I like to call to order this meeting of August 18th, 2026 with the clerk. Please call the roll. Thank you. Chair Councilmember Balducci. Here. Councilmember. Dunn here. Councilmember Fain. Councilmember von Reichbauer here. Thank you. We do have a quorum.
Um, I would like to, uh, to recognize the fact that Councilmember Fain will be joining us as chair, uh, remotely. I’m going to begin the process today, and she will be joining us in a very short time. Uh, we do have a full agenda this morning. We’ll begin with our consent agenda.
Then we’ll hear a briefing on the executive’s parks levy program recommendations. And we have three items on the agenda for possible action today. Is there anybody participating via zoom who would like to provide public comment? Chair. Not at this time. No one has their hand raised. We have one person in chambers. Okay. And we do have someone here. Okay. Please call out the names.
Uh, the person is Alex Zimmerman. Thank you. Yeah. Right there. I want to speak about. Number 12. In Executive Council. Baldacci in our Tasmania. You cut me, 30s. Who cares about this? Here? I think she yeah, I think she’s, uh. Bring this case because it’s very situation unique.
A sponge somewhat, as we have right now. Some trans history for $200 billion. And what has happened now? They still right now in Balducci one number one from this in South trans board, you know, $75 billion from us. This is by definition absolutely idiotic. This is a crime. This is a crime.
Auditor is supposed to be bring these people in court, prosecute you, prosecute me seven times. But for 30 years, not prosecute one government crook who steal from us right now, $35 billion is a ton of money is exactly what is President Trump talking right now? Because more Democrat is a pure crook of mafia. Guy’s a bandit. Yeah, absolutely.
So last week I come because they give me five year trespass, I come, I try to speak about some transit story, $5 billion stealing for 30s. They cut me, give me trespass for another year.
What is going on, guys? When you will stop and say snatch it? Democrat bandit? Huh? When? When? Where is my President Trump? Viva Trump! Viva new American Revolution! Stand up slave and happy cow. Still. And $35 billion. It’s time for. No, there is no one in person and no one with their hand. Raised. Very much. Public comment is now closed. I’ll call upon Councilmember Dunn to move the approval of the Minister of June 16th, 2026.
Move approval of the minutes of June 1626. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you very much. And then what we’ll do. I apologize. Please come forward. I didn’t, uh. Yes, sir. Hi. Vice chair. Yourself, sir. My name is Jay Blasi.
I’m testifying on behalf of ordinance 2026 0203 about suspension. notice law. Okay. Okay, good. Okay. Uh, so I’m here on behalf of the sewer separation ordinance. I’m. I’m here on behalf of Cedar Grove. We’ve been collecting, uh, source separated organics in King County for 20 plus years, and I just wanted to voice my support of the ordinance.
That’s clarifying that practice and upgrading the the county code for protecting source separation. It’s the best management practice. And it leads to the cleanest recyclables and organic streams. And we appreciate the county’s support on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blasi. We have also one more person who has raised their hand online.
Could they identify themselves? Someone there is Janet Tomlin. Yes. Janet. Thoman. Janet, please. Please proceed. Thank you. Uh, my name is Janet Toman. I’m with the compact Compost Manufacturing Alliance in Port Orchard, Washington. Um, I am here to support a proposed ordinance 2026 0203 relating to organics. Uh, across the organics and solid waste industries.
More commercial generators are shifting to one bin. Take all systems to cut their costs. Uh, this model cuts their business costs, but offloads those costs onto King County residents and the environment. This model is antithetical to good environmental stewardship and economic fairness. Businesses save money, but less plastic and paper gets recycled and more ends up in the landfill.
And resources spent over decades to educate and support source separation becomes moot. Um, without a requirement for source separation at um, the point of generation one bin systems commingled food waste with with otherwise recyclable packaging. Um, I ask for your support to keep the waste streams clean and our landfill diversion rates high. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else, either in the chambers or online? Okay. Public comment is now closed. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Uh, now we’re going to go to our consent agenda. Moving now to five items.
Proposed motions 2020 60141 2026 0143 2026, 0181 and 0182, as well as Proposed ordinance 2026 0134. Um, who’s going to speak to that? Anybody? Okay. Uh, these are just the consent items. There are two appointments to the paratransit committee. Uh, two appointments to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and a license agreement relating to the. Okay.
I’d like to call upon Councilmember Dunn if you could, uh, if you would be willing to on the consent agenda to move them as a whole. Thank you. Chair. I move our consent agenda items. Let’s see. Five through six, nine. 0141014301810182 and 0134. So move.. Okay. Any further discussion? Any further discussion or questions? Will the clerk please call the roll? Thank you. Councilmember Balducci.
Hi, Councilmember Dunn. Hi. Councilmember Fain. Councilmember von Reichbauer. Hi. The vote is three I’s no noise in Councilmember Fain. Excuse. By our action, we have passed these. These, uh, uh, motions as well as action to the full county council.
Um, let me, uh, they’ll be put on the consent calendar if there’s no objection. Um, again, we’re waiting for Councilmember Fain to join us. Um, but we’re going to begin to continue the process until she has an opportunity to get with us online. Uh, we’re going to proceed slightly out of order from the published agenda to begin with.
The discussion and possible action item number 11, which is proposed ordinance 2026 0203, organics Management requirements for certain unincorporated King County businesses. This proposed ordinance relates to a source separation, collection and management of organics for certain businesses in unincorporated King County. Jake Tracy from our staff is going to speak to this. Jake. Thank you. Thank you.
Council member von Reichbauer Jake Tracy, Council staff. Materials for this item begin on page 160 of your packet. And I’ll just note that Tara Rose from our staff, did the analysis and work on this. I’m just presenting her work as last week was her final week at the council.
Proposed ordinance 2026 0203 relates to source separation, collection and management of organic materials for certain businesses in unincorporated King County. The proposed ordinance would add a new chapter to title ten of King County Code, which is the county’s solid waste title. At a high level. The ordinance would do three things.
First, it would add to King County Code existing state requirements that apply to certain businesses regarding the management of organic waste. Second, it would provide additional direction regarding how businesses are to source separate organics, including requirements related to food packaging and packaged food. And third, it would authorize the Solid Waste Division to enforce these requirements.
The proposed ordinance would take effect on January 1st, 2027, by way of background, the state legislature adopted a series of laws in 2022 and 2024 that the staff report refers to as the organics Management laws, or OML. Those laws are intended to reduce, uh, methane by diverting organic materials from landfills.
Beginning in 2026, state law requires a business that meets certain criteria to arrange for organic materials management services, and under state law, organic materials management includes composting, anaerobic digestion, permaculture, black soldier fly, or similar technologies. For a business to be subject to these requirements, they must meet three criteria. First, it must not be using an approved alternative, such as composting on site.
Second, it must generate at least 96 gallons of organic material waste per week, and for reference, 96 gallons is about the size of a typical recycling bin for residential service. And third, it must be located in what the state calls a business organics management area.
The Department of Ecology establishes these areas annually based on the available availability of year round curbside collection and sufficient capacity at facilities that manage organic materials. And there’s a figure showing the business organics Management Area in unincorporated King County on page 165 of your packet. The exact number of unincorporated area businesses that are subject to these requirements is unknown.
Executive staff indicated that in 2025, Public Health sent letters to 156 businesses and unincorporated areas informing them of the state requirements, with the intention that those businesses initiate service. Businesses located in cities are also subject to the state requirements, but the county does not have jurisdiction to enforce the requirements in cities.
So unless a business uses one of the alternatives allowed under state law, a covered business is expected to do three things. First, it must source separate organic waste from other waste, and state law defines source separation as separation of different kinds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates. Second, the business must subscribe to a service that includes organics collection and materials management, and third, it must use that service.
Despite the definition of source separation appearing to require a sorting of organics from other types of waste, such as food packaging at the site where waste generated an earlier iteration of a draft regulation circulated by ecology in spring of 2026, listed several examples that would qualify as source separation, including one that appeared permissive of
the use of D packaging technology, in which non-organic food packaging and organics are co-mingled and then processed offsite. However, that example did not make it into the formal draft regulation published in June.
So in this proposed ordinance, it would incorporate the state business requirements into King County Code for the applicable businesses in the unincorporated area and the state. Organics Management Law does allow local governments to adopt, implement, or enforce organic material recycling requirements that are more stringent or comprehensive than state requirements, and so the proposed ordinance would provide more specific direction on source separation than included in the organics management law. And this is key issue A and the staff report.
Attachment three to the staff report beginning on page 202, gives a detailed comparison of state law, language and the proposed ordinance language. Under the proposed ordinance covered businesses would be required to separate organics from other recyclable materials and municipal solid waste at the business location, and place those organics in an organics only container.
The proposed ordinance would also prohibit food packaging and packaged food from being placed in a business’s organics collection container, unless the packaging itself meets the definition of organics in King County Code. The proposed ordinance would not prohibit a business from contracting with a D packaging facility to manage its organics.
It would not prohibit the use of D packaging technology. However, under the proposed ordinance, a business subject to the requirements would need to d package its food waste before placing it into the organics collection container. Moving on to enforcement, which is key.
Issue B the proposed ordinance would authorize and direct the director of the Solid Waste Division to enforce the business. Organic material management requirements. State law currently allows either public health or solid waste to enforce these business requirements, but does not require enforcement.
Both public health and solid waste separately indicated to council staff that their current focus is on technical assistance and outreach to businesses, and that neither entity is currently enforcing the requirements. Under the proposed ordinance, solid waste flow control staff would be authorized to make lawful inspections of businesses suspected of violating the requirements, and those information about suspected violations could come from a complaint.
The ordinance would allow staff to make a visual determination that a violation has occurred, and would specifically provide that inspectors are not required to empty organics containers or sort through their content contents. The.
The ordinance would establish that organics collection containers containing more than 5% non-organic material by volume, volume constitutes a violation, or, if there are multiple containers, 5% across the multiple containers, that 5% is not established in the state. Organics management law, but it does align with the language and the college’s draft rule that imposes a 5% limit on physical contaminants inbound to organics facilities.
Examples of violations include a business not arranging for organics collection, arranging for service that does not use an allowable form of organics management, having the service and not using it, or being above that 5% threshold. State law establishes notification requirements and minimum civil penalties, and the proposed ordinance would use those. A table on page 168 shows the notification and penalty requirements.
Basically, there are two warnings, after which a $500 penalty per day for the third violation, 750 per day for the fourth and 1000 for the fifth. Under state law, a small business cannot be assessed. More than 10,000 penalties in a single calendar year. The proposed ordinance would also state that no more than one violation could be given per. Day.
The proposed ordinance would state that a penalty could be appealed to the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board. The way I understand, there is a verbal amendment relating to that, and there’s also one amendment in the packet, which is amendment one on page 201, that would direct the solid waste Division to update the county’s designated recyclable list and other rules and communications to conform with the changes made in the ordinance.
Uh, and I understand that there is the verbal amendment which should be taken up prior to amendment one. The last thing I’ll note is that the proposed ordinance requires review under the State Environmental Policy Act, or Sepa. This process will begin upon the legislation being moved out of committee.
The legislation will not come before full council until that process is completed, and that process generally takes 3 to 4 months. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you Jake. First of all, I want to conclude, um, Councilmember Mosqueda, because she’s the prime sponsor and she’s worked so hard on this particular proposal to speak to it. Then we’ll get back to questions.
Councilmember Mosqueda. And I’m also then going to turn the gavel back to our chair, who is working remotely for this meeting, Councilmember Mosqueda. And then Councilmember Fain. Thank you very much. Interim chair, and thank you very much to chair Fain as well. I’m really excited about this legislation. Thanks to Central staff for summarizing.
It is a very popular piece of legislation. So thanks to our co-sponsors on the legislation in front of us Council members, Dembowski von Reichbauer and Chair Fain, who are all listed as co-sponsors on this. Ultimately, colleagues, this ordinance is about maximizing diversion from the landfill.
We know that from a sustainability perspective, keeping food waste out of landfills is one of the best things that we can do to fight climate change. Food waste that ends up in landfills turns into methane, and particularly that is a potent greenhouse gas that harms our climate. That’s why the King County Solid Waste program launched its RI plus efforts.
You may have heard about this. This helps to drive more diversion from the landfill, and this legislation is aligned with those efforts. We really appreciate the King County Solid Waste Partnership and their feedback during the development and drafting of this proposal in front of us and this ordinance now stabilizes and establishes source separation as a
requirement for unincorporated King County, very similar to what already exists in the cities of Seattle and throughout Snohomish County. It also makes it clear that in King County, commercial generators of organic waste must continue to separate food waste from packaging to ensure both waste streams remain clean. Regardless of what happens at the state level.
This helps ensure that plastics and cardboard are recycled, and that organic waste is composted. We want to make sure that that organic waste is then turned into biogas, or put towards other beneficial uses. In King County, we don’t want these waste streams to end up in the same landfill.
I appreciate so much all of the feedback that we got from stakeholders, and really, this was an area that was flagged for us by industry stakeholders as well as labor partners who brought this issue to our attention. So huge amount of appreciation to these industry partners. You heard from Cedar Grove today.
We’ve also heard a lot of support from Teamsters 174 and the entire MLK labor team, who we had a stakeholder labor discussion just yesterday with, and a lot of support for this legislation. Lastly, Mr. and Mrs.
Chair, thanks to Melanie Gray on our staff, who really led this effort from our office and worked so closely with Lily Heyward, Chief of Staff, to Councilmember Fain office for her support and teamwork in this ordinance. And as mentioned, Tara Rose of Central Staff is really a policy expert in this area, very impressed by her leadership and her knowledge on this issue.
We wish her the best in her next endeavors and thank her for her work on this, as well as Jake Tracy, who picked up the policy as reported on today. Thanks again to Tyler, Pinochet, Michael Gonzalez and Jay Blasi, all folks who really weighed in and provided feedback and industry and stakeholder expertise on
this. And we appreciate the chair putting this forward today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda. One question for you. A follow up before council for council chair or committee chair. Fain takes over, um, in his remarks, Jake referred to a SIPA process.
This is kind of something that came out of nowhere. Uh, can you explain the background or were you surprised by that as well? Jake, can you give us a little background of why CPA is now being required? Uh, CPA is required for any ordinance that, uh, involves control or use of the environment, and it was determined by, uh, staff that that CPO, the CFO, was required
for this particular because it involves controller use of the environment. Which staff recommended this. Uh, legal counsel. Can you be more specific? Uh, I would defer to Kendall Moore, who is online. Okay. Uh, miss Mark, can you explain the CPA process here? Miss Moore? Okay.
Well, I’m going to turn the gavel over to Chair Fain, and I look forward to learning more about this process and the amendments. Thank you so much, vice chair. Good morning. Um, well, uh, let Kendall Moore hop online whenever she’s ready, and we’ll get back to your question.
Uh, thank you so much for leading us through the meeting this far. Uh, thank you to Councilmember for joining us today and for your leadership on this legislation. Uh, thank you, Jake, for your staff report. Do any of my colleagues have any other questions for Jake, um, or the Solid waste Division staff in attendance? Uh Councilmember Balducci. Thank you. Chair. Um, yes.
Uh, so the, um, I have two questions. Uh, 1st May turn into a comment, uh, question number one is, uh, is this meeting the first and only piece of public process we have had on this ordinance? Is that a question for me or the chair? I whoever whoever feels equipped to answer. This is the first, uh, hearing that this has had in the committee.
Yeah. I just want to lay down for my colleagues, uh, because there is a ruling this morning that we should go through. CPA.
I’m going to let this go, but I feel it is just a really bad practice to create substantive rule changes, even if I support it, which I do, I support this one. I’m going to vote for it, but with no public notice, with no public input, with no public process.
There might be people who don’t know we’re doing this who are affected by it, and we should at least provide a reasonable opportunity through our legislative process for them to learn and to give input so that we are fully informed when we act. Um, I feel very well informed about this subject almost entirely because of external partners. As as Councilmember Mosqueda noted, who informed me about it. And I appreciate them very much, but that’s me becoming informed by certain external stakeholders.
The public has not been informed, so that’s important to me. But because there’s a secret process that’s going to happen, I think that that will more than more than meet the bill. Uh, the second question is about enforcement.
Uh, I heard in your report that, um, Jake, that, um, uh, while we will, uh, with this action in power, uh, solid waste, Division two and force, I think I heard that they don’t intend to or they don’t prioritize enforcement.
Can you say a little bit more about what we know about what the commitment to enforcement will be? Sure. So. So, um, what I had said was that the they are not currently enforcing it. Their current priority is to, uh, to do outreach and education. But if, um, if this were passed, then they would be doing this enforcement. Okay.
I just want to suggest, uh, to either the sponsor or anyone or, you know, I could do this myself, but it does seem like maybe upon final passage, it might be a good idea to include, uh, or in the next budget to include some direction for a report back on implementation so that we can see what’s actually happening with enforcement.
Because as we’ve learned in many different contexts, uh, a rule that’s not enforced quickly does not be becomes not a rule. So I think that’s if we intend for this to, to be a real requirement, that there should be routine, uh, auditing and enforcement when there’s problems found.
So that’s just my two my two points. Thank you very much, chair. I will also note, if I may, executive staff indicated that there were no significant operational concerns to using the existing flow control program as the administrative framework for enforcement, and that the program already has established complaint, investigation and compliance processes that could be adapted with what they say is
relatively limited program affecting, uh, with a relatively limited program affecting businesses in the unincorporated area already subject to the these laws, they said that implementation would need to account for differences between the two programs. Uh, and source separation enforcement would involve evaluating compliance with separation requirements, contamination standards, and applicable exemptions.
Executive staff indicated that this would require new inspection criteria, staff training, compliance guidance, and potentially additional resources. That’s super helpful to hear. Thank you. And I assume that by flow control program, what they mean is the current activities to make sure that people are keeping the garbage and the recycling separate.
Uh, in the I, I believe it is at the, um, transfer stations. Okay. So with the haulers, they check on the the loads that are being brought in by haulers. Uh, I believe so, but, uh, executive staff could clarify that. Or we can follow up to be sure.
We have time. We don’t need to take the time today to do this. Uh, we’ll we’ll follow up after. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Balducci. And, um, appreciate your feedback around timing. And of course, we would have had public hearing for full council. It wasn’t going to be expedited on consent.
Um, previously. And now we’ll have extra time with the separate requirements. Uh, and so I saw Kendall Moore had her hand raised, and I think she can speak to the Sepa. Um, piece that was, uh, that appeared this week. Uh, good morning. Council members. Uh, I have to say.
Uh, chair Fain that I actually stepped away from my computer. Um, and as I am coming back to my computer, I hear my name and I go, oops, don’t know what I’m being asked of. So is it just with relation to SIPA? Yes. Sorry about that. And thank you so much.
Um, uh, Vice Chair von Reichbauer had asked, uh, how the SIPA issue appeared and who raised it. Uh, the SIPA issued appeared as a result of my, uh, reviewing a memo prepared by the prosecutor’s office back in January of 2026 that we received a copy. We, being the counsel, received a copy of, uh, just last week. Excuse me.
Not just last week on Monday. Pardon me. And, um, and I noticed that they raised a concern. So I went to the, um, lead of our, uh, SIPA determination, um, group, which is Darren Carnell in the prosecutor’s office.
And he confirmed for me that, um, uh, that as a non project program, this ordinance could potentially affect the environment and therefore needs a what’s called a non project super review. Um, unfortunately, that process, even though it’s um, streamlined is still uh, uh, going to take, as I understand, 12 to 13 weeks to get through the state. Thank you.
Uh, Vice chair von Reichbauer does that answer your question? I think so. All right. If that answers your question around SIPA, we will move on. We do have, uh, two amendments to this ordinance, and I’ll just, um, flag those for you, and then we’ll turn to the motion itself.
Uh, amendment one was in your packet as of August 13th, and it directs solid waste to update the designated recyclables list. And then there is a second technical amendment, a verbal amendment which, uh, Jake alluded to, we’re calling it amendment 0.5. Um, that is to address, uh, an issue that, uh, legislative staff identified during final review this week. And I’ll explain it when we get there.
Uh, but neither amendments changes the substance of the underlying policy, and no more. You have your hand raised. As I understand it, um, just for clarification, the, um, what you’re calling 0.5 actually isn’t in motion form, so it’s called a friendly amendment to your legislation.
And all you have to do just so that we’ve got the record straight, is that you, um, stated on the record, no one objects, and then it is then placed into the the version of the ordinance that will go to the council. I don’t want the record to be confused that there’s an actual written amendment. Point five, because there is not. That makes sense.
Right? That does. And I have verbal throughout my notes here, so I can be sure to make sure that no one gets confused. Thank you. Um, all right. Any questions before we move on? All right. Uh, vice, uh, vice chair von Reichbauer, would you please move? Proposed ordinance 2020 60203 with a do pass recommendation. I move.
Proposed ordinance 2026 0203. With the do pass recommendation. Thank you very much. All right. Um, before we turn to this proposed ordinance, um, let’s start with the, uh, verbal friendly technical amendment. Um, as Kendall noted, it’s not in your packet. It is a technical correction to fix an incorrect legal citation.
So you might have heard, uh, Jake, refer to, uh, the pollution Control Hearings Board, um, as the entity that oversees appeals from the Solid Waste Division. Um, that is not correct.
So we are, um, hoping to do this as a friendly verbal technical amendment to amend the legislation to replace the reference to the Pollution Control Hearings Board with the King County Hearing Examiner, who hears all the other solid waste related appeals.
So, to be specific, on page 27 of the legislation, beginning on line 603, we’re, uh, striking to the Washington State pollution Control Hearings Board created in chapter 4321, B our CW, and we’re inserting, um, the uh K I think we’re just going to insert in accordance with KCC chapter 23.36. Is that correct? Kendall. That is. And through that chapter, which, um directs that appeals, then go to the hearing examiner under. um KCC.
Uh chapter 20.22. Um, but that’s how that’s how our code flows. So that’s why it doesn’t say directly to the hearing examiner. It has to go through a process. And that’s in chapter um. Whatever the one that’s referenced. Because somehow I can’t find my notes. So. Um. Chair Fain. Yes. Jake.
Uh, just wanted to clarify that the what you’re inserting is in accordance with KC 2336. Is that correct? Correct. King County code chapter 2336. Yep. Thank you very much. And I’d like to introduce this as a friendly amendment 0.5. Wonderful. Thank you. Amendment 0.5 is before us.
Are there any questions about this? All right. Seeing none all those in favor of amendment 0.5, please say aye. Aye, aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions. All right. Amendment 0.5 carries. Uh, Vice Chair von Reichbauer, would you please also move amendment one? Thank you. Chair. Uh, I move amendment one. Thank you. Amendment one is before us.
Um, again, amendment one was in your packet. It directs solid waste to update the designated recyclables list. Are there any questions about amendment one? All right. Seeing none. All those in favor of amendment one, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions. All right. Amendment one carries.
We’ll turn back now to the underlying proposed ordinance 2020 60203, as amended. And to be clear about where that leaves us, the ordinance now reflects that amendment 0.5 corrects the appeal, citation and amendment one directs solid waste to update the recyclables list and neither change the underlying policy.
So, um, Councilmember Mosqueda, thank you again for your leadership on this legislation. Would you like to offer any remarks on the underlying. Uh, just that again, a thank you to all of you for your co-sponsorship, for your support today. Um, appreciate the conversation that we have. And, um, that there’s been tremendous input from some of the impacted parties.
I appreciate, as the chair said, that there was always going to be a public hearing before the full council passage, even before. So looking forward to that, um, public comment perspective as well. And, um, that the enforcement is critical. As we said, we don’t want this just to be words on a white piece of paper.
Um, as we heard from the department as well, they intend to do enforcement. They just don’t currently do that. So I believe that that’s in alignment with what central staff said. Um, we were originally told by Solid Waste that they didn’t need any additional resources for enforcement.
So look forward to taking that issue on if additional resources are actually needed. We again, want to make sure that this is, um, something that is adhered to. And I think it’s really solid policy with the feedback that we’ve received so far. I want to thank again all of the staff who have been involved in this.
Um, Tara, Lily, um, Melanie, our teams have been tremendously, uh, in the weeds on this. And, Jake, thank you for taking the helm on this going forward. I appreciate your feedback today and look forward to having this move forward. And a solid statement coming from King County. Solid statement, I don’t know, you know, okay. Take care. Thank you, thank you.
Thank you very much. Um, any other remarks or comments? Councilmember chair? Yes, please go ahead. I want to acknowledge. Uh, Councilmember Mosqueda. Committed. Working together, bringing a labor. And the folks in the community together on this issue. This is a very important issue.
I think it gives King County a particularly opportunity to be at the cutting edge of technology. And I want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda for her leadership and for bringing together not only those of us here on the county council, but also those in the community and labor who is so involved with this as well. So thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Well, thank you, I do thank you again. Councilmember Mosqueda. Um, this was a lot of work. So thank you. Um, to your staff, Melanie. A. Uh. Uh, former policy staffer. Rose.
And then, of course, um, my chief of staff, Lily Hayward, who spent a lot and lot of time working with all of, the folks to put this together. Um, thanks to Councilmember von Reichbauer chief of staff, Theo Madura. Uh, Jake Tracy, Kendall Moore and everyone else for their considerable work on this policy.
Um, I’m happy to co-sponsor this along with, um, uh, Vice Chair von Reichbauer and Councilmember Dembowski. Um, and your prime sponsorship. Council member Mosqueda. I want to just quickly emphasize what Jake had shared and what, uh, attachment three to the staff report shows, which is that this legislation almost exclusively adopts what’s already in state organics management law.
It differs only by adding an additional layer of environmental protection to ensure that packing is separated at the source, so that our waste streams stay clean. The state law allows for this extra step, and so by doing so, we’re ensuring that recyclable material can be recycled and organics materials stay out of our landfills.
And we are tying in this legislation so that it’s relevant to the rulemaking process. As was said. Um, that the Washington State Department of Ecology is undergoing right now, um, relating to solid waste handling standards. So their public public comment period has wrapped up and ecology is now going to embark on their final deliberation process.
So passing this legislation out of committee for us now put on the record that we are setting ourselves up to set a higher bar for organics management in King County, and it provides additional clarity about our priorities for ecology.
Um, so I’m really thrilled that we are doing this, and we’re doing this now and then we will have plenty of time for further public input. Um, as we, uh, undergo the SIPA process. All right. Um, before we call roll, any final comments or questions? Great. Um, clerk, will you please call the roll? Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Councilmember Balducci. I Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilmember von Reichbauer I.
Chair Fain. I the vote is for eis no no’s and no excuse. Thank you very much. By our vote, we have approved proposed ordinance 2023 0203 as amended with the Do pass recommendation. We will send this to full Council and it will not be on consent because of the separate process.
Um, and because this requires a public hearing notice, it will um, additional public hearing notice. We will not have come to full council until that has been completed. So you will hear more about it and we’ll be sure to share that with everyone. All right. We are turning now to item number ten.
And it is a briefing on the executive’s Parks Levy grant program recommendations as part of the biennial budget, the Council directed the executive to develop a report with recommendations on standards for the grant programs that were included in the 2026-2031 Parks levy and send an ordinance adopting the recommendations.
The report and proposed ordinance have been transmitted but were not introduced in time for an agenda. So this is briefing only. Um Sherrie Hsu from council central staff is here today to give a briefing. Please go ahead. Sherry. Thank you. Chair Fain. Good morning, Council members.
I’m Sherrie Hsu with council staff and the materials for this item begin on page 120. Um, as the chair mentioned, this item is listed as a briefing today. But the legislation number for reference is proposed ordinance 2020 60198 and discussion and possible action is anticipated if the council members are ready for the September tree meeting.
This proposed ordinance would establish a structure and process for selecting advisory committee members and grant projects funded by the 2026 through 2031 Parks Levy. It was transmitted from the executive, along with a recommendations report, in response to a proviso. I want to orient you a little bit to the staff report and to my briefing today.
The first few pages of the staff report include a summary of the legislation and the key issues. So please reference those for a quick overview. Today. I will just begin with the background on page 122. And then I will discuss each of the key issues.
The last part of the written staff report is a summary of the recommendations report, and I won’t go through that separately, but I’ll just mention it and weave it into my briefing where it’s relevant.
So I’m on page 122 now with the background, um, as you know, last year in April, April 2025, the council adopted ordinance 19922, which I’ll call the levy ordinance that placed on the August 2025 ballot, a proposition authorizing a six year property tax levy to support parks and open space in King County, known as the Parks Levy. I’ve included a high level breakdown of the levy expenditures, including the three competitive grant programs.
Those are the Aquatics facilities grant, the ball Field Access and Preservation grant, and the Healthy Communities and Parks grant. Um, at the same time as passing the levy ordinance, the council also passed motion 16797, which detailed the council’s intent for the use of the levy funds, and that motion included some guidelines for these grant programs.
Um, in the 2026 2027 bi annual budget, the council included a proviso that required the executive to submit by March 31st, 2026, a report with a proposed approach for the Advisory Committee, processes for the Parks Levy grant programs, and an ordinance adopting the proposed recommendations.
And I’ve copied the proviso language on page 125 for reference, the executive transmitted the ordinance and the report to the Council on July 17th, 2026. Um. There are several differences between the previous Levy’s advisory committee structure and the proposed structure for the 2026 through 2031 levy. I’ve summarized those key differences.
Um, on page 126, uh, table three, um, and I will discuss these differences as we walk through the key issues. So let me jump now to key issue one. This is page 128. The first issue is related to proviso responsiveness. Um, because the proposed ordinance doesn’t explicitly adopt the recommendations or fully incorporate them into the ordinance, it actually does not meet the requirements of the proviso.
Um, what this means is that the Council could amend the proposed ordinance to just explicitly adopt the recommendations or incorporate those recommendations fully into the ordinance. Alternatively, if council members want to make changes to the proposed structure and process, um, you could amend the proposed ordinance through a striking amendment.
And that striking amendment could also include an attachment that states the parks levy grant guidelines, similar to what we did in the previous levy. So in the previous levy, there was a follow up ordinance, which is ordinance 19166, and that included the Project Eligibility Advisory Committee process evaluation criteria and the grant approval process.
Um, key issue number two relates to changes in the advisory committee structure, composition, requirements, and appointment process. This proposed ordinance would establish a advisory committee of up to 18 members. Of those 18 members, nine would be appointed directly by DNR and nine members may be appointed by the council. What that means is the council appointed positions are not required for the council appointed positions.
Council members may appoint one representative from each of their respective districts, and those positions would need to be confirmed by council motion by January 1st of 2027, 2029 and 2031.
What this means is that if council members do not appoint a representative from their district by that date, then they would not have a representative for that two year term. Um, the ordinance also notes that the committee must consist of at least nine members to conduct business, and that the term would be two years. The report does note that members could serve up to three consecutive terms.
Um, this is not in the proposed ordinance, but it could be added through a striker. Uh, moving on to committee makeup, I’m on page 129. Uh, DNP would establish procedures to select committee members and grant reviewers that promote geographic representation. Organizational representation, subject matter expertise, and equitable participation. The proposed ordinance does not include requirements around committee makeup in terms of representing specific types of organizations or entities.
You can see on um in table three how the previous levy had some more specific requirements around the committee makeup. According to park staff. The reason they have proposed not setting exact targets is to give flexibility needed to ensure a full roster of qualified individuals.
Park staff did provide to us some more details around what each of these characteristics mean, and how DNP would achieve them. So I’ve summarized that in table four. That table just goes through those four characteristics. What they mean and how they would be achieved.
As I mentioned, this level of detail is not currently in the proposed ordinance, but council could choose to add this level of detail in a striking amendment. So just to summarize, this is different from the previous levy in that the previous levy had three committees. Um, this one would just the proposal is to just have one. Um, the previous levy had more specific requirements around the makeup of members.
Um, it did not have a minimum requirement of number of members needed to conduct business. And then in the previous levy, uh, DNP was required to notify Council of Appointments with a 30 day notice before formally notifying appointees. And that’s not included in the proposed structure for the this current levy.
Um, so policy choices for the council related to key issue two would be whether the council wishes to change the structure to add committee, um, make up requirements to require council appointed positions on the committee to change the deadlines for council appointments and or require council notification of DNP appointed positions.
Moving on to key issue three. This is at the top of page 131. Um. This relates to the separation of the Advisory committee and grant reviewers. Um DNP would recruit and train grant reviewers to independently score eligible grant applications using a standardized evaluation criteria, and this is a step that did not exist with the
previous levy. The rationale for this new step, according to park staff, is that they’ve experienced having defined roles in standardized evaluator training and a consistent scoring framework would support a more transparent grant review process and provide decision makers with reliable evaluation results to inform funding recommendations. So again, that’s the rationale for this new step.
According to park staff. I’m moving on to key issue for now. This relates to the lack of the grant evaluation criteria. So the proposed ordinance does not specify the grant evaluation criteria. Um, according to park staff, they would develop that criteria based on factors such as uh, the adopted grant program guidelines, goals, eligibility.
They would consider, criteria and rubrics from previous levy cycles. They would look at feedback from prior applicants, grant evaluators, and advisory committee members, and input gathered through the community engagement process.
Um, I’ll also note that the the report that was transmitted along with the ordinance did include some examples of project selection criteria, such as alignment with grant program goals, feasibility, readiness, community need, and benefit alignment with equity goals An organizational capacity. It also mentions that the advisory committee could consider factors that are not captured through scoring, so that could include county priorities. Levy goals. Geographic project risks and opportunities. Long term sustainability. Those are some examples.
Um, again, these were not explicitly mentioned in the proposed ordinance. So if council wanted to formalize this, you could adopt them through a striking amendment and just make those criteria explicit. Okay, I’m moving on to key issue five. This is midway through page 132. This relates to the grant approval process and the council role.
Um, I’ll just summarize the grant approval process as it’s proposed in the ordinance. First, DNP would prepare and advertise request for proposals. Second, they would conduct eligibility screening. Third, the grant reviewers would score applications using a scoring guide for DNP would compile the application scores. Five The advisory committee would review the scores and comments and develop grant funding recommendations.
So this is where they would actually say how much money for certain projects. And then six the DNP director would make final decisions on grant awards after consulting with the executive. The proposed ordinance does not include council action to approve grant awards, which is different than the previous levy. Um.
According to the report, council would be notified of grant awards, but this is not explicitly in the proposed ordinance. So again, if if Council wanted to amend the proposed ordinance to require council action or to require an annual status report or briefing, which was required in the previous levy, that would be a policy choice. You could do that through a striking amendment. Key issue six.
This is the last one I’ve called out in the staff report relates to the conflict of interest process. Uh, DNP would be required to maintain a conflict of interest process. Governing advisory committee members and grant reviewers. And this definition is not in the proposed ordinance, but it is in the report.
And I have a comparison of the previous definition and the proposed new definition. Uh, that is table six, which is on page 137. Um, and again, if council wanted to formally adopt the definition, you could do so through, um, an amendment. Uh, there are four main changes between these two definitions.
Those are that the processes would consider a period of potential conflict beyond one year. It would remove a reference, a reference to specific dollar amounts. It would use King County code for the definition of close relative or immediate family. And finally it would request disclosure for perceived, uh, for possible perceived conflict of interest.
So again, those are the differences between the previous and proposed new definitions for conflict of interest. That again, Council could choose to formally adopt. I will end my briefing there and just happy to take questions. And we do have executive staff available for questions. We have Warren Jimenez, who is the parks division director from DNP here. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sherry.
I really appreciate, um, how you outlined, um, the differences in the staff report charts were super helpful to do comparisons. Um, from the, um, current, um, levy, uh, board process. And this proposed one and that really, um, helped us see the difference in changes. So thank you so much. Um, colleagues, any questions for Sherry or, um, DNP staff? Councilmember Balducci.
Thank you. Uh, yeah. I want to echo the. Thanks. This report was super clear and helpful. And, uh, you know, I think really points the way to how we will process the legislation as it comes through. So. Great. Very, very helpful and effective. Thank you.
Uh, my question is we have an existing parks Levy oversight committee or board. I am forgetting the title, uh, to which we each appoint a district representative. Does that go away under this new proposal? Is this like replacing that, or what’s the impact on the existing oversight committee? Uh, can answer. That for me. Yes, I can answer that question.
Jack Tracy, council staff. So there is a parks Levy oversight board that makes sure that the spending of the parks levy happens in accordance with the, um, with the terms of the levy itself. That is a separate committee. Uh, then this grant advisory committee. So these would. Be sort of backwards looking.
And this is forward looking in terms of how we process grant applications. That’s correct. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Um I expect that we’ll have more opportunities to ask questions offline. Um, I have some questions related to kind of the why behind some of these changes.
And so they might be better directed to the parks division director. Um, if he’s there. Give me a second to get the mic on. Good morning. Thank you so much for being here. Do you want to just quickly introduce yourself for the record. And then I can ask a couple questions? Sure.
Um, Warren Jimenez, I’m the division director for King County Parks. Thank you so much for being here. Um, so my questions were, as I now look at them as a whole, it’s just more of a here’s what the previous levy required. And, um, that is now gone and why.
So, um, my I think the most important one to me was the, um, geographic and organizational diversity. Um, requirements for each of the three currently existing um, grants committees. And now we’re moving to one large grant committee, which, you know, I understand. Um, juggling multiple people, multiple committees, um, and doing all of that.
But I also understand that there was a challenge, uh, with vacancies or getting people to show up for quorum. And so, um, removing all of these requirements, though, um, seems to go pretty far.
So why is removing all those requirements with no defined targets or accountability if there’s not enough people, why is that better than putting in a more flexible approach? Yeah, I appreciate the the question. Um, also appreciate, um, taking up this issue in, in the timing that you’re doing it.
So that certainly would allow us to continue creating momentum to getting to a place where, um, you know, command of this process will have a clear picture of what that process looks like. Um, going into next year. Um, which we’re planning to move ahead with implementing this legislation. Um, a couple of thoughts. Um, chair, you did note primarily some of the administrative aspects of as we were working.
Um, the last grant programs coming out of the last levy, um, certainly those were were part. Uh, part of it. Um, the other pieces that I, too, were part of it and and some of it is experience coming out of the last levy was, um, you know, council the previous process included the council adoption of grant recommendations.
You’re right that we had several different committees, um, that parade provided those recommendations. And, you know, our experience was, is, is that council took up those recommendations and really, really adopted those recommendations. And, and as, as they were presented to council.
So that was just one experience point that we came away from the past six years with the grant programs and implementing them. So that’s one piece. Um, the other piece is, is, is timing. Um, and trying to start to balance what we’ve heard in engaging the community about, um, the need for these grant programs, how they’re critical to continue to deliver across, um, across the parks. Uh, agencies or park partners.
Um, that include city jurisdictions that include nonprofit partners and many others who would be, um, pursuing these grant programs. Um, we heard kind of timing, um, doing our best to, uh, to quickly ramp up and get those dollars into play.
Um, also, I think we’re trying to sort of balance having a good transparent process and finding that line between balancing that interest of getting dollars out while having a good, transparent process. Um, and so I think that the council aspect of that, um, does add time to that process. And so that was one of the motivations for presenting this recommendation. Um, as well.
So those are some of the, some of the thinking behind the whys behind that. Um, and I think we shared a little bit of that context as we were discussing this along the way. Yeah. Thank you.
I what I’m hearing is, um, that as the previous, um, boards were presenting, um, these grants, uh, decisions that that council largely went along with what was presented. And so we were just trying to remove the extra time and steps. Um, I will share that. I still, uh, would like the ability to have that oversight built in. So, um, we can address that later. My original question, I realized I kind of merged all my questions together.
So perhaps wasn’t as clear. Um, for the, uh, appointment to the board process. What I’m wondering about is how do we ensure that each of the geographic areas and that each of the, uh, organizational diversity, um, targets that we would ideally like to have our built in to, uh, the committee being put
together as a whole. So we have now this proposal removes all of those requirements and makes them more of suggestions. But how do we really ensure that there will be representatives from South King County, East King County, North King County, um.
Beyond what the council appoints, because, as you heard in Sherry’s report, if a council member doesn’t get their appointee in by January 1st, the way that the um ordinance or the proposal proposed ordinance reads that they’ve missed their opportunity to have a appointee on the board, um, that might have been a accidental or an omission in the in the proposed ordinance.
But what I really want to ensure is that we have full representation from a from across the county. So why were those requirements removed? Yeah. So so first off, writes a note that, um, one of the ways of getting at that geographic equity was really, um, through the council appointments of their committee members,
through that process. And, um, if, if that recommendation is taken up as is, we would work really hard with each council office to ensure that that that we don’t we don’t miss that opportunity so that’s one piece. Um, the other piece too, is, is as what’s currently being proposed.
Um, is is the other members we would be doing a recruitment. Um, we would be basically doing an open recruitment for folks who would want and show their interest in participating in the advisory committee.
And, um, the, the attributes that was noted in terms of what we would be looking for, uh, to ensure that we cross those different representations across, we’d be collecting that information through that, um, open recruitment process, including taking a look at geographic equity. So, um, that’s how we’re we’re proposing it, as is. Um, and um, and so, yeah, hopefully that provides a little bit more context on how we would approach that issue.
Yeah. And this might and I realize I’m commenting here, but this getting volunteers to participate in a pretty hefty process like this, um, is a challenge overall for all of our boards, boards and commissions.
Um, it is hard to recruit across the board for, uh, Harborview, for for culture, for all these different, um, uh, really important bodies that we appoint people to. So I know it’s a challenge, and I certainly don’t want to do anything to make it harder. I just think it is so important, um, to ensure that we are creating boards and commissions that represent the entire county.
Um, so I will just flag for you that that is a bit of a sticking point for me. Are there any other questions from my colleagues comments? All right. Um, thank you so much. Um, for being here today. And, um, Sherry, thank you again for your terrific report.
It really, really helped us break this down. Um, before we move on, this was just a briefing. I just want to, um, outline the next steps for this legislation. So I expect that we will be able to take action at the September 15th tree Committee meeting.
I do plan to bring a striker addressing a number of the issues that Sherry flagged in the staff report, along with a couple that, um, uh, may not have been raised. So I’m just letting folks know, uh, I’m already said this, but I do want to just let, um, my colleagues know that, uh, I think it’s really important that our committee members have, uh,
well-rounded experience and represent the full county. Um, this is, um, tens of millions of dollars. And so it’s really critical that we get that committee makeup just right and that it ensures that it does reflect the whole county.
Um, and I would like the council to have oversight and keep that oversight, especially on the final grant decisions. Um, so for timing purposes, the amendment timeline is as follows. The striking amendment direction, um, is due to my office by Monday, August 31st. The striking amendment. Um, direction is due to Sherry. Tuesday, September 8th.
So let’s all work really closely together to try and get it as early as possible so that Sherry and our staff, um, are not having to duplicate anything. And then we will be distributing the striking amendment on Thursday, September 10th. Um, line amendment direction is due to staff Friday, September 11th.
So again, if you have any concepts for Stryker, please provide them to Sherry in my office ahead of these deadlines, we’ll make sure to send this out to everybody. So, um, we’re all on the same page. Um, thank you again, Sherry, for your work on this legislation and the presentation. And if there are no other questions, we will move on to item 12.
Um, proposed motion 2026 0098. This is the East Link connections transit Gap Service analysis report. Um, I believe we have Mary Bourguignon here from Council central staff to give the staff report. And whenever you are ready, I realize I transition pretty quickly. Please go ahead. Thank you.
Chair Fain I am Mary Bourguignon from the council staff and the materials for this item begin on page 209 of your packet for background. About a year and a half ago, the Council approved ordinance 19899.
The Eastlink Connections transit restructure, which authorized Metro to make changes to about 40 bus routes in anticipation of the full opening of Sound Transit’s two line link light rail across Lake Washington. Now, because the timing of the connection across the lake was not yet known at the time that you passed the ordinance, Metro was instructed to implement the bus restructure in phases, which it did, beginning with some administrative service changes in the spring of 2025.
Continuing on through fall 2025, spring 2026, which was when the two line made it across the lake, and then continuing on to additional service changes at the fall 2026 service change, which will begin on August 29th.
Um, now, when changes began to be made, uh council members noted some transit service gaps, areas that had bus service previously but did not have it. Based on the initial phases of the restructure, and that led to a proviso requirement that was included in the budget, and which Metro has responded to in this report.
I will note that the council’s requirement, Metro’s analysis, and all of the actions described in the report describe the service change as kind of midway through implementation and prior to the full opening of the two line across the lake.
And I will note that there are further reporting requirements to follow based on the full restructure, which again will be in effect starting on August 29th and following the opening of the two line. But that said, the couple of things that were requested. I’m moving on now to page 211. Uh, the council asked for analysis of changes to two specific bus routes routes 226 and 240, that could address the service gaps.
And the report describes possible ways to return those routes to their pre-service change routing, and notes that there would be trade offs with this for route 240. The report noted that boardings had been higher after the service change, but again before the full opening of the two line, and that travel time to the light rail station was faster, and for the route 226 returning it to its previous
pathway would have implications for ridership, travel time and then operations in terms of where that bus lays over. Now, I will note again that the analysis was focused on returning those routes to their previous pathways before what the council had authorized Metro to make changes to back in 2025.
As I noted, there are upcoming, um, analytical requirements and reporting requirements, which I’ll describe in a minute that could provide an opportunity for Metro to look at alternative pathways that had not yet been described.
The next thing that the council asked Metro to do, and I’m now on page 212, is look at opportunities to expand Metro Flex service in the affected area, specifically in the Belle Red and crossroads neighborhoods. Metro flex is an Uber like service that Metro operates in a number of communities where you can summon a ride, typically to go a short distance to connect to frequent transit, and the cost is the cost of a bus ticket via your Orca card.
So the, uh, the proviso looked at, um, expanding the Overlake Metro Flex pilot, which is currently in existence in the Belle Red and crossroads neighborhoods, and noted that, um, there would be few households served because of the low density in those communities, and that costs would be high at an and an estimate of about 310,000 per year.
The report also analyzed potentially creating a new Metro Flex service in the Woodridge neighborhood along Richard’s Road, and noted that again, few households would be served because of low density that costs would be high.
In this case, an estimate of about 650,000 a year, and noted that in this neighborhood, trips might be denied because there were other available transit services available through route two, 23 to 40 6 to 70, and 226 that people in that neighborhood would have access to. So the report did not at this point recommend either expanding the Overlake Metroplex service or creating a new Metro Flex service in Woodridge.
Finally, I will note, as I stated earlier, that this report was requested and the analysis was done prior to the full implementation of the restructure and prior to the two line running across the lake. But there are two additional reporting requirements.
The ordinance that authorized the bus service change requires Metro to engage in additional engagement and reporting, and then in the most recent budget omnibus, the council added an additional proviso requiring a new report next year. On these same areas. Once the full service change is in effect. So with that, I will note that the council’s action today would not be approving any bus service changes. It would simply be acknowledging receipt of this report.
And I will note that we do have a full team from Metro here. If you have Metro specific questions. Thank you so much, Mary Councilmember Balducci. Thank you chair. Just a few words as a sponsor of this motion. Uh, the report just did the point of what we’re being asked to act on here today. Uh, was very thorough.
It did what we asked. It provided recommendations. And as Mary just said, the motion before us today would acknowledge that we received the report that we asked for, which we have. So when the time comes, I would be happy to move to approve this item. And the larger picture of what we’ve asked.
We’ve asked for information and ideas to fix a problem. The problem is this when we did the Eastlink connection study, and that study went on over a period of years, because Eastlink itself, you will recall, was delayed.
And so there was a round of planning for how we would reorganize the bus service around that new light rail service. Then that paused for a while, because the opening date of the bridge segment for Eastlink was delayed for a while. It was very uncertain for a while. Then they did an update. So a lot of work, public engagement and good thinking has gone on into this proposal.
And what it ultimately did in. Now, these two segments of implementation, the one that’s already happened, the one that’s about to happen, is dramatically improved frequencies around and to the light rail in certain corridors, increased service geography. It’s spread out service to new areas that hadn’t received service before.
But what we also did was we unintentionally created several new transit deserts, mostly in East Bellevue, which is one of the highest equity score areas in all of East King County. Um, and that can’t be what this was about. This was about the introduction of major new transit service and how we were going to make that work best for the riders in that area.
By the way, just as an aside, there’s also a similar process going on in North King County again, and where we’ve got on our agenda for this afternoon, uh, a proposal to deal with the fact that there’s changes to the bus service being proposed that are unwelcome to that section.
So everybody’s on this spit. This will come. This is not just an East Side problem, but we created like deserts. And I just want to share with you an email that I got within the last few days, um, that said, during last year’s restructure, Metro eliminated route 241, eliminated route 246 and severed the Factoria routing of route 245.
Uh, there was the addition of route 203 in exchange, but that had a it’s an, I’m paraphrasing, an infrequent route that lacks late night service, provides no weekend service, and bypasses a particular corridor.
And after the implementation of this next service change in September, there will be no bus service in that corridor anymore. We will have eliminated it entirely. We will have eliminated the bus. Uh, passageway from south of I-90 into Factoria and Eastgate area to the north of I-90.
And another rider shared that what this the effect of this is to cut them off from any transit, all transit access to the grocery store, the pharmacy, the medical clinic, Lake Samammish State Park, the new airfield Park, Spirit Ridge Park, and other places that have had reliable transit for decades. And that is one desert that we created. There are at least 2 or 3 others all up and down East King County.
So the point was of this exercise with this report was to get information to figure out a fix, because, colleagues, there has to be a fix for this. We’re not we shouldn’t be introducing new transit service, improving transit service by trade off with taking it away entirely, not just reducing it to the level of demand, but taking it
away entirely from areas that have relied on transit for decades. So I am very happy today to move, to accept the report or pass this motion, move on to the next step, which is probably going to have to be a budget direction, because simply rolling back some of the changes or introducing a, you
know, sort of low functioning dial a ride type program is not the answer. The answer is to look at the resources that we have in these areas and figure out how to spread them out so that they fairly serve everybody, and that’s harder. But it’s, I think, going to be the path in front of us.
So more on this to come. But that today I recommend that we accept this report and then think about how we work with Metro to make sure that, uh, we, we, uh, amend what what was done unintentionally and worked better on transparency in the future.
Frankly, this was a surprise, and I spent a lot of time staring at these maps and was surprised by these transit deserts that we got to figure out a better way to understand what’s happening in the future. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you so much, Councilmember Balducci. I, um, you are correct.
We are doing the South Link Connection’s implementation right now and I will say that I commend the Metro Community Engagement team because I spent years I know doing the work several years in advance on Eastlink connections and on South Link connections.
And despite all of that and all of their efforts and all of our work and oversight and watching and assisting with the implementation, I have already heard how we are leaving some, um, gaps in in our system, and it is really challenging.
I think one of the larger issues that I’ve seen is that folks aren’t really paying much attention until it happens, because if you’re thinking about something way down the line, oh, this line is going to change and the bus is going to stop, is going to move here, or it’s going to change to a different line. That’s a later problem. But when it happens, then you’re realizing, oh, wait, now I can’t. Yeah.
So, um, I appreciate Metro’s engagement on trying to adjust, and I want to be mindful of the service guidelines and how we are putting extra steps in. But also we have to make it a little bit more flexible so that these smaller adjustments can be made, um, without having to do that two year community engagement analysis and build up. So it’s a work in progress.
I really appreciate you asking for these reports and your, um, uh, the way you’re having to go about it and I’m mentally noting for myself, but I might need to do for South Link. But excuse me.
Um, but I do commend Metro for really diving in and trying to see what we could do here. Uh, I think Metro’s in the room. If if they have any feedback. Certainly don’t need to now, because this is just a report and we are just accepting it.
Um, if there is nothing else, I think Vice Chair von Reichbauer, would you please move? Proposed motion 2026 0098. Which is the East um, link connections transit gap Service analysis report with a do pass recommendation. So move. Thank you. Any other, uh, final comments or questions? Thank you to our sponsor for requesting this. All right. Clark, would you please call the roll? Thank you. Chair Councilmember Balducci. I Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilmember von Reichbauer I.
Sure Fain I. The vote is for eis and no excuse. Thank you very much. By our vote, we have approved proposed motion 2026 0098. With the due pass recommendation. And we will send this to full council on the regular course and put it on consent. All right. Thank you very much, Mary.
Um, I think you’re going to stick around for our next item. If it is on proposed motion 2026 0202, which is the cashless fare engagement report. Um is required required by a budget proviso. I believe we have Council Barron in the room as well.
Who is the sponsor of that proviso? Um, and Mary Bourguignon um from council center staff is still at the table to give our staff report. Please go ahead, Mary. Thank you. Chair Fain again, Mary Bourguignon from the council staff. I am now on page 255 of the packet, but I’m actually going to jump quickly ahead to page 256.
So back in 2009, Metro and the other transit agencies in the region launched the Orca fare card, which is an electronic fare payment card that can be used by any of the participating transit agencies. And since that time, Metro has been working to move toward cashless onboard fare payment on Metro buses for basically three reasons.
First, to promote reliability because it promotes faster boarding when people tap a card rather than feeding cash into a fare box. Second, to promote equity because the only way that passengers can have a free transfer between, say, a metro bus and link light rail is with the Orca card, a metro paper transfer is not accepted
by Sound Transit on light rail, and also to enable people to get access to the appropriate reduced rate. Orca fare card as appropriate. For instance, the Orca Lift fare card for low income people, which provides a $1 fare rather than $3, or the reduced regional fare permit or RFP fare for seniors or people
with disabilities that also provides a $1 fare. And then third, Metro has been working to move toward cashless onboard fare payments to save money by eliminating the need to maintain physical fare boxes and count cash.
Metro has reported that cash shoes on board buses has steadily declined over the last decade, from $31 million in 2014, down to about $8 million in 2021, and don’t have more recent information from Metro, but anticipate that it has likely declined further since the Orca agencies enabled credit card tap to pay earlier this year, meaning that someone who doesn’t possess an Orca card can use their credit card at
any Orca reader and just tap it to pay their fair. That way. Uh, moving on, Metro did in the 2026 2027 budget proposed just under $4 million and seven plates to support Metro’s ongoing transition to cashless onboard fare payment, and noted the expectation that the full transition would occur during
this biennium and as a result, the Council imposed a proviso asking Metro to report both on its engagement, particularly with communities that might experience barriers to moving away from cash payments. And then it’s timeline.
So I’m now going to move to page 258, Metro did report in this proviso report on the outreach and engagement that it conducted with specific groups. Um, noting that in all cases, Metro’s attempts through engagement have been to help riders obtain the appropriate fare card for their need.
So Metro worked with seniors and again noted that their proposed approach is going to be to increase the number of neighborhood pop up events that they provide at senior living centers and senior centers to help seniors learn to to acquire and use and load money onto our RFP cards, again, that provide that $1 reduced fare for seniors and people with disabilities, for low income people, those under 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for an Orca lift card.
Also, for a $1 fare, and Metro notes that they have been doing outreach with low income people and organizations that serve those communities, working to make it easier to enroll and remain eligible for the lift card, and working to make it easier for organizations to purchase bulk transit fares for their clients through Metro’s Orca Business Passport program,
uh Metro also reported, as requested, on its outreach to multilingual communities, noting a number of outreach efforts it is doing, including translation and transcription efforts to engage with people who speak different languages and to ensure that they have opportunities to obtain and learn to use the appropriate Orca card, and then finally,
Metro did outreach to human services agencies that participate in the Human Services Bus Ticket program. This is a program that I think you all know is established in the King County Fair.
Metro provides fair payment media to organizations that serve low income people at 10% of the fare cost, meaning that Metro subsidizes 90% of the cost and makes these tickets available for a 10% payment in 2025. Last year, Metro provided $3.5 million in fair value to more than 100 organizations.
Through this program, and Metro has been working with these organizations still ongoing to develop solutions that would not involve paper tickets, since, again, those tickets are not accepted on Sound Transit or other transit agencies. And so continuing to test new approaches. So now at the bottom of 259 page 259 of your packet, the second thing Metro was asked was to talk more about its timeline and the milestones that it would need to achieve to move to cashless, on board fare payment.
The report identifies a number of milestones Metro has identified, some of which, such as restarting fare inspection and launching credit card tap to pay. Metro has already achieved some of them, such as launching a virtual mobile Orca card on your phone, in your phone, wallet and modernizing the human Services bus ticket program are still underway.
Metro notes that it anticipates that the soonest it would achieve all of these milestones and be able to transition to a fully cashless onboard fare payment system would be the end of 2027 and does acknowledge in the report that council action would be required prior to that to approve a fare change,
because currently the King County Code states that cash is one of the allowable onboard fare payment methods. So with that, as with the last item, your action today would be acknowledging receipt of a report.
It would not be taking any action toward fare payment types or methods or timelines, simply would be accepting this report. And with that, we do have also Rachel Wills from Metro here in the in the audience. If you have further questions for Metro. Thank you so much, Mary. And thank you, Rachel, for being here.
Uh, Councilmember Varon, I wanted to give you an opportunity to, um, ask a question or offer any comments if you have any.. Thank you. Chair, I appreciate your allowing me to be a guest of the committee. Uh, currently. And I appreciate I just wanted to convey my gratitude to Metro for the work on this report.
Uh, and just to emphasize, I think as the report notes, you know, we’re going to we’re we’re in this path, um, and there’s going to be decision points down the line. We’re not making the decision today. But I think the purpose of this proviso was just to make sure that we are doing the work ahead of time.
Um, and I appreciate getting a an update on the work that is being done. I just will emphasize that. I think for me at least, it will be important that that work continues, because I think one of the things that I’ve experienced is joining the council is, is that sometimes, you know, we do a
lot of planning here on the, uh, the county and metro will do planning, but people often don’t hear about it. So that engagement, proactive engagement, so that when there are big changes and this will be a big change, um, people are aware and ready and prepared, and we’re doing the way to make
sure that it’s equitable. And I do have, you know, still, you know, I think I think there will be questions about how do we manage the folks who, you know, I think most of us are pretty familiar. We have, you know, our cards. I think the tap to pay is a big, big development.
But I’m also conscious that there are still populations in our community that are that don’t have the same access to, to, to banking. And, uh, you know, new immigrants, you know, who, who might be, you know, just in the community, might have a hard time getting credit cards.
And so I think I just want to make sure that we are continuing to do that proactive work. But I appreciate the work that has been done in the, in the, in the report, and we’ll continue to monitor that as we do further conversations on changing policies down the line. Thank you. Chair. Thank you so much. Council Member Verona.
And yes, um, we are um, we I have the same, um, questions and tracking the same issues. And certainly we’re seeing some of these same questions at Sound Transit as we tackle some of our, um, access concerns. Uh, Council member, uh, Balducci. Thank you. Chair.
And I really appreciate the thoughtful approach to this. It is it is a big change. And just as we were discussing what some of our previous items people truly don’t clue in to what we’re doing unless even when we put a lot of work into trying to get them to go in.
And so the day that somebody walks up to a bus and can’t use the dollar in their pocket, or the $3 in their pocket, is going to be a shock to a lot of people.
So I really appreciate the thoughtful, intentional, uh, labor to to get out as much as possible. The one point I just want to raise here is, I hope that Metro is engaging with Sound Transit in this, because Sound Transit is about to, uh, well, we’ll shortly be implementing a fare gate.
Uh, trial pilot at, I believe, 14 light rail stations, which will literally create a barrier to entry. And I am guessing not accept cash. Just guessing that that’s what’s what’s going to happen at those fare gates. And so I think that and and people as we know will engage. They’ll get on a uh, a metro bus or a Sound transit bus or light rail interchangeably.
And if they have an orchid card or cash, they’re not thinking. These are different systems being run by different people. They’re just accessing transit. So I just think that’s really important for us to try to sync up those efforts, because I’m guessing that that fare gate pilot is going to call this question as well. Great. Good idea. And thank you for flagging that.
Any other questions? Sure. I think we had somebody from Metro who was going to comment on that question. So I just wanted to. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Rachel Welch. I lead Metro’s fair policy and strategy team, and I really wanted to appreciate what Councilmember Balducci just brought up around coordination with San Transit.
You know, our riders don’t always know what system they are riding on. They just know that it is a system that gets them from place to place. So we are working really closely with Sound Transit, both to make sure we are telling the same things to our shared riders, to make sure that we’re getting
out ahead of, in particular. Um, uh, folks who are paying with cash, youth riders, reduced fare eligible riders to really make sure that we are making, uh, accessible the right fare for all riders within the system. So thanks for that. Thank you so much, Rachel. I really appreciate all the work you’re doing.
Thank you. I appreciate you being here and for your work on this. All right. Um, Councilmember von Reichbauer, uh, would you please move proposed motion 2026 0202 with a do pass recommendation. To move. Thank you so much. Any colleagues have any final comments or questions? All right. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Thank you. Chair.
Councilmember Balducci. I Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember von Reichbauer. I. Chair Fain. I the board is three eyes, no no’s and Councilmember Dunn. Excuse. Thank you so much. By our vote, we have approved proposed motion 2026 0202.
With the due process recommendation and we will send this to full council in the normal course and put it on consent. That concludes the action items on our agenda. Before we adjourn, I’d like to make sure that technical difficulties didn’t stop council members from voting. Um, clerk. Uh, Calderon, we, uh, do we have any members that were excused from the vote? Yes. Councilmember. Um, we’re missing your vote on the consent packet from item 5 to 9.
Vote. I thank you. And and Councilmember von Reichbauer missing the last vote, which is not. I’m sorry. Councilmember Dunn. And I don’t see him, so. All right. Um, he has until the end of the day, I believe. Um, so with that, uh, thank you all so much for participating in today’s committee meeting.
Thank you to all of our guests and our staff who, um, briefed us. And with no other business before the committee. Um, we