Input: Afternoon. I call to order the meeting of the King County Committee of the Hall for Wednesday, March 29th, 2017. And I'd like to ask our committee assistant, Marcus Stedman, to please call the roll or our clerk whoever controls my first. Who calls the roll? I'll do it, Madam Chair. Do it. Melanie Pedroza. Thanks. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, you're Councilmember Dunn here, Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Caldwell here. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Von Right here. Madam Chair. Here. Very good. So I understand Councilmember Gossett will be joining us by phone. Can we confirm if he is on the line? Hi, is Larry. Thank you for joining us, Councilmember Gossett. Just as a matter of practice, usually what I will do for you is when we have discussion or action items, I'll just call on you towards the end of the item. If you have any questions or comments. Is that okay for you? Okay. When we get to early, although I have to make the motion, I. Will call on you to do that as well. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. Sorry I didn't wait on the phone. And there we get to that point. If you would, that would be great. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. First, next item is approval of the minutes of February 1st and March 1st. Committee meetings if there is a motion. To move the approval of the last two sets of minutes. Thank you. It's been moved to approve the minutes from February 1st and March 1st. Any comments or questions? Seeing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I ii any opposed. I think the minutes are approved unanimously. And this brings us to our first topical item for the day. We are currently considering here at the Council, as I think my colleagues all know, a proposal to send a sales tax increase to the voters which would fund, if approved by the voters, cultural access across King County, previously known as Cultural Access Washington, now known as access for all. This matter has been referred to our Budget and Fiscal Management Committee for deliberation and a recommendation to the Council. But I have asked for this informational presentation today, partially because in this committee all of the council members are here and can hear it. And also because our timeline is very short and due to some of the oddities of the calendar, this is a fifth Wednesday of the month and therefore there were three full weeks in between the two meetings that we have to discuss this at budget and fiscal management. So I offer this time to learn more about the proposal. But deliberation and action will occur in budget and fiscal management. I just will pause there for a quick second and ask our budget and fiscal management chair, council member of the group if he wants to say anything or has any any comments at this time before we launch into our presentation. Oh. No, I appreciate it. I think the more information, the better and I'll reserve comment later. Thank you very much, Councilmember. So just for a roadmap going ahead, after we hear the presentation today, we're scheduled to take this matter up again for deliberation and possible action at the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee on April 12th. And my understanding is that if we wish to put this on the August ballot without declaring an emergency, we need to vote it out of full council by April 17th, is my understanding. So with that road map ahead, I want to thank everyone for being here today. I see a lot of you with the buttons on, no doubt in favor of this proposal. And I will call on our staff, committee staff a critical zombie to introduce the topic. Good afternoon council members I'm Leah crackles IP council staff. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet and most of you are familiar with the Access Bra proposal because it has already been discussed in their Budget and fiscal management committee last week. So I'm just going to provide a brief free recap and then introduce our panelists and let them do the talking. So the King County executive transmitted a proposal to create a cultural access program entitled Access for All to Improve Public Access to Arts, Science and Heritage Programs and Experiences in King County. That program would be funded by 1/10 of a percent sales tax for seven years. Proposed or proposed for voter consideration at a special election on August 1st, 2017, the Access for All program is projected to raise 67.4 million in 2018, and the program would be administered by for culture as provided by state law. Funds would be and are proposed to be allocated 21% to a public school cultural access program to provide public school students with in-classroom and field cultural learning opportunities 45% to a regional cultural organization program to increase public benefits. Large cultural organizations provide and 32% to a community based cultural. Organization program to increase programs offered by smaller community organizations. Today's panel discussion will cover the history of the proposal, how it was developed and provide perspectives from representatives of the program components. The panelists are Gary Johnson from Pacifica Law Group to talk about the history of the proposal. Beverly Harding Buehler Director of Arts Impact Puget Sound Educational Service District. Well, Doherty, President and CEO of the Pacific Science Center. Elizabeth Stewart, director of the Renton Historical Museum. And Jamie Barnett, director of Education from Kids Quest Children's Museum. So I will move and they will come up. Thank you. Leave the panels with, please. Just come on forward. Sit anywhere. I will just warn you, our microphone system is not terribly intuitive. There's those white buttons in front of you where you push to make sure the microphones are on and everyone can hear you. I want to thank you all for coming. And do you have an order or shall I just call on people? I want to just jump right in then. Welcome. Thank you. Terrible duty members of the County Council. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give a short history of the creation and development of what is now called access for all. My name is Jerry Johnson, and as you heard, I am a partner at the Pacifica Law Group here in Seattle. From its inception, I have served as the pro bono counsel for the effort to secure the state legislation the Council is considering implementing, including having been the principal drafts person of that legislation. The germ of this idea of something like access for all. First came to Kent County through a Chamber of Commerce intercity visit to Denver and I think 23, which I believe. In 2004 actually. And I was there. Thank you. Chair Baldacci attended that trip. The agenda for that visit included a discussion of public support for local scientific and cultural facilities, which was first approved by Denver voters in 1989. LAKE Access for all the proposals and the proposal before you. The Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, the S.F. CFD, distributes funds from a 10th for a 1/10 of 1% sales tax to Denver area cultural institutions now numbering more than 300 in a seven county area in and around Denver. In November of last year, the Denver CFD was reauthorized by Denver area voters for the fourth time with about 63% of the vote. All of the reauthorizations have been by wide margins since it was established, and this most recent one extended the life of the district until 2030. At about the same time, Bob Drew Hall, former executive assistant Hamish County, then head of the Puget Sound Regional Council, launched what the council called the Prosperity Partnership, which was an effort that some of you may have been part of, or at least recall. It was a coalition of government, business, labor, nonprofit and community leaders, which was developing a strategy for long term economic prosperity and the creation of 100,000 more jobs than was at that time. Anyway. Forecast for Central Puget Sound, the PCC Part Prosperity Partnership, identified six specific foundation initiatives, including one on social capital and the quality of life . Recognizing that real prosperity depends on our ability to provide a high quality of life for a for the region's businesses, workforce and families by delivering job training, affordable housing, childcare and the arts. They said the region's nonprofit institutions play a critical role in providing such quality of life. In addition, the arts and culture sector was itself recognized as an important pillar of the regional economy. Out of all this work, the PRC developed a regional economic strategy for the Central Puget Sound region, which it adopted in September of 2005. One important action that was included in the plan was to develop a strategy to celebrate and promote arts and culture as a strategic advantage for the region. PSC put their muscle behind this action, transforming what we called the Denver model to work here. Arts Fund then adopted the cause and recruited civic leaders John Shirley and Maggie Walker to co-chair the effort. Over multiple years, Pierce RC shepherded and staffed cultural leaders from around the region to help craft the proposal that you have before you today. I was asked by John and Maggie to provide pro-bono counsel to that project for several years. SA So you continue to provide administrative support to move the initiative forward. Cultural institutions assessed themselves dues to support the hiring of professional staff, lobbyists and public relations support. At a later point, CRC handed the administration of the project off entirely to Arts Fund. And finally, after many years it seemed like dog years. Actually, the legislature, featuring innumerable drafts of the bill, adopted the legislation, as you know, in July of 2015. We have reached this point with the consistent, formal encouragement of King County, including several resolutions by the Council over the years and many cities throughout the region. The PRC, the cultural institutions, King County and other local governments all recognized that vibrant science, heritage and arts opportunities for students, adults, for everyone in every part of our community are essential to our quality of life and ultimately our prosperity. That focus on public benefits has been the cornerstone of this effort from its from its inception. I also have, for the record, the long list of Current for Culture Program grantees. All of these, plus the science oriented institutions that are not now eligible for funding from Fort Culture, would be eligible recipients of funding from for act from access for all. If you all send it to the ballot and the voters approve it, thank you for your consideration of the proposal. Before you, I'd be pleased to answer any questions for the. I think we should go down through the panel as best as possible once there like imminent immediate questions that people want to answer because they don't understand what's being said. If you all would indulge me, I think we'll sort the panelists. I'll go through and then we'll do discussion at the end. Thank you. Please continue. Thank you so much for the opportunity to address your council members and Madam Chair. My name is Beverly Hurting Buehler, and I'm the director of Arts, Education and Arts Impact at the Puget Sound Educational Service District. The ESD is a service organization that provides supports to our both King and Pierce County schools. And we are a clearinghouse and a network of places where you can find services like Headstart prevention, dropout prevention programs for teens. And my program, Arts Impact, which is a professional learning program for teachers. We train teachers in the foundational ideas of the arts and how they connect with the other core subject areas. And our objective is success for every child. And so at the Puget Sound ESD, our end is success for each child. And to eliminate the opportunity gap leading through racial equity we access for all would provide critical support for this work by providing opportunities for low income children to learn from direct experiences with global works of art , with culturally responsive performances, immersion in living heritage events, and amazing feats of science, some of which they get to do themselves at places like a Pacific Science Center in nature, as you heard and you've seen in your proposal before, you access for all would not only provide free admission and transportation to museums, the zoo and heritage organizations in King County for low income children and families. But approximately 20% of the funds supports public schools serving the most disadvantaged students in King County, with both field trips and in-school programing to embed these rich experiences into everyday learning, research shows that children who benefit the most from arts and cultural experiences are often the ones who receive it the least. We know this not only from national research but also from local research. As recent as 2011, with Seattle Public Schools doing an access survey of the arts in our city, low income children of color, especially African-American, Latino and English language learners who get to learn in and through the arts, tend to do better academically , have fewer discipline referrals, tend to graduate high school on time and go on to post-secondary options. These are the same children again who are least likely to receive arts and cultural opportunities in school. My own organization, Arts Impact, was able to show in 2014 in three Title one schools in Seattle, that when students had a chance to learn reading by acting out stories or fractions, by creating artistic compositions, either dance or visual arts compositions that were broken into equal parts that not only were they able to achieve high, we had a benchmark of 80% success and the kids blew past that. But most significantly, there was no statistically significant difference between any one racial or ethnic group in any other. Therefore, the opportunity or achievement gap was closed. This is really exciting and we are excited for the opportunity that Access for all provides for us to continue to provide those kinds of supports for children. I want to close with just a brief story from a school in southwest Seattle from Concord International School, where I got to observe a second grade classroom in December, where we were teaching a theater and writing infused lesson. The classroom is the classroom of Mozzarella de Lavinia, and the students are about 85% English language learners, and it's a second grade class. Most of the kids in December were reading at a kindergarten to first grade level. What I got to observe was a lesson where they were modifying verbs through theater. So jumping sleepily, jumping quickly, jumping energetically. And how that changed the meaning of everything they were doing. So about two thirds of the way through the lesson, children were asked to go and sit down and write a sentence, which they will then they would then act out. And the children raced to their seats, you know, hurriedly writing their sentences so that they could act them out. At that point, Mr. Lavina pulled me to the side of the room with tears in her eyes, and she said, I shouldn't tell you this, but none of my students before today has written a complete sentence yet. This year, she said, they have come further in one hour of theater infused literacy than I have brought them in three months of school so far. Wow. So what excites me about access for all is that we can provide these kinds of opportunities for making meaning in culturally responsive ways for the children who most would benefit from that in our schools. So thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Welcome. Teamwork. Yes. Okay. Excellent. My name is Wil Darity. I'm the president and CEO of Pacific Science Center Council members. I am so grateful to you for the service that you provide to the people of King County. And I'm very grateful for the opportunity to meet with you today. Our mission at Pacific Science Center is to ignite curiosity and to fuel the passion for discovery, experimentation and critical thinking. One of our guiding principles is to enable access for all. We're committed to making our programs. The experiences and the benefits that they provide accessible to people of all backgrounds and financial, physical and intellectual abilities. Another guiding principle is to support educators and high quality science education, focusing on pre-K through 12th grade. We serve more than a million people each year in classrooms and in community centers throughout King County and across the region. In addition to the Mercer SLU in Bellevue and our campus in Seattle, I'd like to highlight two examples. First, Science on Wheels. Science on Wheels travels to schools, community centers and libraries in communities that have limited resources for science, technology, engineering and math education. We provide interactive workshops, science demos and portable exhibits. We cover the essential STEM subjects, including areas that are critical to this region, such as health sciences, computer science, nanotechnology and agriculture. And half of the schools that Science on Wheels visits, more than 40% of students qualify for free and reduced price lunch. In 2016, Science on Wheels served 43,000 people. In King County, 37,000 students and 6000 adults. The majority. Of these people were outside of the Seattle Bellevue Urban Center specifically. Science on Wheels served more than 23,000 students and more than 3000 adults in King County's odd numbered districts in 2016. With funding from access for all. Science on Wheels would serve more schools and communities throughout King County with richer and more impactful hands on programing. We would focus on increasing service to those schools and communities that lack resources, as well as those that are outside the Seattle Bellevue Urban Center. We're preparing a map with all the data about the schools that we currently serve and will serve and will provide that to you. Second, I'd like to tell you about our family and youth access memberships for us. Enabling access for all include serving people with financial challenges, people who are homeless, jobless or worried about their futures. Last April, we introduced the Family Access membership. Anyone receiving public assistance can get a full family membership to the Science Center for just $19 per year. We had planned to make it completely free, but the experts that we consulted said it would have more impact if the people we were serving had a small investment. But we're happy to waive that fee in every case. The regular price is $119 in less than one year, more than 2400 families have joined. 72% of those families have visited the Science Center at least once since joining, and 38% have visited at least twice. This is a higher rate of usage than our general membership population. Building on the success of this program last November, we launched the Youth Access Membership. Any homeless or foster youth can get a full family membership for free. In less than five months, more than 400 youth have joined. The people benefiting from these access memberships live all over King County. The communities with the largest number of family access and youth access memberships are. Shoreline. Rainier Valley Lake. Forest Park. Federal Way. Maple Valley and Kent. With funding from access for all, we would continue to grow these family and youth access memberships. We would also introduce free days at the Science Center for All King County residents. We would expand our Discovery Corps program that provides high school students from underserved communities with jobs, mentoring and career development in the sciences. And we would continue to innovate, developing more and more ways to serve people with financial, social and other challenges throughout King County. I want to emphasize that we're not alone. Our partners in informal science education, including the Museum of Flight. Woodland Park Zoo. Seattle Aquarium. The Burke Museum, Moe, High Island, Wood and others are all dedicated to enabling access for all for everyone in King County Council members. Let's work together to enable access for all. Let's work together to ensure that everyone in King County. Benefits from the science, technology, engineering and math experiences that institutions like Pacific Science Center provide. Thank you again for everything you all do for this community. Okay. Thank you and welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Terrible duty. And members of the Council for this opportunity to speak to you again. I. My name is Elizabeth Stewart. I'm the director of the Renton History Museum. I'm glad to come and speak in favor of access for all, because I know how significant these funds could be for community based organizations like mine in King County. A little bit about the Renton History Museum. Our mission is to document, preserve and educate about Renton's heritage in ways that engage diverse people of all ages. We do that by offering changing and temporary exhibits, programs, events and classroom to curricula about Renton history. We're the only heritage organization in Renton. We're also the only cultural organization with regular open hours in Renton. With two full time and two part time staff members, we do our best to cover all the history needs in a city of 100,000 people. When property owners want information about their historic houses, they come to us. When families want help piecing together their genealogies, they ask us for assistance. When residents want to show off their city, they bring visitors to the museum. And most importantly, when teachers need help with very local history materials for their third graders or their seventh graders. They come to us for assistance. We know there's a need for these services because families, researchers and visitors tell us that every day we want to share the many rich stories of Renton history. But with our limited resources, we can't necessarily meet all the needs our community has. I've spoken here before about the ways in which a past partnership with the Renton School District enabled us to bring in every third grader in Renton to the Renton History Museum for their first experience with local history, regardless of their parent's education or income. Every student had this common civic experience of learning about their communities history until the funds dried up. These tours were memorable experiences for kids that laid a foundation to help them become better, more informed citizens. And we know that because we have adults come in at least once a week and tell us that. So access for all really promises to revive these opportunities for students and other underserved communities to take advantage of what we have to offer. If the ordinance is passed, these funds could contribute up to an extra 15% of our small budget, a proportionally greater contribution than that that the large Seattle organizations could expect. These funds will enable us to get more students through the door. Instead of sending curricula off with teachers, we'd be able to bring students in again to have that museum experience for themselves. In my conversations with my colleagues, the community organizations that would benefit from access for all are really not concerned about any perceived advantage on the part of regional organizations. We're all focused on this ordinance as really a game changer for helping us meet the needs of our community. So I have to admit, I sometimes have difficulty conveying the need for local history because I work every single day with people who believe that implicitly. From our Teen Advisory Council, through our senior volunteers, they all find meaning and life satisfaction in their work with the Renton History Museum. Through history, they make connections with others that knit us all together as a community through a shared understanding of our local past. So what I'm going to do today is close with the words of one Renton High student that we've worked with in the past. Nailah was a sophomore in the Renton High Honors English class when she began working on one of our collaborative exhibits. We had a program for several years in which we worked with classes of Renton High students to have them write and curate their own exhibits. These projects gave them the opportunity to really compare their experiences with that of historical, Renton writes from the past. After the project was complete, NAYLOR wrote to us and I'm quoting this Before this project, I. Not that Renton wasn't all that important and that nothing ever happened here. But now I know so much, and I have the museum to thank for it. Never in a million years did I think I could do something so big. So I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you about the importance of access for all for community cultural organizations. We're very excited about the prospect of being able to increase our ability to serve our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Appreciate that and welcome. Jamie Bonnett from the from one of my favorite organizations. I have to say not to play favorites here, but. Thank you so much. Thank you, Candy. King County Council. And for allowing me to come and speak with you today. I apologize for my voice. I'm getting over a cold so I have water if I get to raspberry. While access for all is an invaluable program for kids, quite a children's museum. And while we already serve hundreds of. Can I interrupt you for closing? Would you just formally introduce yourself and say your. Yes, thank you. My name is Jamie Barnett and I am the director of education with Kids Quest Children's Museum. Thank you. While we already serve hundreds of thousands of people, we still know that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in our community, especially on the east side. The museum serves 60 mile radius and outside of our own district, which is District six. Our next districts that we serve are District nine and District three, our next highest served. And we do that with our outreach programs. And one of our most popular outreach programs is called Field Trips to Go, which much like the Pacific Science Center, Science on Wheels. Since we are a smaller organization, we are working more with getting in to the classes and working with the teachers. And so it's an hour long science enrichment program that goes in and builds off of the curriculum that the teachers are already doing in their schools. And we also do that program with early learning. So we go all the way down to children that are in preschool and do and make science accessible for those teachers and those students. And this hour long science class allows those students to dove deeper into what they're already studying and take that newly gathered knowledge from our programs and apply it directly to experiments and trials and engineering challenges we've received. Thanks from second grade teachers at Cascade View Elementary for providing engaging programs and for making science accessible and fun. We've also partnered with the IF across school public schools and their after school programs to help train and bring more science enrichment to their afterschool programs. They call it a programing party. And they came into the we came into their space and we showed them how to take simple science experiments and make them a part of everyday things that their students are doing after they're done with school. We want to help expand that reach not just in the classrooms but beyond the classrooms in a way that we will expand our programs with this opportunity that access for all will provide is that every child who participates in one of our outreach programs would then be able to receive passes to come to the museum with their families. And this would allow them to come and explore on their own time what works for their families. And then that child would get to be the expert and show their families what they have learned by taking the opportunities that they've learned in their classrooms and then showing it to their families in the museums. In a little over three years, our museum has delivered 1200 programs to 175 schools in districts one through nine, and with access for all, it would allow us to acquire and maintain two more vans which would double our fleet. Thank you, Reagan Dunn, for our current two vans. We've been able we wouldn't have been able to do it without you. With more vans, we would be able to employ three more staff and these additional staff would be able to go to more schools, housing authorities and community centers, not only in our district, but again in all of the nine districts. In addition, it would allow us to expand our existing partnerships with our local heritage organizations like our current work with the Eastside Heritage and their continued work with the Bellevue Arts Museum, the Museum of Flight, the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA, and all the school districts to make sure that our students are being supported in all three areas of arts, science and heritage. I want to thank you again for your time today. You will receive further information from us on the actual schools that we have impacted, and you'll get that shortly. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you to all the panelists. I know you agreed to come and speak to us on very short notice and took time out of your. Jobs that you all have. I should also probably say that the reason I single out consequence is because it's my son's favorite organization. And, you know, that just goes a long way in the family. Right? So before that. Yes, go ahead. I just wanted to say my kids love kids. QUEST And we were there on the same day here. Recently with the. Kick off of the building here. So as I as I said, colleagues, this is an informational presentation. We will continue deliberations and potential final action in budget and fiscal management. But if there are any questions for the panelists or comments that people would like to make today. Councilmember A Councilmember. Geisinger. Okay, Councilmember Garcia, why don't you go ahead. Thank you. And this is my first time calling. And so please forgive me for any mistakes I may have on my side of the aisle. And the reason I had the call and what I wanted had the opportunity to be upfront is that I do not think any council member is against the concept of access for all , and I don't think anybody would challenge the idea of making cultural and scientific and technical access to all the Adobe and youth in our community are more accessible. Those of us who have been raising questions and concerns are troubled by what appears to be the fact that 30 of the larger organization, 34 of the larger organizations in our county are going to be given about $31 million, and that I have to compete for it once they get it for five or seven years. And then another 399 smaller organizations are told will have access to competing for these contractors for all on an annual basis. Some might get it one, some might get more than one year to me. And these I can't speak for anybody out that the very unfair. So my my first question, Madam Chair, is to the lady who spoke right after Mr. Johnson broke with her name. I believe you're talking about Martin Butler from ESD. Yeah, because she she seemed to say that our understanding was that all of that money to provide transportation and it set up a culture and scientific access for low income children and King County. And I thought it was something I, you know, would have strongly supported. But I thought that this is for all of the school districts we're talking about providing a buffer that I thought that you know where out school then King County could require busses. I didn't I didn't know that. I wanted to find out if she or anybody on a panel. But I concur that on the contract, that's money that is spent by the big organization must be to facilitate access for low income and working class kid. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Could you hear the question? And I'll just. Say, yeah. Yes, we all heard it. We heard the statement. I just want to make sure that the person who the question was directed to heard the question so she can answer. And it looks like Mr. Johnson would like to say a word as well. So in whatever order you choose, go ahead. I think I was asked. Sorry. I think I was asked to respond. Please go ahead, both of us. First of all, Council Councilmember Goss, it's Jerry Johnson. Yeah. Hi there. All right. The the the issue you raised at the beginning with respect to the allocation of funds to regional organizations and then a separate pool of funds available for smaller organizations. Right. The the state legislation provided for that. Structure. And the reason that that is there is that the larger organizations, the regional organizations, do, in fact, serve populations throughout the county and even beyond. With the Science Center director pointed out that the Science Center has attendance of a million each year. The same is true of the zoo. It's close to that for all of the Seattle Art Museum facilities combined. It's this close to that for the Seattle Aquarium. And these are institutions that function at a at a level and at a scale that the state legislature found deserved to have a baseline of support. All of that money is really tethered to the provision of public benefits by all of the recipients, big and small. And with respect to the the school access component, that is a requirement of that. All of the institutions, specifically including the regional institutions, participate in that program regardless of how much money they are getting and through what and through and for whatever other purposes or public benefits they provide. It is true that every school may participate and benefit from that program, but it is also the case that the legislation requires that schools with high populations of school lunch eligible children have access to more opportunities than better off schools. Who is going to monitor that area to make sure that that actually case? Well, each the first of all, with respect to the one time grants that that need to be made on a competitive basis, those will be for specific programs for which there will have to be accountability and reporting in that with respect to the regional organizations, they need to make annual reports on the public benefits that they provide back to the the the poor culture and their continuing eligibility, even for the baseline funding is dependent upon their performing those public benefits and participating in those programs. So there will be accountability and that will all be transparent. Okay, but all but only two protocols are done in council. I'm sorry I. Couldn't hear you quite much. For culture is a kind of different culture. I don't know who they're reporting to, to the common council at all. So, Councilmember Gossett, the the the program is designed is administered by for culture. We as a body could certainly require reporting and oversight if we see fit to do that in the ordinance and we can. No, I said we can not. Cannot. We can. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gossett. Like. I'd like to talk to Jerry outlined after today. After Monday of next week. Okay. Yeah. I'll give you a call. I'm happy to do it. You sure you want to do it right now? No. Okay. Okay. Councilmember up the Grove, followed by Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you. Your water came and testified, and I know you're playing favorites. I was a little disappointed. If I had to play favorites, it would have have to be Renton and Elizabeth. I'm sorry. My question, after spending some time in the Budget Committee, I guess it would probably be for Mr. Johnson as a drafter state law allowed for a 10th of up to a 10th of a cent sales tax for homelessness and arts and homelessness aside for now, figuratively and literally. But it says you can do up to a 10th of a percent for this access program. And what I heard most of the passion about most of the speakers speak today about is the value of investing in access for kids in education. It says we need to do at least 20% of the regional organizations need to spend their money. State Law on access. Why did you choose to take the largest possible tax increase and the smallest possible percent on access when it says at least 20% and up to 1%? Why was the policy choice made to maximize the tax revenue and take the minimum amount allowable for public access? Let me just jump in for a second here. We invited these folks for their specific areas of expertize. And I don't know that we have anybody sitting here right. Now where I thought he drafted it. My bad. Now that he was the guy. I mean, if you want to feel these questions, feel free. But I just want to take them and respond to them at the very least, by the next BFM, if we don't have somebody here who can respond to them right now. I apologize. I thought he was no, it's not my drafting. And it's a perfect he did. But the proposal came over from the executive based on the legislation. So anyway, if you would like to try to answer the question, please go ahead. I'm not trying to run interference. I just wanted to suggest that sort of like some of the folks we have here might not be able to speak to the. Yeah. So I don't I can't remember. And I don't. There was no connection between the level of taxation chosen. That was an amount that was felt to be minimally adequate to do a reasonably scaled program countywide. And the 20% was a number. If I'm remembering correctly, how that was arrived at that that folks felt was a reason was a reasonable level of funding to accomplish what we felt we needed to do with respect to the magnitude of the school age population in the county and some research that was done with respect to transportation costs and that that sort of thing. So the goal was to provide the the access for literally everyone with enhanced access for more disadvantaged schools. Understand the cost of doing that and and then answering the question then, well, how much do we need to earmark in order to accomplish that? And that's where the 20% came from. Thank you, Madam Chair. Trying to figure out how to phrase this in the form of a question. I guess the the decision to do proportional funding is one that I've sort of struggled with. And I know part of it's in the state law, you know, the decision that the regionals automatically get 15% of their operating budget by , you know, that formula no one can get more than 15% of their operating budget. But it's driven out by formula by basically on the operating budgets, kind of like the difference between progressive taxation, regular taxation, the the reality, good or bad, is that in real dollars, the vast majority of the dollars end up going to the large organizations. Is there. And I worry that that can exacerbate rather than improve equity issues. I heard a great argument like the science or people from all over come to those institutions. But I wonder if millions of dollars were invest in these other institutions, if people would come there too, and those communities would get the benefits of people shopping and visiting as well. To kind of highlight, I was looking at the numbers or two excellent speakers. The Renton Historical Society, if they got 15% a year, could get up to $41,000 a year, which is a big deal for their programs. It's $287,000 over the bond. The Science Center, another fabulous place over the life of the bond, would get $26.3 million and some of that would go for schools. But $21.4 million would not go to access. Public school access would not be required by the statute to go to public school access. And it's that gap there. It's that under strain to understand the rationale for putting such a large proportion of dollars into the operating budgets of the large organizations. I mean, in the Fifth Council District combined, all of the direct investments, I understand people will visit and people might come down. But in terms of direct investment in the councils which I represent, it'll be about $387,000 a year. And I guess and I know help me understand how that improves versus exacerbates equity between geographic areas and highlighting one Section 40 describes one of the things public benefit the other 80% of the money for science there not to pick on either here but science center gets there 26.3 million. Some of it is required to be spent on school kids. 21 million can be spent on broad public access, which includes broadening cultural programs, performances and exhibitions for enlightenment entertainment to the public, which means just doing more programs. That's a lot of money for just expanding the programs of larger institutions, particularly with the regressive tax that falls on lower income folks. So that was more of a speech and a soapbox than a than a question. But I wanted to put it out there because I know there are answers and responses. And if this makes it to the ballot, these will be the things that'll be talked about out there. So this is a a chance to help me understand how how there's a good return for the folks I represent and how it doesn't make it worse in terms of inequity. So I'm sure that we'd be happy to follow up with you in a more detailed conversation about that. But the at at the regional institution level and we'll we'll hear from the Science Center directly about how they intend to comply with the public benefit requirement. The regional institutions, as I mentioned, provide benefits throughout the county, and each and every one of them have attendance or participation outside the city of Seattle. I bet that is equal to or greater than the folks in the city of Seattle that participate or attend any of those institutions. So there are lots of people in your district who go to the zoo. There is only one zoo, right? Only one world class zoo I hear about. And the determination was made that that zoo deserves to be supported and that its work with respect to providing public benefit access deserves to be sustained on an ongoing basis. The formula, the budget is safer for scale, but that the budget is weighted much less than attendance in the allocation formula. Attendance counts twice what the budget counts, so that I think in some respects also addresses your concern. If I may just say I'm going to give this whole agenda item about five more minutes because we have one more substantive item we have to get to today. So within those constraints, Councilmember Upskirt, please. Okay. I have Councilmember Lambert waiting, then Councilmember done anything else? We're going to ask. The humanitarian in the thought of good timing I won't talk about my over doesn't grandchildren with their favorite Syracuse all day and as a former school teacher I would never have been able to teach about pixelation. I had no idea how you do art and numbers with pixelation, but my class loved it. So the art in a box was wonderful. So I wanted to make sure I understood what you said. So when you do the data, you're going to calculate how many of the class schools were either, you know, by free or reduced lunch, how many of those schools there were, and are they going to get more points that you did more of those schools than schools that were not in free and reduced lunch? Is that what you're saying? They they are entitled to receive more experiences. So instead of just one for every kid, those schools, the populations of those schools could have more to three, whatever they can organize to do. And the the the reason that we focused on transportation in particular was for those schools, because that has been a determinant of whether those schools can enjoy the experiences that are already available because they cannot afford to bus the kids there. But in the school, liability for parents driving has gotten to be really high too. So let me get it right. So if a school were to say, I want my third experience and this school over here is not free and reduced, I didn't get any. Would they get their third experience or would they get their first experience? That that's a level of specificity. I think that has yet to be worked out. And there, you know, maybe a limit. But it is clear that the high percentage school lunch schools get priority for additional experiences. And I'm good with that. I just want to make sure that the taxpayers that spent a lot of money on taxes, children don't get wiped out, that they get nothing. So I think we need to make sure that that works out. And then the other thing is I looked at a potential list of how the allocations would be in my district. One of my little but could be growing would get 500 and I think it was 63 or $67. You're not going make many changes in your company by having 500 and something dollars more. So that's not going to take us very far. And the pie is 63 million and my district yet would get around 1.8. So the parody of this, I have some concerns about this. I just want to put that on the record. Thank you for that comment. I understand that concern and I do understand that. The question in your statement, council member up to Grove Lake, I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a public servant. I would welcome whatever simplification is necessary to ensure that what we're trying to accomplish is actually reflected. What we're trying to accomplish is to serve everyone in King County, where they live, where they have needs. And and what we're trying to accomplish is to not just make it easier for people to come to our institutions, although that is a big challenge for a lot of people, an economic one, in some cases at transportation, one in other cases, some cases a physical one or a cultural one. But to make it easier for them to receive the benefit of the programs and the experiences that we offer where they live in their schools, in their communities. And, you know, if you if you think about the different institutions that receive funding, I think that leads us to the wrong lens. This isn't about institutions receiving funding. This is about the people of King County receiving the benefits that this collective group of institutions provide. And so if you say, well, the institutions in my district will only receive X dollars, it misses the fact that there are institutions outside of your district that are already seeking to and already investing in serving the people in your district. And I was I didn't I didn't realize this until I did the math the other day. I did not know that the majority of the people that we serve through science on wheels in King County are outside the Seattle urban core. And I was thrilled with that because that's the goal. I also know that we're strapped. We can't add more vans, we can't add more programing with the current funding. We I would be very. Happy to. I'm not going to try to rewrite the law, but I'd be very happy to say that's where we're going to put all of this effort. The Science Center wants to put it all into expanding access out in the community where your constituents live and where it is most needed. And for those for those people who have a hard time getting to the science center or getting to the mercers slu. We want to eliminate those barriers, too. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Dunn and Councilwoman and Bousquet. I'm afraid we're going to have to. You have 30 seconds apiece. And you could. Point. To 3% of the funding would go on to Council District nine. So less than one quarter of 1% of the whole. And, you know, I represent communities like Black Diamond and Maple Valley and Edam. Quite a long ways for them to come up. So I think that there's maybe a way to solve this. I think that there's an opportunity here to provide at least some seed funding. To the actual creation. Of arts organizations that don't exist. Yet. And so one way maybe to fix this is to. Consider like a minimum, like 2% of the pot, just 2% in every council district. And where that the difference being point two or three and two might be the kind of funding we can do to create some kind of desperately needed cultural arts program out in some place like Maple Valley, for example. And so you can't a proposal like this isn't going to come up here without being tweaked. So sure, that's just what we do. So I think there is a way. To solve that problem that would probably make those of us who represent more rural districts more comfortable with the proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank nine chair and thank you for making time on your calendar to continue the work on this jury. It's nice to see you here. A former Magnus and bumblebee. I think maybe Mr. Senator Magnuson would be proud to see you sitting a seat away from the executive director or the presidency of the Science Center, for which he secured $10 million to start the World's Fair. There's some karma maybe in that. And of course, I think, you know, the history that the Science Center, the Science Center and the World's Fair Century 21 was put on the civic campus. The Civic campus was approved in 1956 with a seven and a half million dollars bond measure approved by the voters to get that going. So I like to operate in a little bit of history and context when making these decisions. I think you're hearing some concern about the confines of the statutory scheme that we're working in. And I really am glad you're here to help us understand some of the rationale behind that. I had a couple specific questions that are related to that. One is the timing. You know, we deal here in a general purpose government with a lot of competing needs. And in this statute that's recognized. But you're going with a companion, 10th of a penny authority to address housing and mental health services. That's in the same statute. But there's specific timing for kind of our exclusive right to go countywide. And that, I think, requires that we act to put a measure on the ballot in 2016 or at least take action to do that. Well, what was the thinking in requiring that timing? And then the timing on the housing authority. The temporary housing authority is later. Right. There's additional time there. Can you help us understand because I. I know that you couldn't predict what today our public policy challenges would look like when you started this journey 11 years ago or more . But, you know, right across the street, Mr. Dougherty, from the Science Center, are people in tents living in the median. And we see that and our constituents see that. And it's one of the things I think some of us here are struggling with in terms of overall public policy priorities. So, Councilmember, with your indulgence, I'm going to take that in the nature of a comment and a very big question that requires follow up and more deliberation. But if I can, Madam Chair, I actually had a specific question for Mr. Johnson on the timing in the statute that he would be equipped to answer. Are you able to answer that question briefly, please? Thank you. I mean, I'm sure we're talking about a half a billion dollar tax here that we're being asked to move expeditiously. And with all due respect, I think we have this incredible panel here of expertize. We're not likely to get it back. We also have an olio agenda item, which is also incredibly important. Law enforcement oversight is a very big deal that's going to be working on for a long time. And I want to get through that as well. And this wasn't even going to be here. Recall we were only going to do this and BFM a two meetings. So I appreciate the desire for more. I'm just trying to strike a balance. Thank you so much for your indulgence. Please, Mr. Johnson. So the. I can't speak to the the designation of the dates that was done by the legislature. And I, if I recall correctly, we didn't propose those initially. But there was a sense of urgency in getting this to the ballot. After having worked on this for 8 to 10 years to create the opportunity for the county to exercise the authority and that particular provision with respect to enabling cities to step up if counties were not willing or able to do it, was probably more oriented from a statewide perspective and where there might not have been counties that were interested at all in doing this. So that may have been how that came into into being. And I will point out that the legislation was passed in 2015. So there have been two years since then to think about when this could go. I think that that is accurate. I had some other questions, but we don't have time to hear them today. And I've got some other work I'm doing on things, so hopefully we can get them answered before votes are cast. And I apologize for the rush. I do. It's just that we we only have so much time to do all the important things we need to do so. And I'm going to give the last word to Councilmember Caldwell, and then we will need to move on. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that Councilmember Garcia's question was answered fully. Part of it was pertaining to the requirement that supposed community based organizations have to apply annually and are awarded on a competitive basis. Basically, what happens with the. Regionals appears. To me there's a very good reason for that. But if someone would like to just summarize the rationale for that. Well, I'm. Actually and I'm trying to recall this. I think that it is possible for them to receive multiyear commitments from successful applications for funding. But there will be an annual cycle for organizations to submit proposals to receive funding. And my understanding is that that is important and helpful to the community based organizations, because we want to have new ones created and be able to have for them the opportunity to apply. Well well. That's exactly right. And the of the uses that community based organizations can make of their funds is much broader than the uses that are available to the regional organizations they can do. They can even use it for bricks and mortar. Well, as you can see, we could we couldn't possibly exhaust this this topic, even if we had all day. And I have a number of questions to. But I'm going to hold off on them and ask them another time. Thank you all very much for coming and speaking to us today. Thank you all in the audience as well for coming to show your interest and support for this topic. And we will take it up again, as I said, on April 12th in the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee and working towards an ultimate vote whether to put this on the ballot this year. Thank you again very, very much. And we're going to move on now to our second item for discussion on possible action today. Proposed ordinance number 2017 0139 relating to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. And we will have our chief policy officer, John Risha, here to speak to us about this topic. The sponsors are Mr. Gossett. Mr. Dombrowski. And so, John, when you're done introducing, I'm going to call on Councilmember Gossett. Thank you. Maybe we could just take a breath for 1/2 while the chamber clears. Okay. Yeah, I think we can hear you now. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. John Risha stopped King County Council today before you is proposed ordinance 2017 dash 201393. Target into the mike. Absolutely proposed ordinance 2017 dash 0139. This ordinance would amend King County Code Section 2.75, which is the underlying authorization for the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight in King County Code, as well as amend Section 3.16.060, which is the Department of Public Safety. Following initial comments, I'll be happy to go through some of the key points of the legislation, or I can go directly there. I wanted to make some comment first. Go ahead, Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to indicate to you, Madam Chair, you were correct that the darling of the with the issues surrounding the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. Councilmember Garcia, can you possibly speak into your microphone a little closer? We're having a hard time hearing you. Okay, that's better. Thank you. That's better. As much. Thank you. And Governor, government about due to the earlier remarks about the importance of the issues that currently surround the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, I believe that the sheriff's department is one of the larger and more complex issues that we are addressing at this time. Just like, you know, the call for more contra access for all is important. And I don't think anyone is trying to say that one is more important than the other. But what I want to say is that the answer is in this matter, that the King County Council has been working on establishment of a civilian oversight of the sheriff's office for more than ten years now, Madam Chair. And at the end of 2015, we we put an amendment we recommended an amendment to our charter that would amend it be civilian oversight and provide the opportunity for King County government offered of law enforcement oversight to be able to be a little more affected by some actively investigating. Some rather controversial complaints that are brought here are by one of our sheriff's deputies. Then a few months later, I believe that last year we had our new director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, Bret Jacobs. And we're very excited about her experience and her ability and her insight and her ability to lead this effort. And she has been working to recommend, along with John and our achievements there, how best to implement the will of the people as it relates to the charter change and how our code needs to change in order to facilitate the voters desire. This legislation now before Madam Chair, is a result of that work and include the following one oversight of the sheriff's complaint handling process from a person talking to her office or the sheriff's office through the final determinations of that process. A We're looking at almost everything. The authority to conduct an investigation. Okay. And among other things, the authority to review and make recommendations regarding their sheriff operations, training policies and procedures. I personally think this is going to be even a more valued part of the work that is offered there. And really, that's fair. And they can assist the sheriff. And right now, if we pass this legislation and there's still important bargaining to be done with our partners in labor, specifically the King County Sheriff's Deputies Association, our guild, as well as three or four other girls that represent different sector of the employee that work for the sheriff's department. But it's equally important for us that the county council be clear about our desire to have a more effective civilian oversight of this. And that's really been admirable here in Martin Luther King Junior County. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and colleagues. Thank you. So I could use a little guidance here. We are getting ready to move this out of committee today, I understand is the desire. So is there more discussion or Councilmember Garza, would you like to put this before us? Well, John John and I John to get John every he. Can hear you. Was there anything else specifically that he wanted to say and. In relationship to my oversight and talking point. I can add a little bit of additional clarity, but very a few brief comments on the specificity of the legislation if the Chair desires. If it's helpful to Councilmember Gossett and and the committee. Okay. Well, then I'll be very quick, Madam Chair, and you can find this on page 15 of your packet, some of the key pieces that are within this legislation. I think some of the key areas start in section four of the legislation where sections subsections A through C really hone in on that complaint handling process and the ability to receive complaints, investigate complaints and review and certify those the process that goes through with them. That section also contains a number of the key elements relative to policies, procedures, operations and training. Section six looks to the Sheriff's Office or the Department of Public Safety side of that equation of access to it. I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's the only access to information. Section nine is the core element of that in the sheriff's office. So both officers have access to information and they one has a duty to receive one has a duty to provide. And then very key at the very end of the legislation, since there is bargaining with 11 bargaining units within the sheriff's office, there is special specific language added about provisions of this ordinance that require mandatory bargaining would not be effective until the the county completes that bargaining. And then further, if there's a conflict, then a bargaining agreement would apply. I am happy to answer any questions. I'm being relatively quick on this just in the interest of time and trying to address your specific questions as needed. Thank you, Mr. Issa. I want to open up now for discussion and questions from the council members, and then we'll see if we're ready to take a motion at that point. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. Martin Short There's a section for 2.7504 OBE. Does that mean that if there is, that the OLEO has the ability to look at all of the complaints coming in and decide whether they need to go to IU or to Oleo and make that determination? That is correct. Excellent. Perfect. Thank you. I think that's great. Any other questions? Councilmember Garza, would you like to make the motion? But I would need help from you. Councilmember. Councilmember Gossett, would you move approval of proposed ordinance number 2017? Dash 0139 with a do pass recommendation 190139. Okay, I'm glad. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move adoption 2017 0139 ordinance at this time. Thank you. The ordinance is before us. Yes, there's. No, no, no, no. The board. Okay. And we do have an amendment. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment, number one, and it's the one we talked about that would say that the any report will also be approved by us as the body. And so that's all it changes. Added a motion approving. Okay. We have an amendment before us. Any discussion or questions about the amendment? Councilmember McDermott. Thing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we want to approve or accept this report in your intent? Councilmember Lambert. Except. Okay, I'd be happy to change that word. To accept. Okay. We have a friendly amendment to change. Approved. To accept. Councilmember Garcia to do. We don't cover. I. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilmember Garcia, go ahead. Okay. Because I can't be my colleague. I think that the protection that Councilmember Lambert just put forth and I've got one, because it gives us another opportunity to review and look at what our progress we have made in this important area. Please comment upon it before it moves on for another year. Okay, very good. Just clarification on the word accepting. Accepting. All right. With that, the amendment as a as as friendly amended is before us. All those in favor please signify by saying i, i any opposed? Okay. Is there a title amendment? Not that I say no. That brings us to the main motion. Any final comments or questions? Councilmember McDermott. Mr. Fisher or Ms.. Jacobs, can you speak to the effect effective date of the ordinance before us? When the provisions within the ordinance become effective. So the provision so the ordinance itself would be effective through a normal course, which is ten days after executive signature. However, since there is bargaining that will take place with various guilds in and labor unions over the course of the next, I'm going to assume probably a two year cycle for each of those bargaining units. It would not become effective until after completion of bargaining. So on that rolling cycle, it would affect each one differently. And so each one would then become a it would then affect them as a following bargaining. And then presumably also only to the degree that the contract that was collectively bargain design measures with in compliance with matches, the ordinance put it up today. Otherwise we might see ourselves with the revised ordinance in front of us. Absolutely. That would be a choice for the Council. But it is very possible that the completion of bargaining you may need to or desire to go back and revisit the ordinance and perhaps amend it to reflect the will of the various bargaining units and your own decisions in approving those bargaining agreements. You say will and perhaps it will be the could be the will of the council, and perhaps we could do that. What would be the consequences if we the council chose not to. Under Section ten, be at the very end of the ordinance? It says that if a bargaining agreement has language which is different than that which is in a bargaining agreement, the bargaining agreement governs. And so the bargaining agreement will always overrule the code under this, which is a it's not a defined it's it is a relatively standard concept which your bargaining agreement is going to be the governing document, but this sets your policy in place within code. Thank you. Catherine. Councilmember Gardner. Madam Chair. Thank you. I'm really pleased that the progress that we've been able to make. But I wanted to share with and remind members that I had the opportunity, particularly last year, to work closely with some of the larger unions or associations that represent the share of power, that basically the captain and the rank and file officers who are in their service advocate scale. And I am working with their leaders to be very productive. They put out their idea that I'm hopeful that will come from being acceptable to both parties in a relatively short period. And we also did we also plan to and John help helping with this. When do we plan to let them lead of our new effort right away or we're. Currently the language is a matter of public domain and is an available is available in your online system. So it is currently available and the amended version will be available probably within a day or so, depending upon processing time. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Gosset. I just want to add a few comments of my own. This has been a piece of work that has been many years in the making, and particularly since 2015, after the voters of King County agreed to amend our charter to include the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight as a required office in the Legislative Branch. As you said at the beginning, Mr. ICIA. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Councilmember Gossett and others, my colleagues who were here, I was not at the time. I want to acknowledge our still relatively new director, Deborah Jacobs, for all the hard work she's put in with all of the parties involved to get us to this point. I think that the proposal has improved sequentially each time we've looked at it, because that's that's just shows that there's been listening and adapting going on to make sure that this works with everybody who's going to have to work with it and provides really significant and really significant oversight because the whole goal is to build public trust and build the relationship between our law enforcement and the public. I also just want to acknowledge Susie Swaniker and Bob Railton who are here. They also have worked with us on this and have the job of making sure that this works with our colleagues in Labor and that will have to go forward from here in negotiation. So I'm really pleased that we've gotten to this point, looking forward to taking a vote on it. And I will just ask Councilmember Cassidy of anything to close again. You reminded me something is different. Jacob. There she. Is. I didn't hear the commentary and what she being that I will not hear from her. Me speak. Ms.. Jacobs, are you. Do you believe we should adopt this motion? I do. I'm very enthusiastic about the final product. It's been, you know, literally dozens and dozens of drafts. And because this timing has taken place, where when I'm new, it's, you know, a thing where we've been learning as we work through the systems and figure out, you know, how this can fit with the sheriff's office's existing systems . And so it's been very valuable in that way. And also, just generally, I'm grateful to every single one of the council members and their staff members who have cared about this. Issue, have shown. Support, who have respected the will of the voters. And I just really appreciate that. And numerous people have had input and influence over this document. So you all have my gratitude and I can't wait to see what happens next. All right. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Without further discussion, if I don't see any, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I'm sorry. It's a roll call vote. Yes, thank you. Thank you. First time council member Dombrowski. Hi, Council member Dunn. I remember Gossett II. Councilmember Caldwell five Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Council member of the group. Yvonne. Right. All right. Madam Chair, I am sure the vote is a nice. No, no. It signal the member up the grove excuse to. Get in passes unanimously. Congratulations. And I believe we want to expedite that, but probably not put it on consent. Expedite is not necessary. Can go to the regular course to the 410 agenda, and whether you'd like it on consent or not is your call. I would anybody like to put it not on consent speak now. When is it going to be forwarded? Kind of like. Ford. Ford ten. You'd like to speak to it. Okay. So not on consent in the regular course. Thank you. All right. Final item on the agenda today is item six. And this is just an announcement for the for everyone to be aware of. There are currently two judicial vacancies in the Southeast Division of King County District Court. As you know, King County Code Chapter 2.70 provides a process for the King County Council to fill those vacancies. That process provides that the committee of the Hall shall review candidates and interview the final candidates. Eight candidates applied for these two vacancies. All council members have been provided with application materials, bar association ratings and references. Furthermore, a subcommittee of the committee of the whole was convened by Councilmember Lambert and we reviewed the materials and met with candidates. The committee consisted of council members Lambert, Dombrowski and myself. I want to thank Councilmember Lambert for leading that effort again, as she did the last time. And based on that process, five candidates have been recommended to come before the Committee of the Hall for final interviews at our next meeting on April 5th. Those applicants are Jason Porges, Krista Swain, Bobby Edmiston, Matthew York and Rene Walls. If there is no objection, then we will go with those five finalists. Are there any comments, suggestions, questions and we will interview them at the very next. We are the committee of the whole on April 5th. All right. So that's how we will proceed. And if there's no other business before us, we will be adjourned.

Output: AN ORDINANCE relating to the office of law enforcement oversight; amending Ordinance 15611, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.010, Ordinance 15611, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.020, Ordinance 15611, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.030, Ordinance 15611, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.040, Ordinance 15611, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.070 and Ordinance 1438, Section 3(c), as amended, and K.C.C. 2.16.060, adding new sections to K.C.C. chapter 2.75 and repealing Ordinance 15611, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.050 and Ordinance 15611, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.75.060.