy Committee is a mandatory referral. And then to this committee, as noted by the Chair, assuming this committee passes the legislation to the full Council for its consideration and either this committee or full council works to amend the legislation, thus creating a new version, then the legislation would need to be referred back to RTC for its consideration before it could move to the full council for a possible final action. On page 30 of your packet materials is a summary of the key dates this year by which the IPC and Council must complete their respective review processes and by which the Council must pass legislation in order to place a renewal of your proposal on the August ballot. Lastly for the Committee, I will note that an amendment packet for today's meeting was emailed to members yesterday morning at 9:37 a.m.. Mr. Chair, that concludes a staff report. I will note that we are joined by executive staff if there are questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions on the legislation as it arrives here or the. Including the amendments adopted by the Regional Policy Committee. Council member Lambert.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And two quick questions. I don't see anything in here on the transition at year six to closing down this levy so that people are prepared that this levy was originally to be a jump start in in organizing and training people on these issues. It wasn't in my mind at the time going to be a permanent levy. So how are we going to provide for that? And should we have the language to say that they need to be doing that and who they should be sent to? Many of these things could be done by school districts and by other groups. So coordinating so that we have a a positive handoff from handoff at the end of the levy amount. So that's my first question. I think I would defer to executive staff to speak to, you know, what the plans would be to to transition. For example, if there wasn't a subsequent levy after after this upcoming proposed levee, and maybe they could speak to any planning around that. So just. Hi, Sheila Constante, director of the Children, Youth and Young Adults Division and Lead for Best Start's for Kids. If I could just ask a point of clarification. Are you talking about if this renewal were to be placed on the ballot and would not pass, what would be our transition plan or.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: But my question and thank you for specifying is at the end of this next six years. So after doing this planning and organizing for 12 years, if if the choice is now, we've organized for 12 years, now it's time to move on. What is the plan for being prepared to ramp down so that people are just left hanging? Mm hmm. So I actually, at this point, I'm not prepared to talk about what happens in six years for ramp down. But I can speak in very general terms about some of the points that you made around where funding comes from . Our funding landscape is very dynamic and already is. Funding streams come in to King County. We are talking about how do we leverage different funding streams within our county. We also know that coming into our community or funding streams from outside that we also are keeping a close eye on and leveraging the programing that we do with what those different funding streams are intended to do. So what I think is that in the next couple of years that we will be begin to look at that again. It's very dynamic right now. We need to look at sort of thing what recovery looks like from this pandemic, what requirements and needs are of our communities over the coming years, and what types of funding streams we have coming in, in addition to BSC, to begin to think about how does all of that come together to form a whole, and what will our plan be for the next time around? That's great. And I think looking to the school districts are really where are some of these responsibilities.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: Under Head Start and others belong to them so that we can begin to say we organized it now, this is years. And then the second question is, because of the levy rate originating at 14 and then going down to 12, 11 point, I think two or three. But there was growth back up to the base of 14 when they said they were going to redo the levy. And we knew that the assumption was that it would renew it the same amount we did last time. 14 So how did we decide on 19 and I know there was an amendment in RTC to change it to 17. What is the extra? Depending upon how you're counting $0.78 or $0.05, depending upon where you. She's the base to be. What is that going to be allocated for that we didn't have in the first? Is that for me as well or is that for you? Yes, it is. Okay. So with the additional dollars, we would. So, first of all, we've been assessing sort of pandemic impact and what are the needs around us and the needs of different around us. So part of what the additional dollars allow us to do, which we were excited about before and are really excited about now because of the pandemic impacts, is to deepen our investments in our 5 to 24 investment area, so deepening for 5 to 12 year olds to receive out of school time services, deepening around our school based centers and deepening around what we call our transitions to adulthood, which is really that 16 to 24 year olds, how do we help launch them into a successful adulthood around education, employment support? The biggest chunk of the additional dollars, however, that the executive proposed was for childcare subsidy program, and that has been an issue for years. People's ability to access good quality childcare. It has become a particular crisis as an impact under the pandemic. So best starts for kids will be able to leverage our dollars if this passes with other funding sources that are coming in state and federal, and to really begin to do some repair work and then create an infrastructure for childcare that works for everyone.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: We need that in my district too. So I'd like to talk with you about something. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 3: I was talking my wife there. Thanks, Terry McDermott. And thanks to everyone who has been working on this. I think my question maybe for Miranda. So I understand the timeline or the procedural history of the legislation as its worked its way through. And that let me just make sure. So on the if I'm off, let me know. But on January 28, this was transmitted to the King County Council, the package on February 2nd, February 2nd, it was introduced and referred to RBC and then CAO. And we all know how we all know how full committees get. And so as I understand it, the on February 10th and March 10th, it was not taken up by the Regional Policy Committee, but there was, in fact a special committee on March 26th of the RTC where it passed out in the current form before us today . Is that is that accurate?
Speaker 1: Brandon That's correct.
Speaker 3: Counsel Okay, so I just want to, I guess, just make sure I'm not on RBC and six of the nine members of the council aren't. So this is really our first chance to take a look substantively at this legislation and the committee structure here today. I just want to make sure I didn't miss a meeting if I'm not on our PC.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn Yeah, I would point out that we while it was the legislation, was formally in the Regional Policy Committee. We had a full briefing on the legislation earlier.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we know we had a briefing, but I meant the opportunity to move amendments is what I'm getting at. Sorry. Okay. That's just all I want to have. Okay, great. Appreciate the work that was done and we'll have more discussion on it a little bit later. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Other questions of staff on the presentation, on the legislation. Actually none.
Speaker 1: Mr.. FORD.
Speaker 0: Counselor. Mr..
Speaker 1: Sorry. Yes. I just did want to clarify a point from your opening remarks. And Miranda did cover this, but I did want to make clear that if this were to pass out of committee today, it will then go to full council and then go back to the Regional Policy Committee. So I think the possible schedule we had considered would be if it gets passed out today, that it would go to full council on April 20th. And then if it did need to go back to the Regional Policy Committee, I think they would be looking at scheduling a special meeting sometime between April 21st and 26 or so
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Then if there are no further questions, I would entertain a motion to to give a do pass recommendation to the ordinance 2020 162.
Speaker 1: Some of Mr. Chair or Energy.
Speaker 0: 2020 162 is before US Amendments. Member Dunn.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that. I would move at this point Amendment one to proposed ordinance 2020 10062. Version two.
Speaker 0: Amendment one is before US Council Member Dunn.
Speaker 3: Okay, let me just summarize this amendment. It is very simple. It's just two paragraphs, and I appreciate my colleagues willingness to hear this essentially on page nine, after 1998, after the Turner boards, we would also insert some just additional language to address substance abuse and in young people and youth. It would insert programs and services that are provide, expand access to or provide and expand access to substance use disorder, supports for children and youth, including but not limited to awareness campaigns on substance use. It also inserts on page 16 quote In developing the best starts for kids implementation plan, the executive shall identify strategies related to prevention , outreach and early intervention to address mental health and substance use impacts in children and youth ages five and all over, which have been exacerbated due to the Corona Virus Disease 2019 pandemic. So it's pretty, pretty straightforward on substance abuse for for young people. And so it's, I think, pretty, pretty straightforward in terms of what it does. And it also takes into account the the recent stat just stat a. Statistics that we have 40% percent of our public population in general suffering from anxiety and depression. We have a double digit increase in substance use disorder cases for drugs and alcohol. And so, as I mentioned earlier on, I know that this has been a process that is compressed and compacted. And so we have been prepared to engage my staff and myself on this since it was introduced, preferred to full council. And while action was not taken by the Regional Policy Committee on the scheduled action date, it sort of had the effect of setting our entire timeline back. And I know committees get super busy and staff make choices on what needs to go where. But we still do have time to send this back to our PC, even if it is amended here today at full council. And so, you know, our job, I think, is as policymakers, is is not to let the burden of procedure interfere with the job of maybe substantive improvements in the legislation that might ultimately make it better . So as I indicated, RBC deferred on February 10th and March 10th. And so we really are only hearing this for the first time today. As it currently stands, the levy and this first time for amendment excuse me, procedural amendments or changes to make this legislation better. This levy, as it stands right now, does not, I don't think, have the necessary provisions to deal with youth's youth in the post-pandemic world relating substance, mental health disorders. They are, of course, not new problems for youth, but have been significantly exacerbated due to the stress and trauma caused by this pandemic. I believe that the current form of the scale levy does not go far enough to directly address the significant struggles that youth and young adults are facing in King County. As you know, this is an issue close to my heart, and it's not, I think, something that that is. You know, it's not easy for me really to talk about it, but we know that a huge percentage of of young people, youth and early teens struggle with these challenges. We also know that people later in life begin to struggle through their thirties and forties as well with these challenges. And we also know statistically that substance use and mental health are some of the most significant problems facing young people today. And according to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and 80 other studies on the topic, social isolation and loneliness significantly increase the risk of depression and anxiety in previously health and healthy children and adolescents. The median age being just 15. We know that depression anxiety could correlate through a dual diagnosis with various addiction. So the conclusion of that journal was that because COVID 19 and the forced isolation that it caused impacts clinical services, it should offer preventative and early intervention where possible, and be prepared for an increase in mental health problems, unquote. A 2014 study done by USC, a 476 adolescents, the mean age of 14 years old. Depression levels directly associated with an increased likelihood of lifetime use of an A+, prescription painkillers and many other substances. Their conclusion was simple Targeting depression levels with preventative efforts may be useful in reducing risk of lifetime use of substances. The negative statistics, of course, go on and on. I won't bore the counselor with this. So. So all of the studies basically say the same thing. We have an opportunity to do something about these threats to our younger generation of people in King County across the board. And I think we can act now through this vehicle to get some very important programing put forward. So that's why I'm urging all of you to pass this amendment. It's quite simple. We have the unique opportunity to act and support the next generation. I thank all of my colleagues very much for hearing me out on this, and I would just urge you're strong consideration of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Discussion.
Speaker 1: That's the question.
Speaker 0: Council member do do out and.
Speaker 1: She thank you. This is obviously a very real long standing, but also currently very pressing issue. It came up at the Regional Policy Committee. There was an amendment proposed and adopted proposed by the Sounds Cities Association representatives and adopted that expanded the Levy's allowance of uses for funds to include being used for this kind of behavioral health type response. Can somebody explain to me the difference between what was amended into the program at our PC and this amendment? Miranda, do you want to see.
Speaker 3: What staff take that on and then I'll speak to it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Oh, I can speak to that. Thank you. Councilmembers. So, Councilmember Bell Dutchie, you are correct in the our p c on March the 26th, there was an amendment that was adopted that added language in that subsection four B regarding eligible expenditures, regarding programs and services that promote social and emotional well-being and mental health. And then in 4b2, it also added mental health challenges to the list of negative outcomes relating to prevention and early intervention on negative outcomes. So that is the language that was adopted in R.P. C on the 26th of March.
Speaker 3: Great. Thanks. And just to speak to that, if I might directly address the terrorist question. So the mental health challenges that you just spoke to. What this does is it's certainly not at all inconsistent. I think it adds to and further refines the work that was done there at the good work of the Regional Policy Committee. So it supports very specifically in Naomi, just use the words of mine, better access to substance use disorders support, which is a subset, I think, of mental health challenges most people think for children use including but not limited to awareness campaigns and substance use so that awareness campaigns, substance use is added in their strategies to relating to prevention and intervention in early intervention to address mental health, which is there and substance use impacts in children, youth ages five and older, which are been exacerbated due to the coronavirus pandemic. So it further pushes the discussion into substance use disorders, which as we know, is addiction and recovery, as well as one of the key issues that we know is that awareness and education, particularly for young people, is important and allows for that awareness campaign within the legislation.
Speaker 1: I can ask all that. Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Council member, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And this is to Ms.. Campus, Danny and the executive staff. I think as I look at the language that's adopted and the breadth of it and what's being proposed here, that. We would be that it would be within our rights as so what we're setting. Let me reframe what we're setting here is the language of the ordinance or go will be what informs the ballot measure that the voters are asked to vote on. And so if it's not in the ordinance, if if an allowed expenditure is not in the ordinance and the voters approve it, it's not in the package. And so that's I think the risk here there is that we're facing is if we don't specifically call out these kinds of programs, that it will be outside the scope of what the voters approved and therefore not eligible for funding. We had this discussion very deeply on some capital matters, but this is for for services and operating programs. So my question is. I believe that what we have in the ordinance already allows the expenditure of funds on the types of programs that Councilmember Dunn is advocating for. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's directed at me or somebody. I mean, you can find it, but I'm asking somebody in the executive branch. Okay. I can say that a lot of what has been spoken to by Councilmember Dunn is incorporated into our busy frame already with our expert program, which says screening for intervention and referral to treatment and that ended up trauma informed work. We have already brought a community mental health and wellness project that was a part of each back and a response to the and we decided needed to be a yes came moving forward because of the trauma that has been caused by the pandemic so it's incorporated already asked for an opinion on the amendment. We definitely refer to the council on this one and I just wanted to explain sort of what our programing is already built into the proposal.
Speaker 2: That's moving forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I'm not I definitely would never ask. I think it would be unfair to ask for our executive staff to opine on an amendment on camera. But. But I am interested to know whether there's a real difference here, what it is. So so I hear what the council member is saying about this is the opportunity that council members have to offer amendments. And that should be a real opportunity. We should be able, as council members, to amend ballot measures and legislation that is a mandatory referral to the Regional Policy Committee. That shouldn't be something that we hesitate to do because that takes away our current step in the process, if you will. However, I also don't see the point in going back to our NPC to do something that doesn't make a substantive change. And so that's why I'm asking. I'm asking is this a substantive change? Does it allow for new expenditures that are not otherwise allowed for if we didn't adopt it? And I'm really still not clear on that question and I will plan to make how I vote. So can you try one more time? To me, I would refer to legislative staff on the legal aspect of whether we are prohibited from doing anything that's been outlined. From my perspective in terms of implementing this and coming up with an implementation plan, I actually am very grateful to the Council member for bringing this forward and this is something that has been deeply on all of our minds and was a part of our putting this ordinance together to begin with and the work that we're doing right now and the implementation plan. So the type of programs that have been outlined here are the types of programs that we would have implemented moving forward under the current legislation that you have before you without with. So whether the amendment further allows us to do that or not, I would say that I would defer to legislative staff on that. But everything that he's outlined are things that we have been concerned about that we've implemented so far under the current BSC this year. We took it over from the Mack work and we continue to move forward with the proposal for the coming year. So again, I if I could punt that back to central staff to see if there's anything that would be legally prohibitive of what we think we're able to do under what we're doing.
Speaker 0: I think I heard Ms.. Capistrano say that she's not aware of anything that in the amendment before us that that couldn't be done, though the amendment would highlight the work. Does council staff have further information on this?
Speaker 1: No, I would agree with that assessment. I think Member Dunn's amendment adds some specificity around the kinds of programs that might be considered. The one thing I will say is that the amendment would require the executive to identify strategies relating to mental health and substance use issues. However, there isn't anything that in the underlying ordinance that that would prevent the executive from doing that without that requirement being there. Miranda Would you agree with that? Would concur with that, Wendy. Collectively. That is all very helpful. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 0: Councilmember was that councilmember caldwell's?
Speaker 1: I didn't know it was him.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Councilmember Lambert.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So one question that I have is the new thing that's happening in the legislature, where potentially the Senate is saying that you can have your own supply of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, much like we do with marijuana. And then the house is saying that you should be able to have whatever you want. And so that dilemma is playing out right now. If they collectively decide that we can have more hair in their houses and more cocaine and more methamphetamines, then we need a strategy to help educate kids on, you know, this is going to be in your house more than it ever was before. And so how are we going to deal with that? So if this does go forward, I would like to see that be one of the questions that we deal with in the information that we are doing to educate kids, because I am very concerned with more Schedule one , narcotics being in people's houses than ever before. DEMBOSKY Oh.
Speaker 0: Is there in response needed to Councilmember Lambert.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. A turning back to the previous dialog, I think of popes, correct me if I'm wrong, but behavioral health is kind of a collective term for both substance use disorder challenges and mental health challenges. And in the in the RTC, the amendment that was brought forward by mayor back as the vice chair supported unanimously added mental health because that was identified by staff that that frankly was either removed or wasn't as clear in the legislation in the renewal. We wanted to put it back. But Councilmember Dunn's amendment here, as I understand the thrust of it, when it talks about mental health, it really seems focused on the other component of behavioral health . The substance use disorder pathways really led across a number of of policy areas. In that in that regard and in listening to Sheila, I heard you talk about our expert, which I think is, you know, middle school mental health assessments. But where are we specifically on the substance use disorder campaigns and education and work with respect to the levy language? Does it say specifically in there that we can fund substance use disorder programs using that term or collectively behavioral health, the umbrella term for both mental health and substance use disorder.
Speaker 1: Councilor Dombrowski I can speak to that a quick so in the proposed ordinance that's before you in subsection four two and this is relating to eligible expenditures regarding to prevention and early intervention on negative outcomes. There is a list and it's a non-exhaustive list that relates to prevent and intervene early on negative outcomes including but not limited to. And these are the list of examples that are provided poor birth outcomes, developmental delays, chronic disease, social emotional isolation, mental health challenges, substance abuse, dropping out of school homelessness, domestic violence, and effects of systemic racism and incarceration. And again, that's a non-exhaustive list, but those are the examples that are currently identified in the proposed ordinance language.
Speaker 2: Miranda Thank you. What page of our materials is is that the individuals?
Speaker 1: So this is attachment one to the staff report. It's the proposed ordinance as it passed out of our P.S. It is on page 40 of your packet materials for V two language starts on line 191.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's page 40 of the materials.
Speaker 1: That's correct, Councilmember.
Speaker 2: All right. So number two there it's it's for be okay to I'm just sorry I'm catching up to read it.
Speaker 3: Rather to say anything about the substance use awareness campaigns or anything.
Speaker 2: It doesn't cover that with that level of specificity in this authorizing use of expenditures, it does say that all charges come at substance abuse. It's kind of an old term, frankly. I think we should be using substance use disorder or substance challenges, but that's technical dropping out of school homelessness. Diva and systemic racism, incarceration. So I think that it may take on that is that it is an authorized expenditure. The details of your amendment, as I understand it. You know, you could put them there. They can also be in an implementation plan. I would like to see that work done. I'm supporting Councilmember Dunn's, you know, goal here. And. It is somewhat just kind of the procedural. I want to call it a headache. Additional, additional process. All right. Thank you. I also want Mr. Gunn's support of the legislation. I think it's important that with this magnitude of legislation, that the extent we can, we send a unanimous message out to our voters to to that we're that we want it. We want that this is important. We want to do this. Mr. Chair, real quick.
Speaker 0: Council member. Done.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just in the interests of trying to not bog up the system, would you be willing, for example, to work with me on a motion that would come before the full King County Council?
Speaker 2: A companion motion?
Speaker 3: Yes, the motion that, along with this break, would show support for the principles stated in this amendment.
Speaker 2: I would I would say that with me. I would I would co-sponsor it. And we could ask that it be included in the implementation plan.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. So if I withdrew this amendment, you might be willing to work with me. And hopefully other members of the council might be willing to support a motion. That would be a companion motion along with this.
Speaker 2: Let me be very specific. I would I would co-sponsor a motion that includes your exact language in there. And if we want to refine, we could. But I won't commit to that here. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 3: But that's great. That's enough. That's what I needed. I needed that a little bit because I'm really close on whether I'm going with the thing overall and with that, it tips it in favor of support. So. Mr. Chair, I will withdraw. I will draw Amendment one and look forward to working with my colleagues on a motion as a companion motion to the underlying, be it S.K. ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We have ordinance 2020 162 before us. Further amendments. Amendment to council. Number of the growth.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The adoption amendment to.
Speaker 0: Amendment two is before US Council member up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a lot of folks know.
Speaker 2: We've had challenges in this region with not just housing displacement, but we've seen displacement of commercial properties, particularly very small businesses, and particularly immigrant and refugee communities. We've seen a lot of it in South King County. There were some high profile situations where actions of city governments resulted in large displacements of East African community members and within the best starts for kids ballot measure previously. And this ballot measure is a section called Communities of Opportunity, which is a more holistic look at communities and has historically included looking at ensuring that we have, you know, economically thriving communities that support everyone in that and in the current best starts for kids ballot measure. The department was able last year in 2020 to fund the design and development of a commercial affordability pilot program. And it partnered with a national nonprofit called the National Development Council. And it set a number of goals and objectives that I think this council would agree with. As I understand it, they were to influence systems.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 2: Policy change and investment practices, to assist micro small businesses to remain open in their community, to benefit from development, revitalization, investment, and to contribute to the economic stability and resiliency in these targeted communities. It was also designed to increase access to capital by communities where the current lending products and models haven't been available or acceptable, and also to create tools that address the needs of micro and small businesses to access capital and leverage resources for things like feasibility studies, tenant improvements, capital investments, as well as providing technical assistance to those businesses. And finally, to identify barriers and solutions to public investment to support these strategies. And, you know, I think we spent a lot of public attention and there's been a lot of policy thought given to housing displacement. And we need to do a lot more work looking at what happens to communities when we see this kind of small business displacement. And the purpose of this amendment would be to clarify that economic thriving communities are eligible within SEAL. Oh, and also to make sure that we are including capacity in the SEAL program and the planning work to allow what is a pilot program right now to become an ongoing body of work. I think that's important. And I think this this is work that can be done in the implementation plan. It's work that I'd like to ask my colleagues to join me in and our supplemental budgets and are perhaps even COVID budget. So some COVID assistance. But I think we need to partner with our immigrant and refugee task force and and provide significant more action and policy attention in this area. And because we have some of those other strategies, because I don't want to be the one to send this back to our P.S. I'm going to at this point would draw a minute to thank you.
Speaker 0: We now have ordinance 2021. I had to make sure I wasn't muted. 2020 162 before us. I'm final passage as the sponsor of the legislation. I would comment and offer that when we first implemented this initiative, this levy six years ago, I said that it was the most progressive piece of legislation I had worked on in my career, and that includes marriage equality. I meant that as a very significant statement, and I hold that today. Because best rates for kids is transformational. It was intended to be transformational to make those early investments and make sure that youth had their best start possible within our community. And it is intended to be those early investments that we talk about when we look at the need for social services, that when we look at the criminal legal system, when we look at negative outcomes within our society and how we would like to affect. Positive change earlier in people's lives. Best for kids is exactly doing that. Making those early investments to make sure that people have the best start in in early in their youth and then are sustained that through school. In his councilmember at the grove was just speaking to in community and sustaining it as well. The last six years of this levy have indeed been transformational for kids, for families and for our entire community. The proposal in front of us stays the course on strategies that we know are making a difference. Supporting caregivers of young children, ensuring that youth and young adults are connected to opportunity and creating robust, upward communities. The proposal in front of us also brings a new focus on child care that we recognized over the course of the levy. It has been compounded during the pandemic. We have an opportunity to continue this forward progress, continue this progressive intervention and support for youth and families. And we do this informed by the last six years of our work. I ask members to join me in supporting the renewal of the best search for kids levy in our committee today and sending it to full council for their discussion. See Councilmember Caldwell's.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Childers. Make this very brief. I think this is utterly compelling. We have heard I've heard nothing but positive about best acts for kids during that time because of this current levy. And I look forward to voting on this here and at the council. I know it has had a profound effect on so many people's lives, so many children's babies, parents, others lives. And I really appreciate the way that we are expanding it with what we have before us. Child care, we hear over and over and over again about its incredible need that families have because of the pandemic. But before that, it's something I've worked on throughout my professional career and I'm just.
Speaker 2: Thrilled.
Speaker 1: That we are including it in this levy renewal also with regard to increasing the rate. I mean, we need to do more. This is a very, very popular program with the public, and I anticipate that we will have a positive outcome at the ballot. But it's something that is needed. It just basically is this is needed. And I appreciate everybody who has worked on it and all of the enormous number of groups and organizations who have contacted us and want to get going in supporting this lovely renewal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the discussion, Councilmember Balducci.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Really briefly, I'm going to save my more detailed words for final passage. But today, this is a really big deal. This is a big program. It's the first re re approval of that program. So it's still a pretty new program. And the level of support for it is really remarkable given that. And I just really wanted to take a quick moment to thank and appreciate the folks at the Regional Policy Committee, our city partners, our chair, Councilmember Van there, who led this process, and then all the councilmembers here, because we are bringing real issues and value to the table, looking at our communities and the way they've evolved in some ways very significantly over the last six years. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to meet those needs in the implementation plan, which is coming later this summer, because that'll be important work as well. But I'm I've always been a supporter of this levy. I supported it on the campaign trail before I was on this council, and that's usually not something you do. There's kind of a political rule of thumb that you don't campaign for other things while you're campaigning for yourself. And I did that because I believed in this levy. And I think it's proven itself, and I'm very, very pleased to join in voting yes, to move this forward to full council and ultimately onto the ballot for the voters in November or in August. So thank you both at the right time.
Speaker 0: For further discussion. See none. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member. Founder. Chief. I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember done.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Coleman. Councilmember Lambert, i. The Council member of the group.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council member. Yvonne, right there. Council members. ALL Hello. I. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote is 18 zero, notes Council number one. Mike Bauer. Excused.
Speaker 0: Thank you. By your vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to Ordinance 2020 162 and send that to full council to our next council meeting. Madam Clerk, I don't believe there were any votes missed today by members who are present at the moment.
Speaker 1: That's correct. Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Then with that, that wraps up the business before the committee of the whole today when I thank everybody for their participation and look forward to joining you after spring break. With that, we are adjourned.
AN ORDINANCE providing for the submission to the qualified electors of King County at a special election to be held in King County on August 3, 2021, of a proposition providing for resident oversight and authorizing a property tax levy in excess of the levy limitation contained in chapter 84.55 RCW for a six-year consecutive period at a rate of not more than $0.19 per one thousand dollars of assessed valuation in the first year, and limiting annual levy increases to three percent in the five succeeding years, all for the purpose of funding prevention and early intervention strategies and a capital grants program to improve the health and well-being of children, youth and their communities.