Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy 7/22/2026

All right.

Good morning, everyone.

The July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy six-year implementation and evaluation plan will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Juarez.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Lin.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Here.

Councilmember Saka.

Morning.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Vice-Chair Hollingsworth.

Present.

Chair Rivera.

Present.

Chair, there are nine Councilmembers present.

Thank you, Clerk.

Good morning, colleagues and members of the public and folks watching on the Seattle channel and shout out to our partners at the Department of Education and Early Learning who I know are watching online.

Welcome to our last meeting, select meeting on the FEP Levy I&E Plan.

Today we will be voting on the chair's package which contains most of the amendments we reviewed last select committee meeting.

We'll also be voting on two amendments not included in the chair's package that we also reviewed at the last meeting, as well as taking our final vote on the I&E plan before sending it to full council next week.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on the agenda or within the purview of this committee.

As a reminder, the council cannot accept comments on campaign related matters.

So please keep your topics to city business.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have 31 in-person speakers and 20 remote speakers, giving us a total of 51.

Thank you, clerk.

Given that each speaker will have one minute.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

We will start with in-person speakers first, then remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

The public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Thank you, clerk.

What we're gonna do, I'm gonna do something a little bit different this morning because we do have some elders that I wanna recognize first in the room, which I understand is a little different than we normally do, but in my community, in the Latino community, we recognize our elders first.

and so that is what I'm gonna do today and thank you for indulging me in that.

So we're gonna hear first from Elmer Dixon.

Elmer started the Black Panther Party here in Seattle, the second chapter after Oakland in case anyone didn't know.

And then we will be followed by former State Representative Dom Mason and then Jim Buchanan and then we'll go to our list.

Thank you all this morning.

Elmer, thank you for being here.

Thank you for being here.

Honorable Don Mason, Jim Buchanan, Dan, Joy, Maritza, Alexis, those are the ones I know and I just met Dion.

I want to make sure that we understand what the intent of the original Children's Free Breakfast Program was, which was started in 1969. I'm a co-founder of the Seattle Chapter of the Black Panther Party and the original breakfast program coordinator.

We intended to feed the most needy.

And in our community, the black community, those were black kids.

and we strategically placed these programs in the housing projects, Yesler Terrace, Rainer Vista, Holly Park, and High Point, and the Atlantic Street Center.

Now in those locations, all kinds of kids were there, Latino kids, white kids, Asian kids, and when they came to the door, we didn't kick them out because we needed to feed them too.

It was about feeding the oppressed and the most needy.

It would have been ludicrous for us to take a breakfast program out to Laurelhurst.

And so that was the intent of that breakfast program.

That should be the intent of this feeding program.

I'm here in support of Amendment 6. All power to the people.

Thank you, Elmer.

State Rep. Don Mason, thanks for being here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam President, and the rest of the esteemed council.

My name is Dawn Mason.

I'm a former state representative.

And I've spent my life fighting to feed black children in this city.

That's exactly why I oppose this plan.

It dresses up a handout to the wealthy as justice for the poor.

And that has happened before.

It's almost become a tick in this city.

Universal Meals were never on the $1.3 billion ballot.

Seattle voters passed at 80%.

We passed at 80%.

Seattle's 104 schools are already 50% covered by federally funded free meals.

In Rainier Valley, 80% of students qualify more than two times the district average.

They're the ones who qualify.

They're the ones who need it.

The rest do not.

And they should not, it should be taken away.

So 18,000 Seattle children already qualify and are served.

The plan feeds no, doesn't feed hungry children.

Just saying it feeds all children means that it can take away from children who are really hungry.

Anyway, so, While the city drowns in a $488 million deficit, the children who actually go hungry go hungry on weekends and breaks in Southeast Seattle.

And so the Hollingsworth Foster Amendment does feed our children that need to be fed.

So thank you for hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

All right, Jim Buchanan.

I'd like to say good morning, Madam Chair and to the Council.

Great to see everybody.

Good morning.

You know, I just want to kind of stick to the facts and statistics.

I'm Jim Buchanan, President of the Washington State Descendants of the Enslaved, and I'm here to ask you to vote no because this plan taxes the working poor to feed the wealthy and it calls it compassion.

The numbers are devastating.

Universal Mills were never on the $1.3 billion ballot Seattle voters passed at 80%.

Seattle's 104 schools are already 50% covered by federally funded free meals.

In Rainier Valley, 80% of students qualify more than two times the district's average.

18,000 Seattle children already qualify and are served.

This plan feeds no hungry child.

It funnels $1,200 per child to families in Queen Anne, Magnolia, and that area who can already afford lunch, draining a levy reserve while the city drowns in the $88 million deficit.

Vote no.

When you vote no, three things happen.

You protect the reserve, you honor the voters, and you feed the children who actually serve on the weekends and breaks in Southeast Seattle, where food insecurity hits at 26.5%.

Hollywood Foster, does it for less than 50% at cost, reaching 5,000 families.

Stop the handout.

Feed the hungry.

Vote yes on the amendments.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you.

All right.

We're going to go next.

So, colleagues, we have a number of folks speaking this morning.

We have three mics, and they all work.

So when you hear your name, please step up to a mic, and it'll make everything go a little faster if you would thank you so much and then also we have a lot of folks in chambers and a lot of work to get through so if you could do snaps or hand waves if you're if you like something rather than clapping it also respects the person who's going to speak next and also helps the process so I'm going to thank you in advance for doing that thank you very much okay so we have Neeloo Jenks, Oliver Miska and then Rachel Schell

Hi, Neeloo.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

I'm Neeloo Jenks, running for Seattle City Council District 5. I'm a Lake City resident and a mom.

I'm also a former PTA Advocacy Chair at a Title I Northeast school where I had a child told me they don't eat dinner in their family.

It was also a school that nearly lost its Title I status because of the situation under Trump by three kids.

That means an entire school could lose lunch under what we're discussing right now.

There are two high schools in my district that would not be served.

30% of the kids at Ingram are going to their closet asking for things like toothpaste.

I understand that there's a lot of need, but I do know that children don't learn when they're hungry.

I was a stay-at-home parent for 14 years.

I can tell you how much I worked in schools and how many hungry kids there are and how much invisible poverty there is.

We need to find a way to feed our children and this is a great way.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oliver Misca, followed by Rachel Schell, followed by Linda Osodio.

Hi, Oliver.

Hi, good morning, members of the council.

My name's Oliver Misca.

I'm here testifying as a retired teacher and 35-year-old Seattleite against Amendment 6. First of all, thank you for seeing through what is an arduous process of passing this $1.3 billion levy, helping support really fulfill what the state doesn't, funding our schools and the program, so it's a lot of work.

Thank you.

Public service is grueling and nobody deserves personal attacks.

With that said, politics is always personal, regardless of how hard we tried to put up walls and labels.

Thinking back before we had a socialist mayor, I heard the talking points over and over again, that we needed our schools to have universal appeal to our families and have their services and their reputation spread amongst all.

The talking points a year ago were different.

And in your defense of Amendment 6, I hear a both and, not either or argument.

targeted universalism is just that both and not either or eligibility criteria after all are just white liberals way of deciding what basic needs services like food and housing who gets that we can't think of a better way

Thank you, Oliver.

And you can also leave comments in the box.

If folks run out of time, when you hear that ding, it means you have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Welcome, Rachel.

Nice to see you.

Good morning, Chair Rivera and members of the Seattle City Council.

My name is Rachel Snell, and I'm an executive board member for the 37th LD.

I'm here to vote again.

I'm here to say no to Amendment 6. In a time where children in school already don't have the ability to afford food at their homes, School's usually the only time that they can actually get a free meal or a half-decent meal.

So to starve them and to cut this would be ridiculous.

And one of the other things I always say at every council member and every public testimony I give is I'm sick and tired of sitting through another meeting with legislatures and policymakers saying, we need to cut spending.

We need to cut spending.

Meanwhile, wealthy corporations receive handouts.

Year after year, it's enough.

Thank you, Rachel.

We have next Linda Osorio, Noah Williams, followed by Bailey Medito, or Medilo, Medilo, so sorry.

Linda, welcome.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Linda Osorio, and I'm a junior in high school, and I'm testifying against Amendment 6. For many families, this amendment would be difficult for them to file paperwork due to fear if their families are immigrants, embarrassment, or may not even qualify, which could be due to their family's income, and this would restrict them from receiving nutritious meals due to grocery costs.

Free school meals have shown to reduce food insecurity for families and improve students' overall health starting in kindergarten.

That's disappointing 6,800 SPS students and their families, causing a financial burden to them and limiting them from accessing free school meals and their success in school.

In addition, this would halt students' focus in class.

and not receiving free school meals.

And I hope that as you make this decision that you think about these students.

Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Noah Williams, followed by Bailey, followed by Sidney Luck.

Noah, welcome.

Thank you council members.

My name is Noah Williams and as a taxpayer who does not have kids, there is no better use of my taxes than feeding those that are hungry.

No questions asked because it is morally right.

It is also fiscally responsible because you know that we end up with better test scores and more federal funding when kids have reliable access to food.

Imagine means testing other core essentials in schools, textbooks, paper, pencils.

You must be this poor and your parents must fill out a form with a pencil for you to get one.

It'd be humiliating for kids and a waste of administrative time and effort that could go to simply feeding them.

The children aren't going hungry because we feed too many of their peers.

It's a tiny amount of money.

They're going hungry because overall our council's budget previously reflects an enormous amount of money for the cops.

Let's keep it real.

Last session, I was really glad you passed an expansion to the Fresh Bucks program so that more families can feed their shelter and with fresh food from Washington families, farmers rather.

Keep going in this direction and feed all the kids.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noah Bailey, followed by Sydney, followed by Irene Tsao.

Hey everyone, can you hear me?

Yes.

Awesome.

Before I testify, I just want to give a huge shout out to the young people here today.

Your bravery in showing up as students, as youth, is commendable and I appreciate it so much.

My name is Bailey Medillo and I am glad to be here today.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the FEP Levy Committee.

I am the Communications Manager for the Washington Bus, which is the largest statewide political organization for young people in Washington State.

I was also a recipient of free and reduced school lunch when I was in high school during COVID-19, and today I'm here because my organization is urging this committee to fully fund free school meals for K-12 youth and remove barriers for young people to access these meals.

And we appreciate the thoughtful approach of Amendment 6, but we ask this council to not adopt it and pass the FEP levy in its most present and impactful form.

The real thing we need to say here is that we are not the experts as council members, as adults.

We need to be listening to the students and the teachers and the conditions that they are living through in their classrooms.

The young people are saying that we need to fund universal free school meals, and I believe them, and I stand with them, and I'm proud to uplift them today as an ally and as a former recipient of free school meals.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Sydney.

Irene, followed by Andrew Park, followed by Carrie Brown Wooster.

Irene, welcome.

Are you Irene?

I'm Sydney.

Oh, sorry, Sydney.

Go ahead, sorry.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

My name is Sydney Locke, and I am also with Bailey from the Washington bus.

I'm here to urge you to vote against Amendment 6 and say no to leaving young school students hungry.

As the daughter of a father that grew up here in Seattle locally, I've heard of his experience in the projects of Yesler Terrace, and through that, also heard of his struggles with food insecurity.

Now here in 2025, I am here to continue our message of support for young people facing the same exact issues.

To see the parallels between then and now is deeply saddening.

And because of this, I strongly believe that our youth just can't wait, and they just don't deserve to wait any longer.

Now more than ever, we're seeing aggressive rollbacks, and poor to middle class families are struggling the most in the midst of one of the worst economic crises of our generation.

I urge you to vote no to Amendment 6. Thank you.

Thank you, Sydney.

Irene, followed by Andrew, followed by Kerry.

Irene.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

My name is Irene, and I'm a senior at Nathan Hale High School.

At my school, not every student has access to free meals, even though many families are still struggling to afford them.

There are students whose parents either make just enough to not qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, but not enough to be paying for school meals or have trouble with the application process and paperwork.

Every day, I see students hovering by the lunch line debating if they're hungry enough to eat at school or if they should find food elsewhere.

Food shouldn't have to be something that someone has to search for.

Especially at school, lunch can be the difference between being able to focus in class or spending the day distracted by hunger.

While some schools already provide free meals for every student, Nathan Hale is not one of them.

This proposal would make a real difference for schools like mine and for the thousands of students who currently don't qualify but still need support.

Please prioritize students' well-being and reject things that create more barriers.

Hunger shouldn't come with paperwork.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Irene.

Andrew, followed by Carrie, followed by Alex Kramer.

Andrew, welcome.

Hi, I'm Andrew Park.

I'm a math teacher at Aki Kurose Middle School.

Shout out to any peace grains out there and a member of the Seattle Education Association.

Please vote no on Amendment 6 that would delay the universal school meals program.

Our students need regular meals that are both free and readily available.

Amendment 6 proposes a voucher program for families, but distributing meals through vouchers and means-tested qualifications treats the root cause of hunger as an administrative inefficiency rather than a structural inevitability when food is sold and distributed by for-profit entities like Kroger, Albertsons, Walmart, Amazon, et cetera.

Additionally, these vouchers force our students and their families into navigating a system where they must prove they are perfect victims that deserve the resources at stake and it omits the many students who fluctuate above and below the demarcation line who are still in need.

A universal school meals program does not need perfect victims.

In order to exist in a year, it should exist.

Again, vote no on Amendment 6. Alternatively, you can expand the program to include free and available meals on weekends and breaks without the delays to the original program.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew Carey, followed by Alex Kramer, followed by Ari C. Chomsky.

Carey, welcome.

Good morning.

Thank you for having me here.

I am against Amendment 6. My name is Kerry Brome-Guster and I'm an SPS teacher in North Seattle who buys food for her students to eat.

I know of families that are undocumented that will not apply for the free and reduced lunch program.

Students need food to learn.

Feed all hungry kids.

Stop blocking universal food access for all.

Thank you, Kerry, Alex.

Welcome.

Good morning.

I'm Alex Kramer, a paraprofessional at Salmon Bay K-8, the paraprofessional vice president of Seattle Education Association, and a graduate of Seattle Public Schools.

I'm here today urging you to vote no on Amendment 6 to the FEP Levy Implementation Plan.

As a parent, my job is to help students access learning by providing targeted academic support and teaching emotional regulation skills.

But no amount of intervention can overcome the basic fact that hungry students struggle to learn.

They're tired, they struggle to focus and fall behind.

Educators and community members already buy snacks and provide food support to our students.

It isn't enough.

Universal meals allow students to learn, educators to educate, and lift a burden off of working families.

There is enough money in Seattle for Universal meals and food support over breaks and weekends.

Let's do both, instead of leaving students hungry.

I love my job, care deeply for our students, and that's why I'm here today.

You can ensure that all students get breakfast and lunch.

Please vote no on Amendment 6.

Thank you, Alex.

Ari Suchomsky followed by Elena McCollum followed by Sierra Leone.

Ari?

Good morning council members.

My name is Ari Chihomsky.

I am a high school teacher with Seattle Public Schools and I am here to urge you to vote no on amendment six.

Many of my fellow educators have mentioned that we tend to buy food for our students to make sure that nobody goes hungry because as it stands right now means testing does not factor in every kid who needs food.

food.

Even in West Seattle, there's kids who need food who aren't getting that support with the means testing currently in place.

The means testing just isn't robust enough.

It was mentioned.

It hurts our undocumented students.

I will continue to buy food for my students because I will feed these kids, and I know many of my other educators have to, but I would really like not to have to drop $500 to $600 a school year.

Please.

Fund Universal Meals, Feed Our Kids.

Thank you, Ari.

Alina, followed by Sierra, followed by Caitlin Skilton.

Alina, welcome.

Good morning.

I'm Alina McCallum.

I'm a District 3 resident, Seattle Public Schools teacher, and I am here in support of Mayor Wilson's levy plan and against Amendment 6. The purpose of universal free meals is to establish a safety net for all families.

As already noted, that there's this inconsistency.

Students and families' status is constantly changing.

And by not providing that, we can see the consistent impacts that I witnessed as an educator.

When students are hungry, they're not able to focus.

we need to ensure that we have that before we are adding additional supports.

I think we do need additional supports as amendment six, but it should not be something, a decision that's based out of austerity that we can't have both.

We do have the means in this city to do it.

If we are putting our money where our budget should be.

Vote no on amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alina.

Sierra, followed by Caitlin, followed by Victor.

Sierra, welcome.

Good morning, council.

My name is Sierra and I'm in support of Amendment 6. When I was in high school, I watched friends run out of grocery stores with carts of food over spring break because they had no food at home and the school was closed.

And we're about to hand every child in Seattle an umbrella that only opens Monday through Friday, 9 to 3. And while some kids get to close it and walk home into a dry house, there are plenty of kids that close it and stand in the rain for the next 48 hours in two weeks.

over break.

And so buying more umbrellas doesn't help the kids that are already standing in the rain.

School meals work and that's exactly where the gap opens when they stop.

Research shows that food insufficiency for these families hold steady throughout the school year and then climb during the summer.

And so while we know what closes the gap, the USDA tested this exact same model and it cut the most severe form of child hunger by 33%.

And so your own RSJI data shows that Black and Latinx, household food insecurity is twice the rate of white households.

So regardless of opinion, council has an obligation under RSJI to actively dismantle institutional racism, not just document it.

Nobody's against universal meals.

We just need to close this, close the deepest gap first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sierra.

Caitlin followed by Victor followed by Aaron Tillock.

Caitlin, welcome.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Caitlin Skelton.

I am a former childcare provider and I'm here today to stress the importance of adequate nutrition and the impact that it has on our children's ability to learn, grow and succeed.

I understand that Seattle is facing significant budget challenges and that difficult decisions must be made.

However, eliminating or reducing funding for universal school meals would shift those challenges onto our children and teachers.

Research shows the impact of adequate nutrition leads to better behavioral and academic outcomes.

I urge and plead with you to fund our children and their meals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caitlin.

Victor, followed by Aaron, followed by Lauren Tracy.

Victor, welcome.

Good morning, President Hollingsworth and members of the Select Committee.

I'm Victor Jagu with FMS Global Strategies, testifying with the We Build Back Better Alliance in support of Amendment 6, Version 2. Seattle data shows black and Latino households experience food insecurity at roughly twice the rate of white households, especially in Southeast Seattle.

In Rainier Beach, nearly 80% of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, compared with one-third district-wide.

When the cafeteria closes on Friday, that gap widens.

Treating every household the same is not neutral.

It produces unequal outcomes.

Version 2 creates a distinct food assistance program, beginning support next school year, preserving 4.7 million for universal school meals, and requires measurable reporting.

Vote yes on Amendment 6, Version 2. Do not let race-neutral processes produce another racially unequal result.

Direct these dollars to the families carrying the heaviest burden now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Victor.

Aaron, followed by Lauren, followed by Marta Johnson.

Aaron, welcome.

Good morning, Chair Rivera, Council President Halliwert, and members of the select committee.

My name is Aaron Tulloch, testifying on behalf of FMS Global Strategies and We Build Back Better Alliance, a coalition of more than 900 community-based organizations.

We urge you to adopt Amendment 6, version 2. Hunger in this city is not evenly shared.

Public Health, Seattle and King County's own data tells that story.

For every 100 adults, roughly 40 black adults are food insecure compared to just nine white adults.

Black and Latino households go hungry at twice the rate of white households.

And countrywide, nearly 77% of black students qualify for free or reduced price meals against about 70% of white students.

That is a system producing predictable, radicalized harm.

Amendment 6 meets that reality where it lives, on weekends and over school breaks, when the cafeteria closes, and when the hunger gap opens widest.

It delivers targeted food assistance to other 5,000 families a year and still launches the universal school meals the very next year.

Equity is about measurement who we reach.

Please adopt Amendment 6, Version 2. Thank you.

Thank you, Erin.

Lauren followed by Marta, followed by Albert Shiver.

Lauren, welcome.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Lauren Tracy, pronouns she, her, and I serve as the Executive Director of College Possible Washington.

I know a lot of folks are talking about Amendment 6 today.

I'm also the mom of a three-year-old who is with me this summer, so this is the one day I had to do public comment.

College Possible Washington is a college success and access organization.

We support students furthest from educational justice.

We work with them sophomore year for six-plus years until they get their college degree, and we've been working in Seattle Public Schools for 20 years.

I've told many of you that we were one of the organizations that lost our federal funding and that happened overnight.

That was a third of our funding.

I know a lot of community-based organizations lost both state and federal funding and has completely remade the landscape of community-based organizations that are still currently operating or hoping to operate into Seattle Public Schools.

We've been lucky enough to receive funding through the previous FEP levy and I've appreciated the consistent investment.

I'm hoping to echo a lot of similar sentiments from the Executive Director of CSEC in the sense that I see an opportunity for continued collaboration, an opportunity to bring CBOs in the accountability in the data, and an opportunity to bring us into the continuous feedback loop with this new levy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Lauren.

Marta, I'm sorry, I might be mispronouncing your name.

Are you Mr. John?

Oh, you are, sorry.

Yeah, that's me.

Okay, is it Marta?

Yes, it is.

Oh, great.

Okay, hi, Marta, welcome.

Hi, my name's Marta.

I'm a resident of Fremont and also a member of 4 Seattle.

I'm here speaking today in favor and support of Amendment 6. Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth and Foster for allowing us to have an opportunity to discuss food access in the city.

When our organization was digging into the details, we found that the highest poverty schools in Seattle already serve free meals to every student.

About half of SPS schools do it today, paid for by the federal government, and they are concentrated in South and Southeast Seattle, as well as the Central District.

The city's universal add-on does not mostly reach the neediest kids.

They are already covered on school days, and this really has us thinking what about the kids during breaks and weekends.

This amendment allows for a slight shift in funds to ensure these kids receive weekend and break meals for six years, and I think that's a trade-off really worth considering.

My support comes with two call-outs.

One, Universal is absolutely a program we should build to.

And two, is there a way to look into how we can create an auto-enrollment feature using data that already...

Sorry.

Thank you, Marta, but you can email the rest of your comments.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you so much.

Albert Shiver.

Great.

Thank you.

Welcome, Albert.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Albert Shriver speaking on behalf of the City Council on behalf of Community Pastures Ways.

I want to voice our strong support for this amendment.

At Community Pastures Ways, we see firsthand the realities facing the families we serve.

While we recognize the attention behind universal meal programs, we must be honest about where the gap remains.

current model leaves our most vulnerable students behind during the weekends and throughout winter and spring breaks.

Hunger does not take a break just because the school cafeteria is closed for the families we work with.

Those gaps are not just inconveniences, they are crisis.

The amendment is necessary to pivot toward true equity.

By prioritizing our finite resources for families facing the deepest financial hardships, we ensure that support reaches those who need it most, rather than spreading funds then across households that do not require assistance.

Furthermore, this physical strategy proposed here is responsible and forward-thinking.

By delaying the full universal rollout for the year, we can maximize our budget to establish a targeted, prepaid grocery cart program.

This provides families with the dignity and flexibility to secure consistent nutrition throughout the entire school year, not just during the school week.

Thank you, Albert.

Caleb Towaldi, followed by Sabrina Burr, followed by CJ.

Welcome.

Thank you, Counsel.

My name is Caleb Twolday, I'm an educator at Rainier Scholars and I'd like to share a great example of what happens when we don't means test and provide access to meals for all.

A friend shared her experience working at emergency feeding program in 2019 and how she witnessed the glaring food access needs in our city.

She shared that what broke her was seeing an exhausted nurse who worked a full day and would wait in line for two hours for food because she didn't have enough money to feed her kids.

She goes on to explain that mother and the many folks that needed the food didn't have to show ID or any proof of income.

All they needed was their zip code and how many people lived in their household so they could get enough food for everyone.

And even the middle class nurse needed that support.

Just like with universal school meals, by removing barriers, we can increase access to food for everyone in our district.

Vote no on Amendment 6. Thank you.

Thank you, Caleb.

Sabrina, followed by CJ, followed by Leo Filipe Bayamonte.

Sabrina, welcome.

Good morning.

My name is Sabrina Burr.

I wear a lot of hats, but I'm a part of the Seattle School Meals and Food Education Program.

I have been for a couple years.

I'm the parent who used to pack extra food in my child's lunch so that she could share with her friends.

I worked with student leaders.

Last month we had about 100 from all over.

And what I know is across our district, we have hungry kids.

We have families that left Southeast Seattle for a better education who are in North Seattle, who still have the same concerns.

And so I am 100% for universal meals from what I have seen in this district, talking to students throughout the district.

I live in Southeast Seattle.

I've been there since 1974. I understand, but I am against Amendment 6 because we have too many kids that are hungry in our schools and hungry kids can't learn.

Thank you, Sabrina.

CJ, followed by Leo, followed by Y King Garrett.

CJ, welcome.

Okay, we literally have law enforcement executing fathers in the streets, from ICE's execution of Johan Guerrero in front of his three-year-old daughter, to SPD's execution of Christian Nelson last year by six SPD cops who shot over two dozen bullets into him in the adjacent residential buildings.

Yet, just a week after his murder, President Hollingsworth, you found the political will and budget to raise Seattle police pay by 42%, giving SPD an estimated budget increase of $57 million a year.

You can also find the political will and funds for the expansion of cameras in my neighborhood and other areas of the city at the taxpayer's expense of over $1,025,000 with operational costs of between $70,000 to $90,000 annually per site.

But somehow you can't find the political will to budget to fund Universal Mills for our kids at Seattle Public Schools.

This is not a racial neighborhood issue.

This is one of political will.

Thank you, CJ.

Leo, followed by Wyking Garrett, followed by Rem and Basha.

Leo, welcome.

Yeah, what's up?

Hello Council, I'm Leo.

I'm an incoming senior at Nathan Hale High School and I'm president of the Seattle Student Union.

I'm sad to see these being pitted against each other, but I'm still here to urge you to vote no on Amendment 6 and fund Universal School Lunch without delay for all students.

Universal Lunches addresses many of the issues across our city.

It helps address attacks from Trump.

Immigrant communities do not apply for free and reduced lunch out of fear.

It also helps with affordability, since even for people who make too much to qualify for free lunch, it is still a burden to pay for school lunch.

Finally, it just generally helps with education-related issues, and students do better academically, behave better when they are not hungry.

Thank you, counsel, and I urge you to vote no on Amendment 6.

Thank you, Leo.

Joaquin, welcome.

Good morning.

I just have to say that I think it's a real shame the way that this issue is being framed up as if one side is striving to feed children and another side is not seeking to feed children.

I think it's a matter of implementation and execution.

I think it would be a great tragedy, another great tragedy to have resources that have been dedicated to address, particularly in 1990 when the levy was established, the impacts of anti-black racism in this city, in this society, on the wealth and the income and the resources that our families have.

and to see those resources time and time again that are focused on our community then be sent out to Laurelhurst and Magnolia and everywhere else and all of the improvements that are always said and the investments that are said to be on our don't actually reach our homes, our families that deserve the repair.

So we need to be focused on making sure the equity analysis is strong so that we can avoid the unintended Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Remen Basha, followed by Tatiana Brown, followed by Liz Huser.

Remen.

Welcome.

Good morning council members, my name is Reman Basha and I am the Food Access Coordinator at FEAST.

It is good to see you all again.

This is my third time speaking on this issue and today I would like to formally submit a letter for public record.

Over the past week we have spoken to community members about what they need.

We have heard from over 100 community members, parents, teachers, and most importantly, students, and they are asking for universal school meals with no delay.

Your community is speaking and we ask you to listen.

Vote no on Amendment 6.

Thank you, Raymond.

Tatiana, followed by Liz, followed by Crystal Lee.

Tatiana, welcome.

Good morning everyone.

My name is Tatiana Brown and I am a food justice advocate.

I'm here really today just to plead that we don't fall into this trap of conversations of deservedness.

I think we can go down that for a very long way and we can talk about a mother who gives birth to a daughter and that daughter whose mom makes $40,000 does not make enough to qualify for free meals in schools.

We can talk about the 6,800 students that we're leaving out of this if we do not expand the meals.

And I think for me, it's really the core of when we talk about this conversation of deservedness, yes, it has deep roots in racism.

It has deep roots in the fact that at one point, many of us and all of you that I'm looking at were not considered deserved of education, of a bank account, of the right to marry, of the right for our basic human rights.

And I think that we have an incredible opportunity ahead of us, which is to create a system that promotes universal free meals for all students in the school system.

This is the opportunity to take it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tatiana.

Liz, followed by Crystal, followed by Donna.

maybe, sorry.

Liz, welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Liz Huizar and I'm the executive director of Southeast Seattle Education Coalition.

The Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy was created to close the opportunity gap by addressing the systemic inequities that shape educational outcomes.

You know this, we know this.

As stewards of the public investment, we have a responsibility to ensure that policies we adopt achieve that purpose through thoughtful implementation, not simply through well-intentioned ideas.

CSEC believes every child deserves nutritious meals.

However, it will take time to implement a thoughtful universal schools meal program for the long term.

Time will give the district the opportunity to ensure meals are high quality, culturally responsive, and delivered in a way that truly serves students and families.

I also recognize this has been a difficult conversation.

Even within our coalition, there are different perspectives, but we're united by one goal, ensuring this levy delivers educational equity for Seattle children.

I urge you to make the thoughtful choice, not the popular one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Liz.

Crystal followed by, I think it's Donna Singha and then we'll go online.

Crystal, welcome.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Crystal Lee, and I work for Community Passageways, where I support youth and families every day.

One of our biggest needs we hear from families is simple, groceries.

Parents are working hard, but many are barely making it, enough to get by.

They can't afford to send their children to school with lunch money, and when school is out on the weekends and breaks, many families struggle to put enough food on the table.

I've seen students go back for seconds at school because they know it may be their last full meal they have for the day.

No child should have to worry about whether they have enough to eat.

This isn't just something I see at work, it's something I understand personally.

Even with a full-time job, I can barely afford groceries myself.

It's hard for working families to imagine what it's like for those earning even less.

This amendment will help meet a basic human need with dignity.

Make sure children have food on the weekends and school breaks.

means they can come back to school healthier and ready to learn and with one less burden on their families.

I urge you to support this.

Thank you, Crystal.

Maybe it's, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading this name, but I think it's Donna Singha.

Anyone by that name or close to that name?

Okay, then I'm gonna go online, take 10 folks online because they've been waiting a long time as well.

And then I'll come back to some additional ads that came later in person.

So we've got Lois Martin.

Lois, press star six and you may begin.

Oh, Donita, is that who that...

Sorry, Lois.

We'll come back to you in one minute.

Donita, I'm so sorry.

I mispronounced your name.

No problem.

So my name is Donita Sinclair.

Thank you.

And I am a community leader as well as a gun violence prevention.

You guys always see me.

I vote yes.

on this amendment with Ms. Hollisworth.

As a community leader with the crisis intervention, food insecurities is the number one top priority that our kids are facing.

On the weekends, we understand that everybody do deserve to eat.

We understand that, but when we're talking about the poverty, we're talking about low income, we're talking about families that have not been able to reach that capacity, we ask that you vote yes and support President Hollisworth.

Thank you, Donita, thank you.

All right, we'll go online next.

Lois Martin, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, good morning, council members.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm the executive director of Community Day Center for Children, an early learning center here in Seattle, and one of more than 50 organizations that are part of a coalition that signed a letter in support of amendment six.

We all agree that no child should go hungry.

The question before you is how to meet that need while honoring the purpose of the FEP levy approved by Seattle voters.

Amendment six keeps the levy focused on its core mission of closing opportunity gaps.

It provides targeted food assistance to students and families during periods when access to school meals is unavailable, direct resources where the need is greatest and protects the FEP risk and reserve fund while the city evaluates long-term funding options.

This amendment is a thoughtful compromise.

It meets children's immediate needs today while protecting the long-term commitments voters approved through the PEP levy.

I urge you to vote yes on amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lois.

Diane Tao, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, my name is Diane Tao.

I teach at Wing Luke Elementary and I live in Rainier Beach, mom to three young boys, two in SPS, While I think it's necessary to address food insecurity for families with the greatest need beyond the school day, I don't support Amendment 6. I think since Universal School Meals is on the table, we should by all means make it happen in Seattle.

Wing Luke is fortunate enough to already have Universal School Meals, and I've seen it make a huge impact on students and families firsthand over the years.

We talk about equity.

I know that not every school, not every neighborhood needs the same thing, but I do think that there are kids at every school in the district, regardless of neighborhood, that will benefit from Universal School Meals.

I hear cost is a concern, especially given the uncertainty with the millionaire's tax and its future, but I don't think that uncertainty should dissuade us from good policy.

If levy funds can provide free meals to any and all SPS students for two years, I have to say yes to that, and I don't think people would blame the city in the event the millionaire's tax didn't go through.

We would bring the fight to the state.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up how oftentimes when it comes to programs for families, students, and the community, there's always this idea that we don't have enough money.

We need to pick and choose, and because of budget deficits, or we get into reserves and that worries us.

But at the same time, the Seattle Police Department's annual budget is $489 million.

So I just say that to say we should take a chance on Universal Meals now and spend levy reserves, but also find the funds to address food insecurity for families with the greatest need.

Thank you.

Thank you, Diane.

Marcia Wright-Sojka, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Thank you.

I'm Marcia Wright-Sojka, Executive Director of Family Works.

here to speak in favor of the mayor's critical proposal on universal free lunch as part of the FEP levy without the delay in Amendment 6. We have been on the front lines of fighting food insecurity and hunger for 30 years in North Seattle with a deep connection to Seattle Public Schools that include on-campus resource centers, backpacks to fight weekend hunger, and mobile food pantries bringing food directly to schools.

Already this year, there has been more than 2,250 visits from SPS students and families to our mobile food pantry at North Seattle Schools, a 68% increase than the whole of last year.

We need to address food insecurity broadly for every child that wants or needs a meal.

This is a layered issue.

We need layered solutions, including public-private partnerships, but they do not have to come at the expense of universal school lunch now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marcia.

Jen Giomi, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

Thank you for hosting public comment this morning.

My name is Jen Giomi.

I'm the faculty coordinator and parent educator for the South Seattle College Parent Cooperative Preschool Program.

And I realized Not Amendment 6, but we're jumping in here this morning because we have an emergency ask of the FEP committee.

We submitted a packet of information via email last night with lots of information, but we're here to ask for one-time emergency funding from the FEP levy for Seattle College's Parent Education and Cooperative Preschools to cover the cost of our program for winter and spring quarters 2027. It's a long and complicated saga, but despite frantic efforts from January through June of this year, the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges no longer recognizes parenting as a vocation and as such on July 1st stopped allocating any money to our community and technical colleges for our program.

North and South don't have extra funds to cover the costs.

We've fundraised and scraped together enough for fall quarter, but we really need some support for winter and spring and

Thank you, Jen.

You can also send in your comments.

Addie Kanady, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

My name is Aidy Kennedy.

I'm a parent educator and instructor at North Seattle College Cooperative Free School Program.

It's an affordable multi-generational program that's been quietly working in our community for over 70 years.

As you know, the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges defunded parent education and over 2,000 parents and their children in Seattle will lose access to this program in January of 2027. How this unfolded and what has been done to save the program to date has been shared with you in an email.

Despite the news media and reporting and widespread community support, we were not successful in restoring funding through the State Board.

Our program is in line with the goals of the FEPP levy and the values expressed by the voters.

We're asking for your help in a short-term solution while we plan and ensure this program is available to Seattle families for generations to come.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Amy.

Sandy Shetler, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

Hi, this is Sandy Shetler, D-6 resident in support of Amendment 6. You're used to hearing me talk about trees, but I was previously the volunteer coordinator at Seattle Public Schools' TOPS K-8.

Many of our students faced food insecurity.

Our community organized food backpacks over winter break because we knew some students wouldn't have enough to eat when school was closed.

I remember chaperoning a fourth grade field trip on a Monday, when one student quietly asked if she could have one of the snacks before the scheduled snack break.

She told me the only thing she'd eaten all day Sunday was a Pop-Tart.

The district helps during summer break but weekends and shorter school breaks are a gap.

School counselors know which children are going hungry.

Public dollars are limited, as Joaquin just said.

We can't do everything, so let's help the children who need it most, rather than providing the same benefit to families who can already afford it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

We have Aparna Bard.

If you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, good morning, council members.

My name is Aparna, and I'm the Early Education Strategy Manager at Voice of Tomorrow.

Every day, our team serves Somali and East African families and home-based childcare providers across King County.

Through home visiting, early literacy, and provider support, we focus on the critical birth to five years when 90% of the brain development occurs.

Thank you to the Council for commitment to equity, transparency, and early learning, and to Chair Rivera for Amendment 14. We respectfully ask you to strengthen it by requiring open, competitive grant processes beginning in 2027 for homeless childcare program, family childcare mentorship program, and developmental bridge screening program.

This small change will give trusted culturally responsive community organizations the opportunity to compete and better serve Seattle children and families.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Thank you, Aparna.

We have Anita Adams.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Anita, if you're there, please press star six and you can...

Oh, I think you're on.

Yes, I'm here.

Welcome.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Anita Adams and I urge you to support amendment number six.

As a retired social service professional and former Garfield High School PTSA board member, I have seen firsthand what one-size-fits-all support can do.

It can spread limited resources too broadly, create waste, and failed to close the gaps that was created to address.

I recently heard a radio discussion about universal food access in which one child receiving support at a park was accompanied by her nanny.

I did not question this child's right to eat, of course, but coming from a large family, I immediately remembered my own hunger during school breaks.

What this difference What is the difference between equality and equity?

We've all seen the images of the fence where the person is trying to look over.

Equality gives everyone the same support.

Equity examines who is carrying the greatest burden.

Thank you, Anita.

Please do send in the remainder of your comments.

Sorry, we were not able to fit in your full testimony.

Suzanne Cabrera, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

My name is Suzanne Cabrera.

I am a grandmother, mother that lives in the Seattle area, and I ask that you vote no to amendment six.

We're all seeing a rising cost in food.

Children are suffering today.

Let's not block the access to food for our kids.

Please vote no.

We all know that children do better when not hungry, both behaviorally and academically.

Again, I ask that you vote no on this amendment.

All children deserve to eat.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Cynthia Green, if you're there, press star six and then we'll come back in person.

Cynthia.

Cynthia, please press star six to unmute.

Cynthia, we'll come back to you.

We'll go to Cade Ni-Ray Tipton.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Cade.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Cade Ni-Ray Tipton and I'm a co-chair and parent at Poyito's Cooperative Preschool in Espanol at North Seattle College.

the monolingual spanish immersion co-op i'm here today to ask you to consider the amendment put forward that provides bridge funding for the parent education program through the winter and spring quarters of 2027 is about much more than keeping preschool classrooms open bridge funding would preserve experienced educators jobs provide stability for cooperative preschools that families rely on and ensure parents and caregivers can continue receiving evidence-based parent education during some of the most important years of a child's development.

Without this bridge, programs that have served Seattle families for decades face unnecessary disruption, even as long-term funding solutions continue to be explored by the state.

Parent education strengthens children, supports caregivers, and builds connected communities.

A relatively small investment today can preserve a model that benefits families across Seattle for years to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Cade.

All right, we'll go back in person and then I'll come back to the online, the remainder of the online folks.

We have Sue Wayla, followed by Menziba Haseti, followed by Mateo Dahlstrom.

Sue Wayla?

Welcome, you may begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Sueda Abdi, and I'm a health coordinator with Voices of Tomorrow.

Two weeks ago, I spoke in support of amending the developmental bridge language to allow qualified community-based hubs to participate in service delivery.

Today, I want to thank the council for listening to the concerns raised by families, providers, and community partners.

Since my last testimony, I was encouraged to see Chair Rivera introduce Amendment 14 and I'm happy to see that takes important steps towards promoting equity in the language.

I appreciate the work that has been done to recognize the vital role community-based hubs play in connecting families to services and support.

Trusted community organizations are often the first place families turn because they provide culturally responsive trauma-informed support, speak the family's languages, and have established relationships within the communities they serve.

I appreciate the Council's efforts in advancing the current amendments and encourage you to make this adjustment so that all families have greater access to care and providers can extend their services and support parents and children.

Thank you Suela Menziba Haseti followed by Mateo Dahlstrom followed by Ken Negwe Menziba.

Okay.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Good morning.

How's everyone?

It's a lot today.

Thank you.

I just want to say thank you.

Thank you for your leadership and for the thoughtful work that has gone into this levy.

I know it's not easy to have competing priorities and just go through this process, but I commend your courage.

Back home, when we say a child is gifted, it means that no one gave that one to them.

They were born that way.

Those gifts become a part of their identity, and that's the thing that makes them them and nobody else.

We're all born differently and each of us is unique in our own way.

The same is true of our community organizations.

Each has its own expertise and each shines differently.

The communities that chose them recognize and value that expertise.

Recognizing this, I'm asking for your support in strengthening the language for Amendment 14 by ensuring the Developmental Bridge Homeless Child Care and Family Child Care Mentorship Programs move to an open competitive procurement process beginning in 2027. When we create space for those differences to be recognized, everyone benefits.

Children and families gain access to organizations that reflect their languages, cultures, and lived experiences, and approaches to service.

Our nonprofit network is stronger when organizations are able to contribute the unique...

Thank you, Manziba.

Thank you so much.

Mateo Dahlstrom, followed by Ken, followed by Celie Sanchez.

Mateo?

Hello.

I'm an elementary teacher with Seattle Public Schools.

I understand that this amendment comes from a sincere effort to help children while making difficult budget decisions.

I don't dispute that.

However, I want to share what I've experienced firsthand.

I've taught at schools with universal free meals, and I've taught at schools without them.

There is a real difference.

When every child knows they'll be fed, there is less stress, there is less stigma, and they complain less.

That's why I feel such urgency.

I'm going to ask that you please do not approve the amendment.

Thank you, Mateo.

Ken, welcome.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Kin and I serve as a family support specialist as Voices of Tomorrow.

I'm here today on behalf of the parents, children and childcare providers I work with every day.

I walk alongside families of three and four year olds as they prepare to enroll their child in our ECAP program, which provides high quality early learning, childcare and kindergarten readiness support.

Through our home-based family childcare network, I often have the privilege of supporting the families and children until they age out of our program.

I encourage you to enhance Amendment 14 to include directly awarded programs such as Homeless Child Care, Family Child Care Mentorship, and Developmental Bridge.

A fair and transparent competitive process help ensure that public investment support the highest quality culturally responsive care while creating equitable opportunities for community-based provider all around Seattle.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ken.

Salie Sanchez, welcome.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Salie and I work as a health coordinator at Voices of Tomorrow.

First, I wanted to start with a thank you to the entire city council for taking on this levy initiative.

My day-to-day work is driven by data collection and analysis, health outcomes and the real needs of the families we serve.

Every day I am on the ground tracking developmental progress, keeping up with health and safety compliances, and connecting providers and parents to the best care available.

Because I work so closely with these services, I am testifying today to strengthen Amendment 14. Thank you Chair Rivera for setting up two to three year rebidding cycles.

It is a huge step towards real community inclusion and involvement.

But because of the way it is currently written, it only applies to investments that already have competitive bids, which leaves out programs that serve as direct awards like homeless childcare, family childcare, mentorship and developmental programs starting in 2027. Opening these programs up to a fair competitive process provides process gives all of our local community organizations a chance to show what they can do and the small change in language would open the door for a few- Thank you, Celie.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're going back online with Cynthia Green.

If you're there, will you please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

I think I hear you, Cynthia.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Madam Chair and Council, I'm glad to be here this morning.

I would like to share rather two of my opinions.

First of all, I am in favor of using all capitals because food is a basic need.

Number two, I'm against mean testing.

and the reason being that as the advocate for the kinship community and also a past kinship caregiver, we had two mean tests in order to get the small TANF to help care for the children.

Many of the family did not trust the system, so they would not apply for the TANF.

Instead, they chose to go without.

So my main concern about means testing is that I can say possibly, once again, history repeating itself.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Cynthia.

We're going to go to Nora Kenworthy.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Hello, this is Nora Kenworthy.

I want to thank the council for taking this up and encourage them to vote against Amendment 6. I'm a PCO from the 46th District.

I'm a public health expert and I'm the parent of a child at McDonald International School where many of our families are in need of free meals and not currently getting them due to concerns about their immigration status or the means testing rules.

The benefits of universal school meals are unequivocally good for our communities, for all families, regardless of income levels.

They improve food security, nutrition, educational performance, and test scores, reduce stigma, and even improve obesity.

The economic benefits of these investments are undeniable.

For every dollar that we spend on universal school meals, we see $2 in health and economic benefits.

And these benefits hold true for higher-income students in free meal programs, as well as lower-income counterparts.

I would love to see the Seattle Police Department show such returns on the dollars spent, I can't believe that we're facing an either or choice here.

Thank you, Nora.

You're welcome to submit the remainder of your comments online.

We're gonna go to Siobhan Hicklin.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Siobhan, please press star six to begin.

There you are.

Hi there.

Thank you so much.

My name is Siobhan Hicklin.

I am a taxpayer in Washington and I 100% support expanding access to preschool meals because no child should have to learn while hungry.

Nutritious meals improve a student's ability to focus and participate in school and they can ease financial pressures on families.

I have personal experience being that hungry kid in class unable to focus in school because the only thing I could like really focus on was how empty my stomach was.

And regardless of circumstance, no child should ever feel like those belly pains.

As the city makes this investment, I really encourage the council to establish clear measures of success beyond the measures of meals served.

I'd also like to see equal attention given to literacy outcomes.

Avoid helps the students arrive ready to learn, but reading proficiency is one of the strongest predictors of long-term academic success.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Siobhan.

Jennifer Godfrey, please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Jennifer, if you're there, please press star six to begin.

Jennifer, we'll come back to you.

We're going to go to Adriana Gorski.

Please press star six to unmute and begin.

Adriana, if you're- Hi, my name.

There you are.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

I have worked five years as a co-op teacher in Pollitos Cooperativo Prescolar en Español.

I am asking you all to consider making an investment to fund the gap needed for co-op preschools to have parent educators.

They are key professionals who connect families to resources that will help children thrive, such as diagnostics, therapies.

Early interventions are key for our students to be ready for kindergarten.

Parent educators are akin to our elders.

they have a wealth of experience needed to help our children and families thrive.

I myself have had my child in a co-op preschool and have seen the impact of parent educators not only in helping kids be ready for kindergarten but also helping parents find rent assistance and connecting them

Thank you.

Adriana, if you wanna email the rest of your public comment, you can do so.

David Haynes, press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Jennifer Godfrey is on and unmuted now.

Oh, Jennifer, welcome.

David will come back to you in a sec.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

Thank you, sorry.

Yes, I support the Free Universal Meals and the current version of Amendment 6 to the FEPP Levy Implementation Plan.

And I would please include undocumented children.

By helping with food assistance during weekends on school breaks, Amendment 6 moves resources to students with the greatest need while providing universal school meals for free.

All kids deserve to eat lunch.

I was one of the kids who received subsidized lunches in elementary school.

extremely hard to focus in class when there was nothing to eat before or after school.

While growing, I would fill up from hallway water fountains as much as possible to just get my stomach to stop rowling to get through class until lunchtime.

So it was even harder getting in trouble for not focusing when the cause was not immediately obvious.

One good meal helped provide and hope.

So by directing resources to families experiencing the greatest need while preserving the FEPP levy, Amendment 6 supports students.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

David Haynes, you're next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, thank you.

This is an education levy that's supposed to improve education for all, not a race war capitulating to devil's advocates created by Jenny Durkin and the BIPOC City Council sponsors of Amendment 6, perverting the investments based on some ignorant past we need more transparency about the levy that redirects over a quarter billion dollars to up to 500, over $500 million away from, well, that's non-educational.

And we need to call out community passageways and all the people that show up playing the race card while they're running interference for felons who are undermining the youth and then misconstruing what constitutes a youth.

Running interference for adults and acting like they got to weaponize and browbeat and bully the city council regularly coming down to council meetings and shaking down the budget and undermining the efforts of the youth acting like they're doing them a favor running interference for them keeping felons out of jail.

Thank you, David.

Christine Cromar is next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Kristen, if you're there, please press star six to unmute.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, welcome.

Okay.

Hi, my name's Christine Cromar.

I am a parent of two beautiful daughters and they are in the Pesipe A Spanish preschool.

And I am just calling to tell about our experience as working parents with our children in this parent education program that's at risk of losing funding.

I am a nurse at Harborview Medical Center and my husband is an engineer at King County.

These have been the hardest years of our lives for sure.

The parent education program has offered us amazing education on how to handle our children, how to make them prosper.

It has also offered us a community of people that have supported us through these difficult but wonderful years.

It has made us better workers at work and it has made us better parents.

And I just hope that you can see the value in that for families but also for our community at large.

I believe that this program makes us better community members and it will make us grow better community members and our children.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Kristen.

Lady Scribe, you're next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Lady Scribe, if you're there, please press star six to begin.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, welcome.

Okay.

Thank you so much, council members.

My name is Lady Scribe with the Seattle Sound Music Awards Family Foundation, and I'm here today in support of amendment six, Seattle voters approved this levy with a clear purpose to invest in our children.

Strengthen our public schools and support the communities that need these resources most.

Not make this a race war or pit districts against districts.

Today's discussion should remain grounded in honoring the will of the people who cast those votes and the original intent they approved.

Please stop creating more division people, I beg you.

It's about keeping safe with the public and ensuring that our most vulnerable constituents and all of our children facing food insecurity, housing instability, learning barriers, and families struggling to meet and receive the support they were promised.

I urge you to support Amendment 6 because it protects the integrity of the voters' decisions and keeps the focus where it belongs on our students' success educational opportunity and the well-being of Seattle's children.

With all the wealth in Seattle, why take allocated dollars away from the very people it was created for?

Please honor the people's vote.

Our scholars need to be supported.

Thank you, Lady Scribe.

Please go ahead and email any remainder of your public testimony.

There's a handful of people that signed up online and don't look to be present, so I'm just gonna say their names.

If you intended to give public comment, please send us your public comments.

Tanya Hino, Yamila Sterling, Belinda Dunbar, Jose Nino Rivera, Kathleen Carson.

And then we have one more in person, Aiden Carroll.

You can step up.

Yep.

No worries.

I see you were online and now you're in person.

Terrific.

Welcome and you may begin.

I am a paraprofessional substitute in Seattle schools, and I've worked in places like Meany, where everybody gets a free meal.

I've worked in places like Green Lake, where they didn't used to, and now they do.

I've worked in Roosevelt, where, just by being a more affluent school, there is still a food pantry.

The North End is more than just Magnolia and Queen Anne.

There's a lot of poor kids in Northgate, in Lake City, and Broadview.

But also, if it was possible to just fund meals for the kids who need it and not leave anybody out, that would be one thing, but there's not...

a way to do that with these kinds of systems.

If you don't include everyone, there are people who need it, who get missed because of the layers of barriers.

This should not be a matter of weakness versus everyone.

Like we have the money from the cops, from the cameras.

You could save a lot of money from the United Care team by putting two to four sanctioned camps in every council district, for example.

Thank you, Aidan.

Looks like we might have one more person.

Jacob, come on up.

Welcome.

You can begin.

Sorry, I didn't have any prepared remarks.

No worries.

Thank you to the council.

Good morning again.

And I'm sorry, I've been saying Vice Chair Rink.

Has I been Vice Chair Hollingsworth this whole time?

Yes.

I'm really sorry about that.

It used to be.

Okay.

Well, thank you again for the whole council and the many amendments that have come in.

Councilmember Lin, Councilmember Rink, Councilmembers Saka and Hollinsworth to support our family child care providers, home and center based.

The one thing that had been kind of being brought up is the competitive betting cycles and we are in support of Amendment 14 with the inclusion of one more caveat in that the programs that have already been directly awarded have an open competitive process in this coming year.

That way we are able to bring in inclusive community-based organizations.

and as well as universal child meals.

And we are in supports though $1 million was taken away from early child early learning funds, but anything to feed the kids.

Thank you, Jacob.

All right.

Is there anyone else that didn't sign up for public comment here in chambers that would like to give public comment still?

Going once, going twice, all right.

Well then, I just wanna thank everyone who showed up today, either in person or online, to give public comment on this really important Families Education Preschool Promise Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan.

It is really clear that we all care about children in this room.

That is undeniable.

we share that in common.

And I really appreciate, and I'm just gonna say this, that the care and the respect that you showed everyone who came to speak and everyone on this day is because we are more united than we are not.

And sometimes we may disagree on how to get there, but we all agree that we absolutely love all our kids in this city, every single one of them and we're all trying to do the best for them as best we can given the circumstances.

So I wanted to say that, I wanna thank you for being here and we will now go on to the next portion of our meeting.

All right, there are no additional registered speakers.

The public comment period is now closed, so we'll now proceed to our item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda Item 1, an ordinance relating to the 2025 Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy, approving an implementation and evaluation plan as required by Ordinance 127238, ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Thank you, Clerk.

Colleagues, again, thank you for your continued participation in the select committee on the FEP I&E.

As you know, for 35 years since the 1990s, the FEP levy has been benefiting kids and directly supporting their educational achievement.

Seattle voters have consistently and overwhelmingly voted to invest in high-quality early learning programs that set up children for a lifetime of success.

to provide our K-12 students with the academic and physical and mental health supports they need to strive and to pave the way to a bright future by providing universal access to a two-year college degree or a path to the trades with the amazing Seattle Promise program.

This implementation and evaluation plan is really phase two of the FEP levy.

Phase one was the passage of the levy, which included telling voters what investments would be funded.

If phase one is the frame of the house, phase two is the drywall and the paint.

I want to acknowledge former Deputy Mayor Tiffany Washington and the Mayor Bruce Harrell administration who worked with me and the Department of Education and Early Learning to build that frame, which I am grateful that Council supported.

All of the amendments now in the INE were outlined in the 2026 levy by design.

I'm sorry, all of the investments in the INE plan were outlined in the 2026 levy by design.

And that is because since it is a levy that goes to the voters, we need to tell voters what we're investing in when they take that vote.

And then we have to fulfill our commitment to the voters when we put together an implementation and evaluation plan.

Today is the final and very important step in the FEP levy process for this Select Committee.

After we have our final vote today, I'll have a few more words to say, but I wanna go ahead and get started with the votes.

I move colleagues at the Select Committee recommends passage of Council Bill 121240. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of council bill 121-240.

The committee will now begin discussion on the proposed chair's package as presented on the agenda.

We have our council, our trustee council central staff here, Jasmine and Tracy, please state your name for the record and you can review the chair's package.

Good morning, council members.

Jasmine Marwaha, council central staff.

And Tracy Ratcliffe, council central staff.

I will kick us off, unless you have a few more entry words.

I do, Tracy.

I'm sorry.

I do.

Madam Chair.

I'm going to follow my script here.

Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry.

Madam Chair.

Oh, Juarez.

Council Member Juarez.

Sorry.

Yes.

That's okay.

I apologize.

Thank you madam chair and I apologize for not being able to be there in person.

I just wanted to share and I learned from the clerks and from your staff that I needed to put on the record that I am a co-sponsor of item of amendment number four and amendment number six.

Thank you council member Horace so noted and when we get there we'll make sure that that is in there as well.

Thank you madam chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Okay, colleagues, I just wanna say a few remarks about the chair's package before we go on to central staff.

The items contained therein were initially proposed and discussed at our select committee on July 8th.

and there is also a technical amendment that's included in the package.

The plan is to vote on all these items as a consent package.

Central staff will provide us with an overview of the items in the chair's package that have been revised since the July 8th meeting.

After central staff's overview, I'll ask members if they would like to remove an item from the package.

This request does not require a second or a reason why the request is being made.

If an item is removed, it will be considered after the vote on the chair's package and in numerical order.

Before voting on the chair's package, members will have an opportunity to speak to their amendments included in the package.

I'll make sure that I turn to the folks that put amendments in, my colleagues that put amendments in.

I will say, colleagues, generally speaking, that the amendments that were included in the chair's package had, based on our discussion at the prior select committee and some conversations that I had one-on-one with many of you, worked with central staff to include these things in the package because I thought they enjoyed broad support.

But again, if you would like to remove one from the chair's package, we can do so and vote on them separately.

Okay, at this point I'll recognize central staff to review the chair's package.

Thank you, council member.

I think I'll start us off.

So nine of the amendments that are in the chair's package that were discussed at the July 8th committee meeting, the majority of the changes I will walk through have to do with changing the page numbers to align with the substitute bill that we now have in front of us, which is not what we had in front of us in July when we had just the introduced version.

So it is strictly changing those page numbers to align with the new substitute bill.

It also may add co-sponsors.

And then there are two of the amendments that actually have some substantive changes that we'll discuss.

And then there are five new amendments that have not yet been discussed that we will walk through as well.

So moving to amendment number one, version two.

So this is the amendment that would call for the formation of an interdepartmental team for the FEP levy coordination.

And the change here that is made is just that it makes it clear that Deal would be the lead on that IDT.

All right, and Amendment 2, Version 2 is only updated to reflect the new page numbers where the tables and graphics can be found based on the substitute version that was approved by the Select Committee on July 8th.

So all amendments include updated page numbers, but this had to be Version 2 just because of the page numbers.

And...

As I scroll down, Amendment 3, Version 2, is updated for the page numbers as well as to reflect additional co-sponsors.

And here we will note that the first council member listed among the list of co-sponsors is the prime sponsor, and that continues throughout the other amendments as well.

Amendment 5 version 2 would update the new page numbers after adoption of the substitute.

And this is the amendment that has to do with collaboration between Deal and Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools and charter schools.

Amendment 7 version 2 would update and reflect the addition of Council Mayor Foster as a co-sponsor, as well as correcting the page number updates.

And this is the amendment that had to do with restorative practice coordinators in elementary schools being able to be part-time.

Amendment 8 version 2 was updated to reflect the co-sponsorships as well as to simplify the report back requirement and to remove the language that conditioned funding upon the school safety program's report back.

Amendment 9 was updated to reflect the addition of Councilmember Saka as co-sponsor and also includes page number updates.

Amendment 10 version 2 would be updated to reflect additional co-sponsors as well as correcting page numbers.

Amendment 11 is similarly just for page numbers.

Moving on to the new amendments that have not yet been discussed, Amendment 12, Version 1. This is a new amendment that's sponsored by Councilmember Rivera that would add the Red Barn Ranch as a potential location for the Seattle Parks and Recreation's environmental learning programs.

Amendment 13, also a new amendment, version 1, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera, would clarify that the Path to Trades Non-Colleges Program is intended to support public school students in Seattle entering trades training programs, and this change is being done to be consistent with the Seattle Promise Path to Trades program eligibility requirements.

Moving on to Amendment 14, this new amendment sponsored by Chair Rivera would state that all FEP investments awarded by a competitive process will be rebid in a two to three year cycle.

Amendment 15 is a new amendment sponsored by Councilmember Foster that would modify the eligibility for Seattle Fire and Police Department career programs by giving additional consideration to students with household incomes at or below 80% of area median income.

In addition, it directs Seattle Police Department to recruit diverse groups of students and families for outreach events for the SPD career programs.

And finally, amendment 16 is a new amendment sponsored by Chair Rivera that would make technical corrections to the plan for clarity and consistency.

I believe that that concludes the Chair's package presentation.

Great.

Thank you, central staff, Tracy and Jasmine for reviewing that.

Let me get to my script here.

All right.

Colleagues, are there any items a council member would like to remove from the Chair's package before we take a vote?

Chair, can we move 13 and 14?

We can move 13 and 14. I don't know what those are.

All right.

Any others?

All right.

Oh, Council Member Saka, you were recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Question first.

Can we talk a little bit more about The iterative changes that were made to propose amendment number eight.

I have previously expressed concerns about the proviso or effective proviso or quasi proviso in that provision that went beyond the mere reporting obligation.

which I know some of it from our Seattle transit measure conversations yesterday, I know some of us don't like, and went into the threshold of requiring express and explicit council authorization after any report is delivered.

Can you talk more about those iterative changes that were made to that specific amendment?

Sure, so the previous amendment had said that the additional school safety programs, restorative practices, opportunity-based mentoring, and the HSD school safety bucket would have their funding conditioned upon a report back after school year 26, 27, and before contract renewals.

This removes that sort of effective quasi-proviso, as you mentioned, so that it is simply requiring a report back to the city in 2027 prior to competitive funding processes or contract renewals, but it does not condition funding upon that report back.

Thank you for the clarity.

No more further questions, comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Anyone else, colleagues?

All right, then we're gonna go to a vote on the chair's package.

One second while I find my place on my script.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Foster, you're recognized.

I apologize.

I don't have anything to pull.

I just wanted to speak to one of my amendments since it was new since the last time we were here.

Oh, apologies.

I said we would do that.

Thank you for the reminder.

Apologies.

If anyone, I'm not going to call on you individually, but if you would like to speak to an amendment that was included in the chair's package, you may, and we'll start with Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair Rivera, and thank you, colleagues.

I just wanted to highlight for you Amendment 15, and I appreciate central staff for this.

This is a change that prioritizes students with area median income of 80% and below, so that they have additional consideration in selection when it comes to the public service career eligibility programs.

From my vantage point, this was an important add to make sure, again, that we are prioritizing recruitment of lower-income students when it comes to these public service careers that tend to be high-quality, good-paying jobs.

So, colleagues, just wanted to highlight this because this was a new amendment, and thank you, Chair, for including this in the package, and I ask for your support.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Colleagues, anyone else wanna speak to any of their amendment that might appear in the Chair's package?

Council Member Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I simply wanted to voice my appreciation to you for including my amendments in the Chair's package.

I greatly appreciate the collaboration with your office.

I wanted to just express my appreciation for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Anyone else, colleagues?

Okay.

Then, amendments 13 and 14 have been removed and will be addressed separately.

I move to adopt the Chair's package excluding amendments 13 and 14. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the chair's package, excluding amendments 13 and 14. Since we have already had council members briefly speak to their amendments contained in the chair's package, I will ask the clerk now to call the roll on the chair's package, excluding amendments 13 and 14.

Council member Juarez.

Aye.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Lynn.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Chair Rivera?

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor, zero opposed.

The Chair's package excluding amendments 13 and 14 are adopted and will be incorporated in the bill.

We will now move on to the votes on amendments that were removed from the chair's package and the additional individual amendments that were not included in the chair's package.

All right.

Um, Council.

Okay.

So amendment 13 was mine.

So I moved to amend the bill as presented in amendment 13. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 13. Central staff has provided an overview already, so I will go ahead and address the amendment.

Basically, this is a technical, I consider this a technical amendment because both the prior administration, mayoral administration, this current mayoral administration and the department and I, when we added the third arm, which I will talk about later in my remarks to the Promise program, it was to include another path for the Promise students to do a trades program that would not be at the colleges, but that would give opportunity for an apprenticeship at a Washington State accredited education.

When this got put into the I&E, somehow this did not meet the requirements of the underlying levy and the intent.

And so it was always to match the Seattle Promise Program's path to trades.

but just at a state accredited school or apprenticeship program rather than at the colleges.

So that in essence, what I'm trying to say is the intent of this was always to have, we have the Promise program for high schoolers in Seattle, for public schoolers and charter schools in Seattle.

They could either go to the Seattle Promise, a two-year associate's degree or they could do the Seattle's Path to Trades for a certificate or now this is the third opportunity which is they could go straight to the accredited trades program at a state accredited institution.

And so this level sets what we always intended and talked about which is to match it to the Path to Trades Seattle Promise Program.

This is a cleanup, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Go ahead, Councilmember Lin.

Thank you, Chair.

That was helpful.

Could you clarify the deletion of the Up to H24, the purpose of that?

that was something that was picked up.

I think this was transferred over from some language HSD had.

And so I don't know, it was included there, but when I spoke to the, I mean, again, I spoke to the mayor's, this, I regret not having caught this sooner when I ran through the INE, but when I talked to the mayor's office and the department, you know, we all agreed that the language should reflect what we already do for the Promise programs at the colleges.

It was just another opportunity.

which was really something I put in, that's why I know about it the most.

Path to Trace Non-Colleges was my big baby, which I'll talk about more later.

But thank you for the questions.

I know it seems odd.

It was odd to me too when I read it and to central staff, but we cleaned it up and that's what that's about.

But I'm glad you asked, so it gave an opportunity for me to say what this was to begin with.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Councilmember Kettle.

Chair, thank you.

I just wanted, you know, we've had lots of discussions regarding the trades and ensuring that those options are available and robust across the board.

And, you know, we had discussions about what to include and you rightly kept it tight here in the writing.

So thank you for that.

And if possible, I'd like to be a co-sponsor.

of course.

Council member Kettle, you've always been really supportive of the trades as both our parents, both our dads were in the trades.

And so this is something that I know is as dear to your heart as it is mine.

So thank you for the co-sponsorship.

All right, colleagues, then let's go to a vote on this amendment.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment 13?

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice-Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

And I also should have said colleagues are labor partners.

I didn't list them as a collaborator when I was putting this together and I should have said that.

So I wanted to make sure I said that now.

Okay.

The motion carries and amendment 13 is adopted.

So let us go now.

The second one, amendment number 14 is my amendment as well.

Central staff spoke to it, so I guess now I will speak to it as well.

Chair, you need to move Amendment 14. Oh, I need to move it.

Thank you, Clerk.

All right.

I move to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 14. Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to address Amendment 14. I will go ahead and speak to it.

Colleagues, basically, I heard feedback from folks about this competitive processes.

So in the levy itself, it talks about the fact that we need to do things via competitive processes.

And I think when the INE was put together our friends at Deal didn't call out the cycles of which they would do RFP processes because I think in their minds they already do that and so they didn't, it was just a, inadvertently they didn't call it out.

So I want to make sure that we were addressing some concerns from external folks.

I wanted to make sure that it was very clear that they are going to be doing RFP processes.

every two to three years, as is the standard practice for RFP processes, not just across the city, but across the country, really.

So this was just to clarify that the department will be doing competitive processes on this two to three year cycle.

And it's two to three because we have this first year as a transition year, and that's why it shows up as a two to three, depending on when they actually do the RFP process, if that makes sense.

Happy to take any questions, council member Lynn.

Thank you, chair.

Just wanna make sure I understand, cause I heard some public comment about certain things were already on this two to three year cycle, but maybe others weren't.

Could you just kind of clarify the intent there and or any feedback you might've heard from Deal or?

Yeah, happy to, Councilmember Lynn.

Most people don't know everything the city does really has to be by competitive processes.

There is a Seattle Municipal Code allowance for a direct contract and it's very clearly delineated in the SMC.

It has to meet the SMC requirement to be a direct contract.

And usually it's for something that only that organization can provide.

and otherwise it has to be competitive process.

So what I'm trying to say is in the SMC there's some allowances is very clearly delineated what they are.

That is the only way that departments can do non-competitive processes otherwise they have to do everything via competitive processes.

And then I think it's important and I should mention for this particular levy for the last levy some of the investments were done, there was one competitive process at the beginning and then most organizations were awarded for the life of the levy and we wanted to make sure that we weren't doing that this time to allow opportunity for other folks that wanted to apply for a future RFP if they weren't successful in the first RFP or if they weren't around during the first RFP and there were some new organization providing some great tutoring for instance, or I don't know, something that this levy supports that they would have opportunity there to be at the mid year of the six year levy an opportunity for groups to reapply.

and that doesn't mean if the groups that were already getting funded in the first RFP could reapply for the second RFP but it really just gives opportunity to other groups that would want to apply at the mid-year and in the last levy that was not allowable which is why I understand when some groups came to chambers to talk about the RFP processes and the concerns about the RFP processes.

So I wanted to make it very clear that the department will do an RFP process at the mid-year as well to give folks opportunity to apply.

And I hope I answered that.

I articulated that well enough for you to understand what I meant, Council Member Lynn.

Thank you so much and just briefly, I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense to, you know, that we have these RFP processes and that it is a long levy and so sort of a mid-levy cycle, it sounds like.

I mean, I think there's...

you know, a lot of work that goes into bidding for an RFP and I also think that organizations need to do long range planning so I think there's always a balance between sort of that need for long range planning.

I think there's also just a difficulty of sort of the timing of those RFPs and how they line up with like school year cycles and or so I would hope that as this is implemented that DEAL works with our CBOs to make sure that they give enough time as part of that.

You know, it's hard if they issue the RFP or the award and then people are supposed to pivot immediately.

That creates a lot of turmoil.

So I hope as this is implemented that they allow for enough sort of lead time for people to pivot.

Agreed, Councilmember Lynn, which is why it was important to me to include it in the INE, so it was very clear on the onset before even all of this gets implemented.

It was clear to the external community groups what the intent is in terms of the RFP processes and so that they know.

So even though the department that was going to be their intent anyway, it was important to me that it was that language, this particular language is included in the INE to give everyone that transparency, that level of transparency to address the very thing you're raising.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues.

Are there any...

Council Member Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I just wanted to ask a quick question about this.

It says, as I'm looking at it, planned competitive processes are outlined in Table 3. And so I read this to mean that for those processes that are already going to do a competitive process, that they can happen no more frequently than two to three-year cycles.

I just want to make sure maybe Tracy or Jasmine can make sure I understand this correctly.

Is it ensuring basically that we have a minimum or is it like you have to at that period?

So you are correct.

There is a table that talks about when will the various programs be RFP'd.

This language is saying there's an intent that it would happen on every two to three year period.

It will require if it is contradictory to what is in the table as the RFP, they will have to come back to us either through the budget process or through a separate ordinance to authorize that RFP process.

But I think the intent is that that generally speaking for those investments that are funded by the FEP levy, they would try to do it on a two to three year period, but they're clearly gonna have to come back to us for the ones where we actually have listed what the RFP dates are, because you are correct, there are some that are listed there, and frankly, some that are listed in 28 and 29, that you're not gonna see probably another RFP, because it's so late in the levy funding process.

Councilmember Foster on that.

Thank you, Tracy.

This is why it's left on this two to three-year term cycle.

I will also say, and we haven't talked about this part, that the departments do yearly contracts, even when they award for a two-year award or a three-year award, they still have to do legally contracts annually.

And at that point, they can reset the terms of the contracts in terms of outcomes.

whether or not they met those outcomes or if they need to require something different in order to help meet the outcomes.

Thank you for that, Chair.

This is important to me, and I appreciate the importance to you as well.

I'll just say for me, because I worked in philanthropy prior, and we always made an effort to provide when we could, because we couldn't always, just the same way the city can always, these longer-term grants to give that stability to organizations, and then balance that with the need to be able to make changes if we need to, because we're trying to get to a particular outcome.

So I understand this amendment to be saying you can't, like, you know, no more than two to three, or excuse me, no fewer than two to three years.

So I will be supporting it today.

And then, Chair, I'll just follow up with you after to discuss the nuance here.

And I appreciate you, Councilman Berlin, for highlighting this for our attention.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Strauss, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Question for central staff.

Sorry if I'm a little dense and this has been asked and answered a number of times.

What has been and what is our current practice for RFPs?

I think it does, yeah.

So my understanding is that it varies throughout the city depending on the department.

This levy.

For this levy.

In the past practice in 2018, my understanding is that we had, depending on the investment, for school-based investments, there was one RFP process that lasted for the life of the levy.

Okay.

And so this is a more frequent RFP process.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

And I will say the reason for that as well is the last levy was seven years.

And when you award one organization for seven years, I understand the stability piece, but then also it didn't give opportunity.

And I think you heard that in chambers for other organizations.

and providers to be able to apply for a future opportunity.

So then it was just, that's all.

And now with a transition year, that means all of those organizations and providers got eight years worth of levy funding.

And it didn't give opportunity for other organizations and providers who wanted to apply Maybe they weren't even ready at this go round, but with a future RFP, they could be.

And here's the thing.

And the reality is that particularly in the K through 12 space, we didn't get the outcomes that we wanted to see with the 2018 levy.

That's just a fact.

And so we wanna make sure that is that we have an opportunity, like I said earlier, if there is an offering that wasn't available now when they do the, you know, the next year's RFPs, but that would be available at the two or three year mark, that that opportunity could be competitive for another round of RFPs.

So Council Member Lynn, you're right, it is a balance.

And it doesn't mean that someone who gets who applies for an RFP now and gets awarded doesn't mean that they would be successful if they have to reapply for an RFP in the two to three year mark.

But it does mean it gives more opportunity to some other groups that were either unsuccessful or not ready to apply for the initial RFP.

So it's a balancing act and that's what this is striking.

But I do know that it was DEAL the last time, based on past practice, this is what makes most sense to do now.

And then we'll keep monitoring it and we will know and DEAL will come back to us when they're, they will keep us updated and informed on the RFP processes as Tracy has delineated.

All right.

Any other?

Council Member Foster, is that a new hand?

Nope.

Okay.

Awesome.

All right.

I don't see any other hands, colleagues, so why don't we take a vote?

Clerk, can you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 14?

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Lynn?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor, zero opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment 14 is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended, colleagues?

and colleagues, I'll say, if you have anything to say in general, I think this is a good spot to do that.

Oh, Tracy?

I think there's two more amendments.

Oh, sorry.

Apologies, apologies.

It said repeat amendment motion.

Waiting for your colleagues to speak up, not wanting to speak for them.

Sorry, council member.

What can you say the next amendment?

Sorry.

It would be, if you wanted to do a numerical order, it would be amendments four.

Council Member Foster is the prime and amendment six, Council Member Hollingsworth.

And I can describe the changes.

So there are two new versions to both of those amendments and the changes are identical in both bills or in both amendments.

So- Should we move it first amendment four?

Should we move to have Council Member Foster move amendment four and then you can speak to it.

Okay.

Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'd like to move amendment for version 2. Do I have a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment four.

Central staff, you're recognized to review it.

And then council member Foster, I'll recognize you to speak to it.

So I'm gonna speak to the change of amendment four because Jasmine handled the bulk of it.

The change that is happening in both amendment four and six are identical.

These are the two amendments that establish a new food assistance program.

In the prior version, we actually had attached the money to an existing program, the housing and homelessness program.

And in the amendment of version two for four and six, we actually established a new program line called the Food Assistance Program.

In addition, we established separate outcomes and reporting elements as well as service targets for that new program.

We make it clear that it's for students from low-income families to support food purchases over weekends and school breaks, excluding summer.

and that it also authorizes the Department of Education and Early Learning director to do a direct award of funds as permitted under the original levy or authorizing ordinance.

And the reason for that authority is there is a CBO, a community-based organization called Alliance for Education.

It already works with Seattle's public schools to provide vouchers for students for food.

And so they want the flexibility of being able to contract with an existing CBO for the purposes of efficiency.

And those are the changes to both Amendment 4 and Amendment 6.

Thank you, Tracy.

Council Member Foster, you are recognized to speak to your Amendment 4.

Thank you so much, Chair.

So as I did in the previous committee, I'm gonna speak first to Amendment 4 in terms of the voucher component, and then I will hold my comments in terms of our investments in food security for our discussion on Amendment 6. So, colleagues, I want to give you a little bit of background from my perspective, and I believe you received this context from central staff, but as we all know, we continue to have significant need in our city for investments into preschool.

and a lot of demand for access to the Seattle Preschool Program.

This amendment in its structural change is designed to allow additional consideration for DEAL when it comes to how they might deploy a Voucher Pilot Program.

And I typically don't read from my emails, but I'm going to do that again today because I want to provide some really important information when it comes to the existing wait list, and that's what this amendment would modify in the structural component as well as where it sends the dollars originally.

So when it comes to the Seattle Preschool Program, because the Preschool Program already prioritizes enrollment based on factors such as housing instability, age and developmental need, income, family structure, and English language learners, children who are on a wait list for SPP classrooms tend to be younger, middle to higher income, and or English language speakers.

As of March 2026, there were 420 duplicated children, not deduplicated, duplicated children on the wait list for a deal-selected SPP site.

That figure is an overestimate of need because children can be on a wait list at multiple sites and in multiple council districts at the same time.

Children can also be on a wait list if they are actively enrolled and participating in an SPP classroom.

Among the 420 children on a Seattle Preschool Program classroom waitlist in March, I just want to provide some information about that demographic for those 420 children.

46% of them, or 195, were already being served by another SPP program while waiting to get off the waitlist at their preferred location.

34% or 143 people declined offers of placement in an SPP classroom.

20% or 82 people did not yet receive a placement offer in an SPP classroom.

And I just want to share a little bit of information about the folks who are represented by that 20% of the waitlist or the 82 people who are waiting.

So 60% of them were from a household with a state median income of 95% or higher.

so those are families that would pay full SPP tuition.

37% or 30 families were white.

82% were from English-speaking households.

All of them were three years old and 40% lived in Council District 1. There's more information that you all were provided but the intent of this it was to ensure that the department has the timeline and the flexibility to design a program that allows us to direct any dollars for a voucher program to ensure that we're reaching, again, the families who have the highest need.

So through this amendment where we make changes in terms of allowing the department to take under consideration items other than just the council district where a waitlist family might be located, we give the department flexibility to bring in other criteria and ensure that we are aligned with the rest of the FEP levy goals and intentions.

So that's the intent behind the structural changes in this amendment.

And then again, I will speak to the funding components of it when we speak to Amendment 6. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, any questions?

Councilmember Lynn, you're recognized.

thank you chair and I just want to kind of clarify so this would just push back the start date one year for this the voucher pilot is that correct And then I know that we're going to talk about funding later, but I guess I kind of want to understand the funding now.

So it would redeploy those to the food support program for seven years, it looks like.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It would average out to about $154,000 a year for the six years.

Okay.

And I guess just want to...

to clarify, I mean, this amendment could be a standalone amendment, sort of, regardless of amendment six, is that correct?

I mean, do they two have to work together or can they be standalone?

They could be standalone.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Ling.

Council Member Saka, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you.

I want to thank Councilmembers Foster and Hollingsworth for bringing this forward.

Appreciate your steadfast leadership and championing of the broader issue of food access and food security.

Really important conversation for us to have now more than ever amidst all the federal cuts, including to early childhood education, by the way.

but I support the goal of making sure families have access to nutritious food, no fundamental disagreement or non-alignment on that point from my perspective.

I'm also at high level supportive of requiring greater oversight and accountability of various programs that the city would implement.

That said, I do worry that this amendment unintentionally pits two very worthy community priorities against one another.

Similar to actually Amendment 6, but there's actually a huge difference with this one.

Amendment 6, which I also have some concerns with, we'll talk about later.

I think there's some glaring differences between this and that.

With this amendment, I believe that we're being forced to choose between implementation of the Seattle Preschool Promise waitlist, the SPP waitlist voucher pilot for the coming 26, 27 school year on the one hand, on the other hand, and funding food assistance over weekends and school breaks At a high level and grossly oversimplified, we structured the FEP levy so that there's three main buckets.

They're called different things, but for simplicity purposes, three main buckets.

There's early childhood education component, which was my baby chair.

Something that I led on this council and helped champion and I'm proud of.

and I did it because it's an affordability issue and I did it because I have three kids and two of which are proud graduates of SPP.

I also did it because I know that my district is, my council district out of all the seven council districts is number two in the number of 18 and under youth after council district two.

Therefore, my district is more likely to benefit.

Indeed, some of the stats and data show that at least 40% of the wait lists occur in District 1. I also did it, and this has been my baby, because it's the right thing to do.

It's good policy.

It helps improve affordability.

When working parents are able to not have to worry about childcare for the kids, they can go to work, pursue economic opportunity, livelihood, and then, you know, the research we know is clear on kids who have access to these programs, formal kind of curriculum-based early childhood education programs.

Their life outcomes are way better than kids who don't.

Sound policy.

So early childhood education, one of three buckets, K through 12, another bucket, and then post-secondary or really path to trades, those three buckets.

So this amendment, why I have concerns with it is because not only does it purport to pit two worthy community priorities against another, it does it at the expense of the early childhood education piece.

and unlike Amendment 6, where there's actually a direct nexus, food access is security, and food access is security when you talk about universal free meals and meals during breaks.

I think the connection here is too remote, it's too attenuated, it requires one to undertake, you know, a bit too many mental and logical contortions to figure out, you know, like, how this ties into, and I don't think it does tie into early childhood education.

And my office has worked closely with Deal, and HSD to better understand what current service gaps exist through partnerships with agencies like the Backpack Brigade, who utilizes the West Seattle Food Bank in my own district, which, by the way, I was recently able to tour and see firsthand the bags of food that they hand out to kids and families before school breaks.

I believe that much of this need Not all.

But much of this need is already being met.

However, there is obvious more work to do to continue closing those gaps that exist.

This past week, in district at Highland Park Playfield, where I was handing out free summer meals to students alongside HSD director Tanya Kim.

The summer meals program is a worthy city investment that we have funded for many years, offering students free meals, throughout the summer, no questions asked, funded through a variety of programs.

There obviously remains some service gaps, as I alluded to earlier, and I believe we made great strides to close these gaps.

But I do not believe that passing this amendment warrants the risks and delays implementing critical early childhood education initiative to support K through 12. These are different stakeholder groups.

and delaying this program, which Deal is ready to do today.

And so, I appreciate the intent of the amendment authors here.

But for those reasons, I won't be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Foster, is that a new hand?

It is.

Okay, you are recognized.

Chair, and thank you for your questions and comments to Councilmember Lynn and Councilmember Saka.

I did just want to kind of quickly clarify something here, which is, you know, and I appreciate your comments, Councilmember Saka, and I look forward to more discussion when we discuss Amendment 6, but I would be bringing this amendment forward regardless.

And the reason is, as written without this amendment, the criteria that are provided are to prioritize the waitlist voucher program based on council districts.

I take pride in being a citywide council member and knowing that there is need all across our city for access to preschool programs and high quality education.

I know I rattled off those statistics quickly earlier, but I wanna be clear, through allowing only council districts to be the prioritization, we risk making an error in terms of serving families who need the support the most.

That's why I've shared the stats and the data in terms of who is on the wait lists and in terms of who we're trying to serve with the FEP levy.

And I appreciate the categorization of the various buckets of ready to learn to ready to launch.

However, it is my belief deeply that through allowing the department additional eligibility criteria flexibility and allowing them the time to design a thoughtful program, we will implement a program that is going to be more thoughtful, more equitable, and more in line with the values that we have as a city and more in line with the goals of the FEP levy.

That's why I'm bringing this amendment forward.

I'm proud and I think it's incredibly important that as we give the department more time to develop the program, we direct those resources to families who need that support today.

Council Member Lynn, I appreciate your question about the connection between Amendment 4 and Amendment 6. So I will speak to it now, even though I said I wasn't.

So what we would do with this amendment, if four were to pass, is it does provide this additional resource that's targeted towards kids who have food access needs.

And it would provide that additional resource.

My hope is that coupled with Amendment 6, and that's because together we would have over $600,000 additional dollars going to our lowest income kids for weekends and school breaks.

If solely Amendment 4 passed, Council Central Staff already provided that number, it's around $100,000 additional dollars.

And I'll say this again when we get later, that's important to me because right now the city's investment in schools, or excuse me, in school-age children for weekends and school breaks is around $537,000 annually.

So with Amendment 4 and Amendment 6 together, we have the ability to double the investment that we are providing to kids during these breaks, and I think that's an incredibly important priority.

So just to be clear, I'd be bringing this amendment forward regardless because I believe it's the equitable thing to do so that as we make the investments in a potential Seattle Preschool Program voucher pilot over the lifetime of the levy, we make those investments equitably.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Saka, is that a new hand?

Okay, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Appreciate your comments, Councilmember Foster, and I don't question at all your motives or intents and the basis for you bringing this forward.

I think it's just a matter of different perspectives, respect the fact that you you represent city-wide perspectives, and just as I know you respect the fact that I represent district perspectives, and if all the amendment did, was modify the criteria to make it less sort of district centric, which as I heard you say is one of the main rationales.

I would absolutely be open to that conversation.

Heck, depending on the wording.

In fact, the relevant wording in this amendment, I'd probably support it if that's all it did.

But that's not all it does.

It also, again, does that at the expense, not only modifying the criteria, but does it at the expense of diluting, in my view, does that at the expense of diluting and delaying a vital early childhood education program in favor of expanding K through 12 investments specifically as it pertains to food security today?

And I don't think the cost benefit analysis warrants that, although I do appreciate your perspective.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Colleagues, any other questions, comments?

I'd like to address this, actually, this amendment.

I appreciate you, Councilmember Foster, for bringing this forward.

Colleagues, I will say, and I appreciate that some of our colleagues were not here early last year when we were working on the levy, so I also wanna acknowledge that.

We had a lot of conversation about universal preschool.

I just want to acknowledge our colleague, Councilmember Saka.

He and I both had a strong interest in seeing universal preschool because we know that kids do better, have better outcomes, lifetime outcomes when they have access to preschool to quality preschool.

So I will say that Deals preschool program is award-winning an award-winning program.

It is something that the city does very well.

And in terms of, we are not the first council to care about preschool and council member Saka, I admire your advocacy and I will say for universal preschool and I will say there are other council members in the past who also very strongly believed in universal preschool.

And I'm going to name Tim Burgess has that council member because council member Juarez you served with council member Burgess and you know how much and how deeply he cares about preschool even now.

And so I say that to say, you know, we all, of course it goes back to, we all care about kids.

We all care about ensuring that they have quality education, access to quality education at the public school level.

And so I do want to call out council member Saka that you very much cared about doing that.

And we just, when council, when council member Burgess looked into universal preschool, it was cost prohibitive.

I mean, even if we put this full levy just to that, it wouldn't cover all the costs.

But barring that, I know you had then an interest in expanding as much as we could the preschool program.

So I wanna acknowledge that for you.

I also wanna say that every time that we do something, to expand an offering that we already have, like our preschool program, I worry about impacts to that award-winning program.

So I say that to say, I appreciated you bringing that voucher program and the department's gonna have to figure out how to implement that voucher program in a way that doesn't dilute that award-winning aspect to the program because now it is outside of the realm of how they normally do it and when you start giving vouchers to families it becomes less for the department will have to figure out how they track those providers and how they ensure that the program stays quality for all the kids that receive that benefit.

And I will also say that this amendment is not far afield from what the department actually already does.

Council member Foster, they do lead with equity.

And so really it's a call out to something the department already does in that way.

I will say in terms of the council districts, and I've been saying this since I got to this council, demographics across the city are changing and you heard a public commenter come today to talk about needs across the districts.

We have a lot of immigrant families on the north end and the D5 especially.

So when we talk about those, you know, that the council specific, the department will have to look across all council districts when they implement this program, because we have need all across the city.

The type of need that you're concerned about, Council Member Foster.

So I don't, I want to say it doesn't have to be that it is district-specific.

I understand that you wanna make sure that we're leading with the equity piece, which I can assure you that the department does and this levy has always done.

And it is true that interestingly enough, the preschool program serves a variety of folks because if a slot is open, it is a little bit universal in nature.

If there's a slot open that no one's using, it gets offered to someone at a sliding scale.

So there are a number of families being served by this program that are beyond what we've always prioritized because of that.

So in that way, it serves a little bit of a universal function, but we're not there yet, obviously.

One day I would love to be at universal preschool, but that is not today.

So anyway, all that to say that I don't see this amendment as being very much different from what the department already does.

but what I do appreciate about this amendment Councilmember Foster is to give the department the additional time by which to ensure that as they're doing this new voucher program it aligns with their preschool promise program in a way that doesn't dilute its award-winning status, because that is a big deal.

Because you can provide early education, but if it's not quality, it's not going to help the kids lifelong.

So for those reasons, I appreciate both my colleagues, Councilmember Saka and Councilmember Foster on this.

and I will be supporting this and Council Member Foster, I would like to co-sponsor and I know Council Member Juarez would like to co-sponsor this as well.

She said so earlier in this meeting online, I mean, for the record.

So unless there are any other questions, I appreciate both of you, Council Members Foster and Saka and let's go to a vote on this.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on passage of amendment number four.

Council member Juarez.

Aye.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Lynn.

Yes.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Saka.

Nay.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council member Foster.

Yes.

Foster, sorry.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you, clerk.

The motion carries and amendment four is adopted.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, would you like to move your amendment number six?

Yes, thank you.

I move to amend...

Excuse me.

I'm sorry.

I move amendment number six, version two.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 6. Central staff will walk us through the amendment and then Council Member Hollingsworth or Vice Chair and Council President Hollingsworth, I'll recognize you to speak to your amendment.

Central staff.

So this is Amendment 6. This is the amendment that would add $500,000 a year over the six-year levy period to provide food assistance to low-income students over weekends and school breaks.

The assistance would be provided through vouchers that would be distributed by school personnel to families in need.

This would be implemented in the 26-27 school year.

The program would be funded by implementing the Universal School Meals Program in the 27-28 school year, which would free up about $3 million to support this new food assistance program.

Thank you, central staff.

Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth, you're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And I want to thank colleagues.

I want to thank you for your engagement during this process.

I also want to thank people who joined us today for public comment.

I took time out of the day, they gave feedback, provided information, folks that sent in letters with information shared their stories and outlets that actually wrote about the issue as well.

I also wanna thank Council Member Foster for her thoughtfulness and advocacy and intelligence and unbelievable deep commitment to helping close the food equity gaps within our system as well.

I also wanna share that What we're gonna discuss today is particularly a policy and implementation decision.

For me, this was never about universal meals or not.

It was always about an implementation strategy to build a sustainable food system.

So food justice has always been at the core of this amendment.

We have always led with facts, data, and reality.

The Families Education Preschool Promise levy traces its roots back to 1990. You heard some people talk about the day when former Mayor Norm Rice organized an education summit to identify the city of Seattle, how we can improve outcomes for children.

The state of Washington, as we know, is responsible for funding public education, but too many students, particularly in low-income families and historically under-resourced communities, faced barriers that extended beyond the classrooms, what they identified.

five guiding principles involve communities and schools, celebrate cultural diversity, ensure that every child was safe, healthy, and ready to learn, strengthening learning environments, and advocating for stronger public education and funding.

This led to Seattle's first education levy that was approved by voters in 1990. and it particularly focused on early learning, health services, academic support, family engagement, and community partnerships.

And since then, this has been one of my favorite levies that Seattle has championed, one of our legacy levies, because we renewed it in 1997, 2004, and 2011, and we expanded to Seattle Preschool Levy in 2014 and 2018. So throughout its evolution, one principle has remained consistent.

educational equity requires more than equal funding.

It requires targeted investments that address systemic barriers disproportionately affecting students of color, students from low-income households, English language learners, immigrant and refugee students, and other historically underserved communities so that every child has the opportunity to succeed.

This is why this amendment was born.

It was not one or the other.

I was trying to highlight some of the divestment for funds that were intended, excuse me, some of the funds that were intended to close opportunity gaps for students.

And if you look at the data, closing opportunity gaps require us to look who will benefit the most from that policy and try to adjust accordingly.

And it's a very, very thin needle today.

And I wanna thank Mr. Elmer Dixon, who sent in a letter of support and came here to talk about the free breakfast program because in some outlets talked about implementing this program because of the Black Panthers.

And what was important that in 1969 it was responding to the immediate need, the crisis, the children that were in low-income neighborhoods that had experienced decades of segregation, divestment, and poverty when arriving at school hungry, because we have divested in certain neighborhoods in this city.

And at the same time, there was no widespread school breakfast program in their neighborhood, so their solution was universal meals within their community.

Seattle 2026 is very different today.

And colleagues, you know that, and it's been shared that there are a lot of, there are 50, over 50 Title I schools.

And we've also heard from people today that that doesn't matter.

There's kids that are hungry at schools that are Title I schools, or there's kids that are hungry at schools that, don't qualify for free and reduced lunch.

We heard a teacher here who talked about having to pay three, four, $500 to keep their students fed.

And the one question I've been trying to answer is how can Seattle best address the inequities that still persist?

Data continues to show that food insecurity disproportionately affects different neighborhoods, particularly with the segregation that has happened in Seattle.

Seattle has always been a tale of two cities, always.

Equity does not mean providing the exact same investments for every student regardless of need.

It means directing resources where barriers remain the greatest.

And that was my goal with this amendment.

Very, like, intentions that were incredibly trying to be very thoughtful about where food insecurity was throughout the city, and then also from my personal experience as well, and some of the cracks and gaps that we've seen.

what I've heard from parents and teachers and communities was about supplementing weekend and holiday school breaks, particularly winter break, because there are programs in spring break that are not in winter break.

And with this new amendment, we have created a line item food assistance bucket.

And I would like to break down some information because a lot of the emails that I've seen in objection to this amendment was means testing, means testing.

That was not something we ever put out.

That was not something that was expressed during this amendment.

As you heard Caleb speak here today, he was referring to me. working at this emergency feeding program in 2019. And for a lot of food banks, they would require you to have an ID or a light bill to show where you lived because they would only service people within those zip codes.

And so for us, We were the largest black food distributor and we served every single zip code.

We had people coming from Vashon, people coming from across the island.

We had people coming from down south, particularly South King County, up north to our food bank because we were the only one at the time during the pandemic that did not allow or did not require people to have a zip code or an ID to get food.

We would only ask them how many people were in their household so we can figure out how much we could give them.

This particularly, so the means testing, I don't know where that came from, I just want to highlight that.

This funding would go directly to, we created it so it was flexible, so it could go directly to family support workers.

McKinney-Vento programs, school administrators to best identify the rollout of a grocery card assistance program for weekend and school breaks.

They are the experts.

I am not.

What I do in my legislative role is to make sure that we provide resources and funding to let the experts do their job.

The food assistance program would be funding for the entire life of the levy, six years, $500,000 every year.

This food assistance program is also super flexible.

So when speaking to family support workers, McKinney-Vento program, and school administrators, having that extra resource is something that was greatly needed, especially, as we know, while SNAP is being cut and food assistance dollars are being cut federally.

Some people have sent in questions, well, you know, one versus the other, Universal Meals, $1,200.

Well, Joy, how far can a $50 grocery voucher go?

Colleagues, a $50 grocery card for winter or spring break for a family can make an incredible impact.

It's not intended to replace SNAP.

but on a family grocery budget, it's intended to bridge the gap.

During a three-day weekend, mid-winter break, spring break, or other periods when school cafeterias are closed, they can purchase milk, a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread, fresh fruit, a bag of rice.

They can survive, be able to try to keep surviving and fill that gap.

This also creates a line item of food assistance under basic needs in the levy.

This has never been done before.

In the levy, we have the housing and homeless services, the transportation bucket.

We have HSD summer foods, which you talked about, Councilmember Saka, going to your serving with Director Kim.

It also has universal meals in there, and this would create a food assistance bucket that would be in correlation with universal meals to provide supplemental support for resources for our students.

Let me be very clear, I wanna, I really wanna thank for people for reaching out and connecting with us because I'm gonna tell you this, it has been very difficult to have these conversations and to listen to some of the narrative that has been put out there, because I think we have dived away from the policy piece in this.

And this, for me, has never been about either or.

It always has been about how do we implement a sustainable program.

That's all this has been.

And I want to read from folks from the McKinney-Vento program because I had asked how they current, because another thing was said, well, this would be a lot of administrative burden on people.

How would they implement this?

And I want to say, they already do this.

Programs are existing in schools that already do this.

Families, this is directly, Families experiencing homelessness in Seattle Public Schools face decisions, and this is not an endorsement, this is just how do they implement their program, face decisions between purchasing food, fueling their vehicles, or meeting other basic needs.

Seattle Public Schools identifies more than 2,000 students experiencing homelessness each year, and the grocery cards provide a simple, dignified, and highly flexible form of emergency assistance or gap funding.

to where they can be able to purchase nutritious meals when traditional food pantries may not meet their dietary, cultural, or scheduling needs.

And I think this is important, and they do different types.

They do $25 vouchers, they do $50 vouchers, and it can prevent a family from missing work, losing access to school transportation, or going without food for several days.

The reason why I thought this was so important to read is because I wanted to make sure that colleagues, because I heard some people talk about means, I heard some people talk about this would be very difficult to implement, and I wanted to make sure that was on the record so we understood what we were proposing and the flexibility within this amendment to make sure that families were able to get the resources that they need, especially during breaks.

I also want to state for the record that I'm all for, and I want to thank the mayor publicly for accelerating universal meals before the state implementation plan.

because we both share the same goals of helping to end hunger, food access, and centering children.

That's always, I'm gonna tell people this, that has been my mission before being on council, and that's gonna be my mission after on council, and that remains our shared vision.

I will hold my comments at the end for my additional comments that I have, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council President Hollingsworth and Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Council Member Foster, as co-chair.

You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And sorry, my computer did a restart, so I'm no longer on the Zoom, so thank you for recognizing me.

And I want to start by expressing my deep appreciation to you, Council President Hollingsworth.

And I'll come back to this later, but I think your background in working directly in food assistance and also I think our willingness to have what is in the public a difficult conversation, but what I know to be true is that this is a conversation about how we actually reach all of our kids.

And I know that I've sat in community meetings and neighborhoods where there's already universal school meals and listen to people talk about their gaps during breaks and weekends.

I've listened to kids talk about how they had somebody who looked out for them and gave them a little bit of extra money to close that gap.

And to me, that's what's at the center of this conversation.

That is what's been at the center of these amendments.

That's what the amendment language says and does.

And it's been challenging to see the difference between what I know is the heart of this conversation, what I know is the language of the amendments, and then the surrounding public conversation.

and our jobs are challenging.

I think that's our duty.

And so I wanna just talk to a couple of pieces here.

So first, I started to speak to this earlier in terms of what the city is already doing when it comes to weekends and school breaks.

So the city currently invests $537,732 annually in programs that are supporting kids, SPS students with food access on weekends and during school breaks.

About less than a half, or excuse me, a little over a half a million dollars.

The proposal that we originally received did not contain any additional resources for those critical investments.

Currently, those investments are paid for by the sweetened beverage tax, which we know is one of our more regressive tax sources.

That's how we're currently paying for weekend and school breaks.

Our amendment asks that instead of starting universal school meals on the timeline that was proposed by the mayor, we wait one year and we take the resources from that year and we put it into a fund along with the fund that we just passed from Amendment 4, the resources from Amendment 4, and we create a $3.927 million resource across the lifetime of the levy.

That resource would mean an additional $654,500 annually going to student meals over breaks and weekends.

That is more than double our existing commitment to that gap time need.

I heard a lot of people today speak about means testing.

We've gotten a lot of emails about this frame of means testing versus universal meals.

And I want to read directly from the amendment language.

The Food Assistance Program provides support for students from low-income families in need of food assistance over weekends and school breaks, excluding summers.

This assistance would be provided through vouchers and would be distributed by SPS personnel to students and their families, identified as in need of such assistance.

SPS will designate how such funding will be distributed by school personnel.

That's the end of the amendment language.

There is not a requirement for means testing.

Our intent is to provide flexibility and targeted resources to the students who are identified as having the highest need.

That's the intent.

The intent has never been to undermine universal school meals.

It's been to prioritize resources to kids who are reliant on those meals for food access and to ensure there are additional dollars for those young people during out-of-school times and weekends.

I also want to speak to the support of this amendment.

And I want to appreciate everybody who's been in council chambers today and a couple of weeks ago when we discussed this.

Amendment 6 is supported by a large coalition of people.

As you heard today, Elmer Dixon, who founded the Black Panther Party here in Seattle.

It's supported by the Children's Alliance of Washington for Seattle.

It's supported by former members of the FEP Levy Oversight Committee, members of the Alliance of Education, parents and teachers from across Seattle, leadership from the Asian Pacific Director Coalition, leadership from the League of Education Voters, leadership from Seattle Institute for Early Childhood Development, and many others.

We've received letters of support for this amendment because people understand what our intent is, and our intent is to make sure that we are taking care of all of our children.

I also want to speak directly now to some of the things that have come into my inbox around this and my own personal history.

I've been on food stamps as an adult.

I've been to food banks as an adult.

I've gone to the farmer's market and utilized Fresh Bucks as an adult.

And I want to talk about that in particular, because I heard some discussion of the Fresh Bucks program today.

And I find it interesting.

When I think about that program that is a targeted voucher to low-income people, I didn't hear a discussion of Fresh Bucks as a means-tested program that's designed to target people.

I remember going to the food bank, and it's different now than it used to be, or excuse me, I remember going to the farmer's market, it's changed, this was for me more than a decade ago, and swiping my card, my EBT card, and you have that $10 benefit, and then you get this $10 match in the form of, it used to be a little paper tokens that I would use to then get fresh fruits and vegetables from the farmer's market from my family.

My kid has tons of great early memories of going to the farmer's market because of that program.

And I think it matters how we talk about things.

and this discussion of this idea of providing vouchers or gift cards to low-income students, when it gets framed as you want to means test people out of lunches, but then when we talk about other programs that require eligibility, we talk about them as expansion, and I wonder why that is.

I want to also turn to some of this discussion that we've had around either or.

I heard that from public commenters today.

And I again want to reiterate, what we're talking about in this amendment has always been both and.

It has been a question of sequencing and what we do first.

I also want to be clear, if I didn't offer Amendment 4 and we didn't offer Amendment 6, we would not be expanding additional resources for those students that we've talked about, who we've heard about, who continue to have access needs, despite the fact that they already qualify for free and reduced lunch.

There was not a both and in the original proposal.

I'm proud to support this amendment.

I stand here, colleagues, and I ask for your support.

I think that the conversation that we've been having in the public in the last several weeks, I hope we can move towards a more nuanced conversation of what it means to take care of our children here in Seattle because I know that that is a shared priority.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, questions, comments?

I'm looking to see.

Councilmember Saka, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and I want to start off for just a brief moment talking about paperwork.

Oh, no, paperwork.

Rod, what are you talking about paperwork?

I have a confession to make as part of this and allow me to be vulnerable and continue to be vulnerable, me wearing my heart on my sleeve and I say what I mean and I mean what I say, but paperwork.

So here's a truth for me personally.

Growing up from age nine to 18, I can count on one hand how many times I went to see the doctor.

During that entire time, not one time did I go see the dentist, not one time.

When I finally did go to see the dentist in my early 20s, I had to have multiple visits because there was some, let's just say it needed to address some latent dental hygiene issues from over a decade of not going to the dentist.

One hand, how many times I went to the doctor, 9 through 18, despite suffering severe bacterial infections of various sorts.

One time, I had a frickin' ringworm on my face.

As a kid, not once, only a handful of times.

And when I did, my dad paid out of pocket.

He raised me, colleagues, as you know, as a single parent from age nine till I was 18. And I'm the proud son of a Nigerian immigrant.

And I'm also very fortunate and privileged to be where I am today, personally and professionally.

But I'm also someone who has overcome the foster care system in the state of Minnesota, from zero to nine years old, cycling in and out of the system, mostly in, before my dad was able to rescue me. and we were on free and reduced lunch.

I was on free and reduced lunch when I was under his care.

Went to 13 different K through 12 schools growing up, 13!

All of them, exclusively Title I schools for kids like myself at the time on free and reduced lunch.

Talk more about that in a moment.

But I never went to see the dentist and I rarely went to see the doctor because my dad was an hourly wage worker, primarily in the warehouse industry, and we didn't have employer-provided health insurance.

Now, like I mentioned, we qualified for free and reduced lunch, but I never...

which means we also would have likely qualified for Medicaid.

But I never went to the dentist and only went to the doctor a handful of times in nine years.

because of the severe, significant, non-trivial, and substantial administrative paperwork burden imposed on people that need these valuable resources.

Many families who need help, at the end of the day, balancing, trying to figure out how they're gonna put food on the table how they're gonna provide clothing and shelter to their family, to their kids.

They have to understand how to navigate the system, healthcare system and the resources and programs available to them, huge barrier.

Then they have to go and undertake the administrative burden of filling out that paperwork.

And I can only, and this was in the 90s, and I can only imagine that burden on the families most in need today, especially those from immigrant and refugee backgrounds, because now you're worrying about navigating the system, filling out paperwork, and then worrying about information from that paperwork being sent to the federal authorities.

If you're from an immigrant refugee community, you might be targeted for enforcement of immigration.

It's more burdensome, it's more onerous now, and it's more risky.

So, we know today, colleagues, that there are families that qualify, many families that qualify for free and reduced lunch that today are not being served.

We know that.

So when we talk about ways to address systemic barriers, to remove systemic barriers and address inequities, passing universal free school meal program in the city of Seattle now, today, is the number one, in my view, the number one most impactful thing we can do.

Now let's talk about the stigma.

And I've been very clear about the impacts of stigma on free and reduced lunch programs.

Because like I mentioned in the past, I've literally waited to the very last moment to buy my lunch for 75 cents or however much it was on the reduced program because I didn't want some of my classmates and peers to know that I paid the differential rate, the lower rate, not the full buck 50 in some change or whatever it was.

And I missed meals because of it on a few occasions.

Lunch lady closed up shop, too late, I should have went earlier.

and when you're...

So I know what it's like firsthand to go to school for the number one purpose of receiving services, and as a secondary purpose, education.

And I know what it's like to go through class all day hungry, and what that means for the rest of the day when the pantry is scarce, and the weekends as well.

launching universal free school programs today, which we are prepared to do, helps address those inequities, remove systemic barriers, eliminate the onerous and burdensome paperwork requirement on our community's most vulnerable.

It also addresses the stigma Now, let me take a moment and address the elephant in the room, for some at least, because I've heard that statements along the lines of this is not a race or neighborhood issue, maybe not primarily, but there are important undertones of race and class and socioeconomic status.

Now, I could talk all day about all of that, but because unlike class and socioeconomic status, race is an immutable characteristic.

There's a lot of conversations about, you know, who's this at the elected official level?

Who's the champion?

Who are the champions of universal, free school meals.

For one, I think it's a community-led thing, but at the elected official level, there's a lot of this involved.

And based on the one-on-one conversations I have with my colleagues, I think there's a recognition that on this floor, on this body, this has been my initiative when we talk about universal free school programs.

Frankly, I think it's all of our initiatives, those of us who have been here the last three years, because time and time again, we've discussed, we've taken specific legislative actions, including through advocacy of the state legislature, to finally bring this to life.

And I'm grateful for the mayor's partnership on this, because championing a particular issue multiple names can be involved in the conversation.

So that's why I wanna thank the mayor for her efforts to accelerate universal free school meals.

But from its inception and ideation through now, this has always been a black-led policy conversation and initiative at the city level.

and it's a form of black erasure to forget that.

From inception to ideation to the current split that we're seeing and witnessing right now here today.

It's a black-led initiative.

Why?

Many of the communities most impacted by these very policy conversations we're having today are black communities.

Black and African immigrant communities.

I don't envy my colleagues for having to pick sides on this complex issue, but I do think we are ready to roll this out today.

We need to, we have a executive who is aligned and has helped champion the acceleration of this effort.

We need to stick with it and roll it out today, roll it out now.

I do, that said, want to thank community, for taking the time out of your busy days, showing up, testifying today, sharing your feedback.

Even within the black community, we witnessed and observed and saw firsthand a split.

We are not a monolith.

There's nuance here.

There's complexity.

But when you talk about the full context and the evolution of these initiatives, remember how it started at the elected official level, which is why I want to thank Council Members, Council Member Foster and Council President Hollingsworth for your leadership on this.

I know after work, CP, I'm gonna come in your office and we're gonna hug this out, irrespective of the final vote count.

But I appreciate your leadership on addressing food security and access.

and that remains true irrespective of the final vote.

But I have concerns for the reasons I mentioned, I have concerns about this amendment and I can't support it, but I appreciate you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Lynn, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Great words, Council Member Saka.

And...

This one is difficult for me for the many reasons that you just stated.

We've heard a very robust dialogue today and I just wanted to thank Council President and Council Member Foster for bringing this dialogue forward.

And there are things that It was great to hear about the history.

I mean, I think we knew about the history of the Black Panthers, but it's great to see that history before us today come testify.

That's powerful.

And I do, there has been a lot of sort of discussion and dialogue, and some of it is not entirely accurate, and that makes the discussion harder.

and I think one thing has been clarified but I just wanna repeat that this wasn't something that was promised to the voters and so I just wanna clarify that this wasn't something that we voted on and yet it feels that way because I think people are excited about school lunches.

I'm excited about universal school lunches and I think we all are.

And once there's an announcement that it's gonna happen, it's kinda hard to roll that back.

And so it feels, it sort of frames it a little bit differently.

And so I just wanna recognize that.

But again, it wasn't something that voters approved.

You know, this is hard for me as a District 2 representative.

Pretty much every school in my district has universal free lunches, which is great.

People, it's a great thing.

I think there's one school that doesn't.

And, you know, just overall, District 2, probably more than any other district under the FEP levy, gets a ton of support, as it should, based on equity.

And I'm extremely thankful for that.

and so this is hard because this amendment would bring a lot of resources to District 2, to families in need, to students in need, and I think we heard very compellingly that, you know, food insecurity doesn't just happen for breakfast or lunch, it happens in the evening, it happens on weekends, it happens during school breaks and that absolutely is something we need to figure out and address.

It's part of why I was excited to support amendment number four.

And, you know, unfortunately, you know, this shouldn't be a zero-sum game.

I would love to do both.

And, you know, unfortunately, we don't have all the resources.

I mean, we're gonna have a really hard budget conversation this fall.

And this conversation today is just a small preview of those very, very hard discussions that we are gonna have.

But I won't be supporting this today.

I am excited to build the momentum for Universal School Lunches across both the city and hopefully the state.

But I do just wanna say an enormous gratitude for you bringing this forward, for uplifting the dialogue, for jumping into the nuance, regardless of some of the public discourse.

And I think, for the public, they are certainly welcome to say whatever they want about us.

And we get criticism from all sides over a number of different things.

But just for me personally, it is less persuasive when things are said that don't ring true to me, when things are said that I will question the character of some of my colleagues when I know that you care deeply and have a deep-rooted history around food access and food equity.

And so while people are free to make those comments, they are not persuasive to me when I know there's no truth to that.

So I just want to state that for the record.

So thank you again.

I think this has been a good dialogue for all of us to understand that the huge unmet need, so if we do provide universal school lunches, if that goes forward, and we don't do this, I don't know how this vote is gonna play out, but I think regardless, it highlights the critical need, unmet need that you have raised, so thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Rinke, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I want to start off by thanking both Council Members Saka and Council Members Foster for sharing your stories.

I really want to commend you for your courage to show that vulnerability and share a bit about your stories and upbringing, so thank you.

Colleagues, the discussion on universal school meals and this amendment in particular has been one of the most challenging and emotional policy discussions I've experienced during my time on Council.

and hearing today's public comment, I have been reminded of my own experiences of hunger.

Now, I didn't go hungry because my mom, my grandma didn't pack me a lunch.

I was hungry for a while because my friend's parents didn't pack them a lunch, and I was giving them my food.

And they didn't get free school lunches, but their folks weren't giving them food, and I was giving them mine.

and my folks were so mad when they found out I was giving away my lunch to my friends.

And of course, I tried to keep it a secret for a long time because I didn't want my folks to be mad at me.

I didn't want anyone to get in trouble.

You know, when you're a kid, you don't want to get in trouble.

You just want to help your friend out.

But once my folks found out what was going on, they said, okay, and they started packing me double and triple lunches.

You know, hunger can be hidden.

Hunger isn't always obvious, and it isn't always experienced by who you would expect it to be.

And we don't know what's going on in young people's lives, and I don't think we, the government, need to know every single detail about what's going on in kids' lives when it comes to children getting their basic needs met.

and with everything that is happening across our country right now, I do believe it is imperative that we move with urgency to address hunger in our community.

So on one hand, it has been heartening to see the outpouring of support across our city for feeding our kids.

Whether it be in schools, on weekends, over school breaks, no child in this community should be going hungry.

I know we all agree to that.

And that is why it is shocking to my conscience that in a city with the wealth that we know exists, we still have kids going hungry.

The policy goals of universal school meals and expanded food assistance on weekends and breaks are both good policies.

The policy choice in front of us with Amendment 6 asks us to delay implementation of universal school meals to fund that weekend and break meals program.

Now, if the option before us was to fund this weekend and break meals program using another fund source outside of this levy, perhaps our graffiti abatement fund, the unified care team, or the real-time crime center, just to name a few examples, that choice would be clear to me, and I would support it in a heartbeat.

But to take it out of our universal school meals expansion is a trade-off that I can't support today.

Now, like my colleagues, I want to take a moment to speak to the rhetoric that has been going on in the public about this amendment over the past couple of weeks, particularly the attacks on the co-sponsors of this amendment going after their character and their intentions.

I do not support that.

I know the sponsors of this amendment care deeply about the kids in our city and take their responsibility to our community very seriously.

There is no question of that.

And while we may fall on different sides of a specific policy choice we're making here, I want to be clear that I stand with our amendment sponsors and our shared commitment to use our power to take care of our kids equitably, sustainably, and holistically.

So I will be respectfully voting no on this amendment today, and it is my hope that wherever we go from here, we keep up this energy and passion for feeding young people, particularly when it comes to our budget deliberations later this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Ring.

Council Member Juarez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to start with just a few facts, and I want to thank, first of all, Council President Hollingsworth and Councilmember Foster for bringing this.

I'll get into a little bit more detail about that in a moment, but Councilmember Foster brought up a really important issue, and I'm really glad we had a chance to talk through and with the Council President these issues as well as yourself, Councilmember or Madam Chair.

On the Sweet and Beverage Tax that we passed in 2017, which was implemented in 2018, the fact is this.

Over the eight years, $191 million has been gathered and only $4 million has been dedicated to children in school, healthy food in schools, which comes out to about less than 9% over eight years of total investment.

And that should be concerning.

What I want to share though, from a heartfelt position of I've taken hard votes before and quite frankly, I've seen it a lot worse.

but I've been around probably a lot longer.

I want to say this about Council President Hollingsworth and Council Member Foster.

I want to thank them for their conviction, their conscience based on dignity and kinship.

In Indian Country, we would call that good words and good medicine.

This has always been about implementation.

It has never been about denying a program.

It's about delaying a program.

and Council, Madam Chair, you and I, along with the Durkin administration know and had worked on and were the architects of a universal program called the Promise Program.

and how we layered and scaffold that program in, starting with two high schools, then four, and then every high school.

So every high school student could enjoy going to college for free in the city of Seattle.

We did that as architects and working with leadership because we wanted it to be successful and sustainable.

And I wanna thank those of you who brought up, history is so important.

And we heard so many good comments.

I mean, you know, people who have a right to come to public comment, and have their opinions in history.

But some of the comments were incredibly sublime and profound.

I love how people come with history and facts before we get to feelings.

Talking from 1990, 1997, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2018, six times the voters went out there and said, this is what we want.

And Council Member Lynn, thank you for bringing up something that I jotted down earlier.

First of all, your good words about equity, but second of all, you had structured this, Madam Chair, under the Herald administration.

And that's what the voters were asking for.

Now, I understand that people have have their ideology.

I understand that they have political goals that they want to see done, and I respect that.

But again, I want to take us back to exactly what we're talking about here.

We are talking about implementation.

We are talking about something being delayed, not denied.

We are talking about equity.

We are talking about the roots of children being hungry.

And I was taking notes during public comment, which I always do, and I want to thank counsel, our former representative, Dawn Mason for her good words.

I worked with her in the state legislator many years ago, which I won't bring up.

And the folks, the gentlemen from Jim and Dawn and Elmer and particularly from the Black Panther and how these all began with social justice movements because people of color had to do it ourselves.

While I thank our allies, sometimes I think you try to speak for us.

And so let me just say this.

I love the folks that talked about that hunger doesn't take a break and understood the history of this and the passion behind it.

This isn't either or.

It never has been.

Some people have characterized it as that, has put it into some kind of contextual us versus them.

It was never that.

It's always been about how do we feed all of these children, do it universally, make it sustainable across the board.

and then not only that, but talk to the values that this city proclaims to have every day, all the time, and not just about politics.

And Council Member Ring, thank you for pointing out some of the comments that were made.

As you all know, I'm not on social media, so I think it's just trash, but my point is this.

I think it's unfortunate but I've watched it a lot in this job where people have taken issues that are so dear to us about children being hungry and those that don't get fed on the weekends and during breaks the way I appreciate what Council Member Shaka said I too was one of those kids that grew up with the last three days of the month I didn't eat food stamps reduced lunch no lunch so I mean I could go on and on but that's not the point the point is I'm saying that from what you all love to say, lived experience, but I'm not vulnerable and I'm not marginalized.

And I really wanna thank Council President and Council Member Foster to step up and have a voice.

have the support so people can hear us and why these programs came about.

And again, I'll end on this note.

Madam Chair, I want to thank you because I worked with you under the Durkin administration.

I've watched and under your leadership, you have been great about sitting down with us, going through the FEPA levy, going through the chair's package.

That's the kind of, quote unquote, progressive, if you will, that's the kind of conversations that have to have in these policies, that we start with the facts.

Can we fund it?

Is it sustainable?

We don't have to go into screaming at elected folks and attacking their integrity in their heart.

And it saddens me to see that, but I guess that's where we're at in politics these days.

So that being said, I, as you know, Madam Chair, I am a proud sponsor of Amendment 4 and Amendment 6. and again, I cannot thank you or Madam Chair for your leadership and also of course the respect I have for Council President and Council Member Foster, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Strauss, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair and thank you to the sponsors.

Thank you to all the colleagues that have spoken on this issue.

Universal meals are important and they're important to me.

It's important that no kid in any school is hungry.

stigma and paperwork and documentation as was discussed are barriers that need to be reduced or eliminated.

I think the question of standing in the lunch line and wondering if they should get lunch or not is something that is important to me that rings really true to the values that I hold and the perspective that I bring here at City Council.

As Councilmember Lin mentioned just a couple minutes ago, the question before us was not a promise made to voters through the Families Education Preschool Promise Levy.

It was a promise that was made just in the last few months.

The source of funding for this plan using the Risk and Reserve Fund is, as the name states, risky.

and I say that because speaking as the budget chair, I'm mostly focused on the numbers here today.

I call the risk and reserve accounts within our levies the inflation account, the cost rising account.

because these levies are set up for eight to 10 years, depending, and in those eight to 10 years, even our best guesses at inflation do not necessarily include the cost escalators of materials, good, labor, everything else that it takes to deliver the promises of the levies that are taken to voters.

Just look at the last transportation levy.

If we hadn't had the oversight body alert us to the fact that we were so off base, we would never have gotten back on track.

And we had to use every tool in our book because of the inflation and cost escalations that occurred through the pandemic.

That is why we have...

and we've seen time and time again our levies having difficulty meeting our goals because costs rise over those eight to 10 years of the levy.

Beyond this, the promise that has been made to our community relies on a millionaire's tax, which even its future is uncertain.

My hope is that it has a secure future, but we don't know that today.

the plan transmitted has made a promise to Seattleites without a plan.

In my time as budget chair, we have worked diligently to reduce the structural budget deficit from $270 million to $150 million in just this last budget.

In this year alone, we have approved additional funding requests for important programs that has increased our structural budget deficit to $175 million, and there are additional funding promises that have been made of $30 to $40 million without a funding source identified.

I say this because I support those programs, and I support those efforts.

and we need to be very clear-eyed about the work that we have been doing with our budgets and the budget reform both structurally and procedurally that we've been doing to our general fund budgets, but also to our levy budgets.

When this levy was built, we built it to ensure the funding source was sustainable and secure to deliver the promises made without relying on other fund sources.

New promises like the universal meals are good, and they should rely on secure sources of funding.

This is important because without security and sustainability, we could be right back here again, asking for funding and adding instability to the lives of the very kids we want to serve.

Stigma is real.

Documentation is real.

As we heard from the sponsor today, it is up to SPS to determine that.

There's no means testing.

There's no necessarily additional documentation.

It's up to them to decide with the money that we are providing to add security today.

But for Universal Meals as what has been described today, we could be here.

We could be right back here again.

and stability is incredibly important because making a promise of food and then telling our kids that it's in jeopardy only for us adults in the room to find a better funding path to bring it back, that can negatively impact the very children that we are looking to serve.

Not the adults in this room, but yet they're the ones that suffer because we're saying you have it, then you don't, and then you do, and then you don't.

Why not take the extra time to make a plan that is robust, to make a plan that is secure, to make a plan that is stable?

We briefed the mid-year supplemental budget yesterday and I was truly, I was impressed to only see a $500,000 increase in general fund spending and that $500,000 was set up to support an extreme risk protection order assistant city attorney to ensure that people who are a danger to themselves and others with firearms in our community are held through due process to account.

That's the increase in general funds so far this year that we're seeing in the mid-year supplemental.

I guess I'm wondering out here, I'm wondering out loud why the plan for Universal Meals were not funded by General Fund.

Even it is a more secure funding source than the millionaire's tax today.

Even that process ensures that we are not putting at risk the other promises that we've made to our children through the Families Education Preschool Promise Levy.

What I just described is exactly what I did when I found a wait list for fresh bucks when I came into office.

The first dollar of general fund that ever went into fresh bucks was my first budget amendment that I ever passed.

Because what we were seeing was the sweetened beverage tax was not a secure funding source.

It was coming in lower than projections because of substitution effect.

Said in more plain language, people were going to Shoreline to buy their soda.

or Tukwila.

And so that's what I did to secure that funding for Fresh Bucks.

I said, let's take a look at this general fund.

Did my actions increase the structural budget deficit?

Yes, it did.

Did it create a more stable funding source?

Absolutely.

And today, I'm concerned that the plan as transmitted makes a promise without a plan.

It puts at risk the stability we should be providing our students.

It puts at risk our ability to deliver the promises we have made to voters because we're rushing to make decisions.

Frankly, I'm disappointed by the avoidable conflict we are in today.

It was very important for me to hear from Elmer Dixon as everyone has said who founded the Black Panther Party here in the city of Seattle.

I was honored to get to participate in Pow Wow at United Indians of All Tribes this weekend.

Those two, both what Elmer shared with us today and Pow Wow are the living, breathing examples of the Gang of Four coming together in the 1970s.

And so I'm moved by the words that I heard from Elmer.

as he was the one that started the programs that so many people that I know benefited from and who through action inspired everyone in this room to be having the conversation that we are having today because without Elmer and the Black Panther Party of Seattle, we would not have had these food programs in the first place to even inspire us to have the conversation we're having today.

and so what you have for me is my commitment to make universal meals a reality across our city and that we will do so with a plan that does not put promises in jeopardy.

I'll be supporting Amendment 6 today and I look forward to what I hope will be a collaborative process with the mayor's office to find a secure and stable funding source.

Thank you colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Rink, is that a new hand?

Okay.

And Councilmember Foster, are you trying to...

Is that a new hand?

Is that your final remarks?

It is not, no.

Oh, okay, then I'll call...

It is a new hand, though.

Yes.

Okay.

Then you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you.

I appreciate all of you deeply, colleagues.

I want to make sure that we make a little bit of space just to turn to central staff before we close out today.

I wasn't going to do this, but Council Member Strauss, listening to your comments around the long-term planning, I realize there's a part of this conversation that we haven't yet spoken about.

So I just want to ask central staff if you can share with us from the last levy How did we use the underspend in the 2019 FAP levy?

Yeah, so in the previous levy, there wasn't a line item for cost and risk reserve.

Rather, individual large programs had a bit of like, for lack of a better word, padding in them to account for any sort of unintended or anticipated costs.

and so that underspend, my understanding is that on average there was about a 2% to 3% underspend that probably reflected the extra risk and reserve money that was built into the programs themselves.

For this current levy, we have a more transparent cost and risk reserve that is pulled out.

Thank you.

I guess I'll just read from the memo that I have from central staff, which shares that during the 2019 levy, according to the way that the FEPP Oversight Committee functioned, they dedicated any of that underspend to preschool.

for, is that correct?

The previous I&E plan had a policy that said any underspend should be prioritized towards preschool.

What ended up happening because essentially because of COVID, there was actually significant underspend within preschool and the underspend was then reallocated towards other programs, mostly Promise and some K through 12 investments.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure we were highlighting that in terms of ensuring that we have clarity around the previous practices with underspend and then the current practices.

Thank you.

And if I could add something here, Council Member Foster, because you raise a great point in terms of underspend is that during COVID, there was a lot of disruption to this last levy.

And so we use some of the, and I happen to be in the mayor's office.

So that's why I say we, and when I say I've worked with Director Chappelle for almost 10 years is because of that, but we work together and a lot of the funding did go to fund meals for kids.

because that was needed during COVID.

Kids weren't coming to school and then weren't getting them breakfast and lunch, because we talk about lunch, but they get free breakfast also at school.

And so we were doing, working with Seattle Public Schools to do SAC meals for families, you know, for kids, for the kids and over the weekend.

So, there's a long-standing practice of using some of the FEP funding for that food assistance which is actually in the in the levy language itself in terms of food assistance so just wanted to say you know the risk reserve piece was important this go-round because we didn't they didn't the department didn't call it out that way last go-round and then when things happen like a global pandemic, we have to be able to pivot and use some of the reserves to backfill anything that we are not able to do because we didn't have enough funding for, et cetera.

So that piece is really important.

So thanks for calling out the underspend piece.

Colleagues, are there any other questions about amendment number six?

All right, seeing none, I'd like to address a couple things.

Council Member Juarez, thank you for calling out.

You know, this is an interesting levy because it does start with a different mayoral administration and now there's this mayoral administration.

So I wanna set some things straight here in terms of when I worked with the prior administration and the department on the levy.

We didn't specifically call out universal meals.

That's not in the levy.

Food assistance is in the levy.

It's very plainly spelled out so that it says under K through 12 health and safety that we would include health education, mental health care, and food assistance because we know that kids need all of those things to be successful in school.

But it was not called out as other colleagues have set up here.

Universal Meals were not called out.

That said, we all super support meals.

There isn't a person sitting up here now or who was sitting here when the FEP levy was passed last year or the last go-round or either a mayoral administration that I would say doesn't obviously support school meals for our kids, but it is important for the public to know because they're not always aware that universal meals were not part of this levy at the time.

and also it bears mentioning that under Washington state laws, the schools where 40% or more of the kids are on fear and reduced lunch already get universal school meals.

So Council Member Juarez, your point about scaffolding, without knowing, because I haven't talked to the Governor about this, but when he proposed the universal school meals, it sounds like he was scaffolding.

and so and I understand that this current mayoral administration is also interested in meals so it sounds like they wanted to bridge a gap.

But as we've said here, there is, you know, we have concerns about continuation of filling the gap if we should need to into the future.

And so we're a little bit on unsteady ground here in terms of the long-term, how we would support this long-term if we should need to.

Because once we started, and what I do know about working at the city so many years and Council Member Juarez, you as well, is that once we start something, we cannot just take it away.

What I also know is that supporting afterschool meals, so backpacks like the backpack brigade that Seattle Public School already does and weekend meals has a longstanding practice.

So Seattle Public Schools are well positioned to implement the funds being contemplated by Council President Hollingsworth with this amendment.

And I will say that I spoke with the superintendent about this in particular because in Rivera due diligence fashion, we would be giving funding to the Seattle Public Schools and I wanted to check in how would this work out in terms of its universal meal expansion across all the schools?

So we know or I know from speaking to the superintendent that the meals contemplated by this amendment is doable.

They already do it.

It's an expansion of something that they do and is needed because the kids that are getting free and reduced breakfast and lunch in school do need meals after school and into the weekends.

That's something that we don't have enough of.

and that we could do and readily do and easily do.

So to me, it makes sense to bridge the weekend meal gap, if you will, knowing that the kids that most need the free and reduced lunch are able to to get that at schools, particularly since it's already universal in those schools that service more than 40 or more percent of the kids are free and reduced lunch.

These are difficult conversations, I know.

And to the point of scaffolding, I'll say too, the school-based health centers, which provide the health and the mental health support to students, that was scaffold as well, Council Member Juarez, you'll remember.

We started school-based health centers at some schools, and then every year of the levy, we have added more.

So that with this levy, we're adding more school-based health centers to the list, and we still don't have school-based health centers at every single school, but as in the meals that we do after school and over the weekend, I believe that I am correct in saying any kid, just like with the school-based health center that needs access to that, can access that at a different school.

So Seattle Public Schools and Deal have partnered and worked together to make sure that that is the case.

So it is important to note that this is one of those points where, again, we're all aligned here.

There's more alignment than not, including with the mayor.

And I appreciate that she was trying to bridge that gap between when the state could start this and now.

and it all goes to what's the best way to implement in the fastest way meals for kids that need them across our system.

So it is not about folks up here, City Council not caring about kids.

It is really about at this juncture, what is the best way and what is the best way to provide that food support to the kids that need it in the city right now.

So this is why this particular conversation has been so difficult, is because this was something that got added later.

It did not get added as universal school meals in the levy.

We could have done so at the time if that had been contemplated.

But again, we knew that Washington state law was covering the free and reduced kids' meals.

And then in those schools that had the 40% or more, it was universal in order to address that, the stigma piece that Council Member Saka, you raised, and that is an important point to raise.

So I say all this to say that no matter what happens with this particular amendment today, it is true that we all support kids in our schools and food access to kids in our schools and to all kids across the city.

This is important.

We've done a lot to support food access.

And I know that Council Member Hollingsworth, this is something that's been near and dear to your heart.