Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool & Promise (FEPP) Levy 6/12/2025

Good morning, everyone.

The June 12th Family Education Preschool and Promise Levy will come to order.

It is 9.34 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Moore?

Present.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Sacca?

Here.

Council member Solomon.

Council member Strauss.

Present.

Vice Chair Rank.

Present.

Chair Rivera.

Present.

Seven council members are present.

Thank you.

Let the record reflect that Council Member Hollingsworth will join us shortly and Council Member Solomon is excused from this meeting.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

There are 17 in-person speakers and eight remote speakers signed up.

All right, thank you, clerk.

As I said in briefings this Monday, we will limit comment period to 20 minutes as required per council rules.

Excuse me, sorry, thank you.

We have a lot of amendments to get through and a levy to get through committee today, so I want to make sure we have time for that.

So I will say if we can get through the speakers in 20, I would do 30 minutes if we could get through everyone, but we do need to move on, so 30 minutes will be the cap.

for public comment today.

If you don't get to do your public comment we welcome written public comment, but hopefully we can get through everyone today.

We'll do one minute of public comment.

All right, speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

We'll be alternating between in-person and remote speakers every 10 minutes until the time has ended.

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

The public comment period is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

So I am gonna call five speakers and hopefully everyone there are three Three mics and you can come up to one of the mics if I call your name David Jacobson Jacobson sorry Sarah Bremer Suresh Chan Mugam.

I'm so sorry if I did not pronounce your name correctly Andre Fisher Lena Nguyen Anab Nur Castile Hightower.

It is 937.

Council members, at a PTSA meeting two days ago, Garfield High School principal Terrence Hart said students, staff, and families all want police officers back on campus.

Dr. Hart is designing a pilot program with the school district that meets the needs of Garfield and is responsive to what Garfield students say they are comfortable with.

No one, he says, is going to be arresting anyone on campus.

Amendment 1 to the city's proposed education levy seeks to impose conditions on safety investments.

But inserting that language may prevent Garfield from getting what it wants and needs from SROs.

That could have deadly effect since six out of the seven shooting incidents reported at Garfield High School took place after the moratorium went into effect.

I urge you, therefore...

to reject or rewrite Amendment 1 so it does not discourage placement of SROs in Seattle Public Schools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And let the record reflect that Collingsworth has joined us in chambers.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sarah Bremer, and I'm here representing the Garfield High School PTSA as the current vice president.

At our June board meeting, the PTSA passed the following resolution.

The Garfield High School PTSA board joins the majority of students, staff, school leadership, and families in urging the Seattle School Board to withdraw the indefinite moratorium on school resource officers.

We asked the Seattle Public Schools and the Seattle Police Department to initiate a carefully designed pilot program that reinstates a school engagement officer at Garfield starting the fall of 2025. In addition to voicing our support for the SEO position at Garfield, I'm also here because your support is a critical source of funding for this project.

We hope the PTA-SA's resolution will remind you that the pilot has broad support in the Garfield community.

and I'll skip ahead to the very end.

In conclusion, we stand in strong solidarity with Garfield students and staff and support this SEO position and are asking the Seattle...

Thank you.

You can send your written comment.

Thank you.

Suresh?

Great.

Hi, great pronunciation.

Honorary Sri Lankan citizenship there.

Hi, my name is Suresh Chanmugam.

I live in District 3 with my wife and our three kids.

Our son, Sean, will graduate from Garfield on Monday, and two of his classmates will not, Ammar and Junior.

And I have lived in Seattle 26 years.

I know that gun violence is not new in and around Garfield High School.

And we know that the root cause of violence in our community is poverty.

That's why I'm here to support amendments 1, 5, 7, and 8 to protect our students.

There's ample evidence showing that police with guns in our hallways do not make our children safer, and our two younger children will start ninth grade at Garfield next year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Andre Fisher and Lena.

Andre.

Oh, there you are.

Great.

Greetings, Councilman.

Thank you so much.

It's a privilege and I understand before you, my name is DeAndre Fisher, a product of a promise fulfilled.

Seattle Promise for us is more than just a vote.

For us, Seattle Promise is for our students for a better future to ensure that our educational dreams are fulfilled.

Seattle Promise for us is the families that understand the process of college, the understanding, the navigating our resources in the future that remains to be unsaid.

But what we do know is that Seattle Promise is a promise that we ask that you all commit to the promise for our students, for our future.

It guides the readiness of what we need to see for our wraparound services.

Seattle Promise is the belongingness of a community in the classroom.

Seattle Promise is access and opportunity and a brighter future for our educational system.

So we share a responsibility here today and accountability that we speak up for communities and we ask that you do the same for Seattle Promise.

Thank you.

Thank you, DeAndre.

Lena and then Anab and then Castile.

A child will burn a village down to feel its warmth.

My name is Lina and I'm a restorative justice practitioner at the community organization Woblock.

I'm here to urge all council members to vote yes on the amendments that council member Rink has brought forward.

Restorative practices is violence prevention.

In my four years of working at Seattle Public Schools, I have had the privilege of supporting young students in harnessing their anger and frustration into powerful relationships with their peers using restorative practices.

One of my most vivid examples of this is one of my fourth grade students who showed up to my door the first day of school with two fists pumped up and ready to fight each one of her friends.

But she showed up to my door and she was ready to work on her anger and change her relationships at school.

For the rest of the year, we worked through one-on-one relationships with each other, worked in our classrooms together, worked with her teacher to make sure she had a space to feel belonging, and today she is facilitating her own community building circles in classrooms.

The investment in my position gave me the dedicated time and capacity and vision to shift school cultures.

I urge council members to vote yes on these amendments today.

Thank you.

Anab Castile and then Trish Haggerty.

My name is Anav Nur, and I'm an educator and restorative practitioner with Woblock, and I'm urging this council to vote yes on all of Councilmember Rennick's amendments to the FEP levy that invests money into restorative practices.

Woblock partners with Seattle Public Schools to support the implementation of restorative practices.

We work closely with school administrators, classroom teachers, students, and district staff.

Restorative justice is foundation-building work.

It's intentionally proactive.

It is not just about responding to harm.

It's about building the type of community that can collectively respond to harm when it does occur.

This is student-led and centered work.

Just yesterday, I was at one of our partner elementary schools where two fifth grade students who had just completed our Junior Circle Keepers program were keeping a circle in a second grade classroom.

These students spent eight weeks gaining the skills necessary to be leaders in their community, learned how to identify strong emotions within themselves and others, practiced how to solve problems, and more.

Students learned that creating a safe and healthy school community is something that they can take a lead in.

This is the work that builds schools that are safe and addresses problems at their root.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Castile Trish and then Leanne Caspi.

My name is Castile Hightower and I'm the lead organizer for the Seattle APP and the sister of Herbert Hightower Jr. who was murdered by Seattle police by experiencing a mental health crisis.

Similarly to how a man was killed by SPD just March of this year, the same boutique displayed at Cal Anderson Park just weeks ago and in downtown Seattle over the past week, including SPD coordinating with ICE, blatantly violating state law.

I'm also a member of the Keep Your Promise Coalition.

It includes many students who cannot be in attendance today.

So I am here in solidarity with them and all people impacted by state-sanctioned violence.

I am testifying on CB120981 to ask for your support on amendments 1, 5, 7, and 8, sponsored by Council Member Rink, who was the only Council Member to respond to our student-led coalition's emails.

We should not be, excuse me, we should not be pushing funding in the FEP levy that puts essential education funds at risk and costs in schools as We are witnessing across the country just how brutal, and as my family experienced, how deadly the crossroads system can be to our communities with little to no accountability.

Reports show putting...

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Trish and Leanne Caspi, and then we'll go to Amber Donaldson.

Good morning.

Thank you.

My name's Trish Hagerty.

I work in Seattle Public Schools.

I wanna thank Council Member Rink for the support behind restorative practices.

And as one of those practices is to speak and listen from the heart.

And so I just invite all of you to join me in that practice this morning in thinking about our students and our most marginalized, vulnerable populations.

And I wanna share with you a really incredible, inspiring moment that I got to be part of with one of the speakers who came before me, Anab Nar.

She helped support at Wing Luke Elementary, the graduation of eight fourth and fifth grade circle keepers.

Those circle keepers shared information in a circle format, all that they learned for the eight weeks of training.

They wanna serve their community.

And this is just a beginning.

Thank you.

Leanne Caspi and Amber Donaldson, and then we'll go online.

Thank you, good morning.

My name is Leon Caspi.

I serve as the restorative practices program manager for Seattle Public Schools.

As the year winds down, I visited classrooms and connected with educators, and I've seen some truly powerful moments.

At Chief Self, students led their own circle conversations, reflecting on their purpose, their growth, and how they want to improve their school culture.

At Leschi, fourth and fifth graders ran circles for kindergarteners, proudly naming the skills they'd built, the better grades they were earning, the confidence they now feel.

These moments didn't happen by chance.

They're the result of intentional, ongoing restorative practices work led by restorative practices coordinators and community partners, both funded by the city through the current FEP levy and amendments.

The next FEP levy is the best and only way to ensure that this work continues.

Please protect and prioritize this work by voting yes on Council Member Rink's amendments, specifically Amendment 7, so that this funding and this impact can continue.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Amber Donaldson.

Good morning.

My name is Amber Donaldson, and I'm the restorative practices coordinator at Franklin High School.

And this position is funded by the current FEP levy.

I fully and wholeheartedly support Amendment 7 funding for restorative practices.

In order for our students to experience true understanding, acceptance, and value, it is imperative that we have restorative practices continually in our schools.

The consistency of this work takes a lot of time, intentionality, and effort.

Making sure that we have the financial support to continue it matters.

It matters to our district, it matters to our students, it matters to our parents, it matters to our community, and it matters specifically to Franklin High School.

Consistency is key, and keys open doors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clerk, can we go to the online?

The first online speaker is Mari Ramirez.

Mari, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Hi, council members.

My name is Mari Ramirez.

I'm an educator and restorative justice coordinator working in Seattle Public Schools.

I'm here today to urge you to vote yes on amendment seven in the FEPP levy, council member Rink's amendment Continuing to fund restorative practices in Seattle Public Schools is crucial to the wellness, safety, and security of students.

Violence happens when we don't have the tools and resources to respond to conflict, pain, and exclusion.

Restorative practices address this issue at the root, teaching students and adults alike the skills to support themselves and each other, empowering them to make safe choices and respond productively to conflict in our communities.

But don't just take it from me, take it from a testimony from Riley Smith, counselor at one of our school partners, Lowell Elementary.

She says, Restorative practices support students' mental health because when a kid is in crisis or navigating an interpersonal conflict, it's hard for them to engage in learning and in their classroom community.

They're in their flight, fight, or freeze response, especially in our community where there are so many triggers and reactions that connect to generational trauma or hardships.

For students' thoughts and feelings to be acknowledged in the moment, it's the most critical way for them to feel.

Thank you.

Next is Oliver Miska.

Oliver, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Good morning, members of the levy select committee.

My name is Oliver Miska.

I'm a SPS substitute testifying remotely on my prep period from Garfield High School.

I'm testifying in support of amendments 1, 5, 7, and 8. These amendments do not impact SRO conversation.

That is the school board's job.

The council's backroom deals to support funding for politically controversial items like cops in schools puts the levy at risk of bringing unnecessary criticism to the levy's passage.

As an educator, I think it's important that we have real data-driven solutions to solve our problems.

Feeling safe is fundamental to a healthy and productive learning environment.

Research overwhelmingly shows that armed officers do not prevent violence and do not meaningly contribute to safety.

The survey that's been mentioned in your remarks in the dais has bad research methodologies, and it's acts like these that cause distrust for our public institutions.

There's clearly not been enough time or engagement on this.

Safety does not mean making a few parents feel safe at the expense of others to win political theater points.

Thank you.

Next is Jen Lavallee.

Jen, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Jen Lavallee.

I'm a candidate for Seattle School Board in District 7, South Seattle.

I would like to call in in support of Congress Member Rink's Proposed 1, 5, 7, and 8. Again, in agreement with Oliver, research has not supported that school resource officers benefit the safety of students.

Students have long sought for additional school counselors and additional funding.

Amendments 1, 5, 7, and 8 would get that restorative justice practices in our schools that are so impactful for the kids that need it.

without punitive measures that hurt the students who need the most help.

I urge you to vote yes on one, five, seven, and eight.

Thank you.

Next is Madeline Veseca.

Madeline, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Madeline Vistica, and I'm the Food Security Program Manager at United Way of King County, present to testify in support of amendments four and five to advocate for the inclusion of food access as a top priority and core component of educational support for Seattle students.

At United Way, we work deeply here in our Seattle community, as well as statewide to connect students to food resources, and we're excited and hopeful to see these amendments proposed and broadly to see how seriously it indicates the council takes food security, the food security insecurity that so many children and families in our community are experiencing today.

We know that one in six Washington kids are experiencing food insecurity and that demand for food resources is incredibly elevated in this moment, forcing families to make tough decisions with their monthly budget.

We also do know that the federal nutrition programs that are administered by Seattle Public Schools and direct benefit programs are among the most impactful tools at our disposal to support.

Thank you.

Next is Alberto Alvarez.

Alberto, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Yes to Councilmember Ring's amendments.

We have to acknowledge that Seattle police does nothing for a family hungry and in need of food.

These amendments do.

Seattle police does not console students before escalation or crisis.

These amendments do Seattle police is choosing not to protect immigrant parents or their children.

these amendments do.

Council has signed plenty of declarations in support of families.

It's time for direct action, like passing all of Councilmember Ring's amendments.

No delay.

Get this fortified levy on the ballot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last remote speaker is Lori Ross.

Lori, please press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

Lori, please press star six.

Lori, we see you there.

Can you please press star six?

Lori, can you please press star six?

Let's move on to in-person and we'll come back to Lori after the in-person if it seems like she's experiencing technical issues.

All right, in-person, Jill Colasurdo, Yuna Martin, and Catherine Leschenois followed by Mark Jacobson.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Hello.

My name is Jill Colacerto, and I'm a consulting teacher on the Seattle Public Schools Restorative Practices Team.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you all.

I'm a licensed social worker, and prior to this, I was a child welfare social worker for 14 years.

The outcomes for the students I served were directly tied to the relationships they had within their schools.

Even one relationship with an adult at school was lifesaving for the young people that I served.

Restorative practices is humanizing work.

It builds community between colleagues, students, and communities.

Foundationally, this is what we all need, especially in a time when there is so much violence and loss in our communities.

RP at its heart centers relationship and connection.

It creates capacity and pathways for people to build relationship and come together when hard things happen.

Please support Amendment 7 and help us continue this work.

As a district team of four serving over 100 schools, we need our RP coordinators and our community partners.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yuna, Catherine, and then Mark.

Good morning, city council members.

I am here as a community member, as well as a youth organizer that deeply cares about our young people.

And I urge you to support amendments one, five, seven, and eight, as well as this levy to continue the amazing work the young people of this city have paved for us.

I would also like to remind y'all that back in 2020, over 20,000 signatures were signed to petition to get SROs out of our schools.

Students have repeatedly told me that they wanna feel safe at schools.

And I believe that these restorative justice practices, ensuring that they have access to food and holistically supporting them will create that safe environment.

Bringing a gun to school does not create a safe environment.

We need to continue to do this healing work and believe that our youth know what they want.

So please, I urge you to support the amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine, Mark, and then Sujean Ishiguro.

Hello, council members.

I'm going to be reading a statement from a student at Franklin High School, Fatra Hussein, in support of amendments one, five, seven, and eight.

Fatra says, restorative practices, food access, legal aid, and supportive school environments all play a critical role in creating safety and belonging for students.

Amendment one clarifies that levy funds should not be used to support systems that contribute to the school to prison pipeline.

This amendment does not prevent law enforcement from being present near schools or responding to crisis in the buildings.

Non-punitive safety and security measures also include strengthening physical safety in schools through sustainable infrastructure investments, key card access systems, intercoms, and staff training can improve emergency response and daily safety, and need dedicated funding and staffing to avoid overboarding school personnel.

And finally, it's important to have clear accountability and oversight when it comes to school safety and the current Thank you.

Mark, Sue Jean, and then Tim Warden-Hertz.

Mark?

Hello, thank you.

First of all, I seek justice for Ammar Murphy Payne.

One year after he was murdered in the parking lot of Garfield High School in the middle of a school day, still no suspects have been charged.

Contrary to the preponderance of what you've been hearing today, we've heard as recently as this week that the vast majority of concerned students, parents, the teachers, and principal of Garfield High School, the PTSA, all are aligned in favor of returning SROs to our schools to make them safe again.

I urge you as a parent of two Garfield High School students to reject or amend the language of any of the amendments, one, five, seven, or eight, that in any way discourage the SROs returning to school because otherwise there'll be a council level discourages the returning of these officers that are needed in our schools.

We need both.

We need all the restorative justice practices and SROs back in school.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sujean, Tim Warden-Hertz, and then Jamie Feckler.

Sujean.

Good morning, my name is Sujin Ishiguro.

I identify as a female, a person of color, and an Asian American.

I'm an incoming parent of a freshman at Garfield High School.

I'm here to urge you to support bringing school engagement officers back to Garfield in addition to continued investment in community and mental health safety efforts.

I'll be honest, I looked at private schools this past year because of the safety aspect at Garfield.

And I hate to say it, but a lot of the private schools don't even have to think about this safety issue.

The problem at Garfield is outside of the school, not inside.

And I, excuse me, I attended the Seattle School Board meeting last week.

I listened to the current Garfield principal in addition to the previous Garfield principal, and I'm running out of time, but ultimately my son is going to Garfield next year to support their academic diversity.

Thank you.

You can send in your comments.

Thank you, Jamie.

Are you Jamie?

Are you Jamie?

Oh, you're next, and I don't have you, I don't think, on the list.

Oh, I said it?

Oh, Tim.

I'm so sorry, Tim.

Go ahead, Tim.

Tim Warden.

Apologies.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

My name is Tim Warden-Hertz.

I'm a directing attorney at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

I think, as you all know, immigrant communities are under attack.

We're seeing detentions at the immigration court just down the hill from here.

We're seeing raids at workplaces and workers not coming home to their families.

We're seeing kids getting harassed by armed immigration officers under the guise of welfare checks.

This is the moment for Seattle to step up.

I'm here to urge your support for Amendments 1578. I was here before this council recently, and the council unanimously supported a resolution reaffirming Seattle's status as a welcoming city.

This is the chance to continue to step up, to approve these amendments, and give the voters in Seattle the chance to improve these essential services for families that are so under attack by this presidential amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim.

Jamie?

Go ahead, Jamie.

Sorry, I thought I was ready.

Jamie Fackler, I'm a candidate for Seattle City Council District Two, proudly endorsed by MLK Labor and 37th Dems.

Here in my personal capacity, I'm a parent of a student who attends extracurricular activities at Garfield High School and a former PTA co-president of Thurgood Marshall Elementary.

Our son does not attend Garfield academically.

We attend a different school where there are robust mentorship programs and mental health services that work to, you know, develop social-emotional skills with children.

That is the stuff that is actually transformative.

That is the good stuff that is in this levy.

I stand here as a member of the Keep Our Promise Coalition and in support of Council Member Rink's amendments 1, 5, 7, and...

Well, all of her amendments, actually.

But here also that, you know, I don't think any of us have gotten through this without some mentorship and some coaching and support from other people.

You know, as folks have said, all the shootings have occurred outside of Garfield, not inside the school.

So it's important to recognize.

Thank you, Jamie.

And then we'll go.

We have one last speaker, Lori Ross.

Lori, if you're there, can you please press star six so we can hear you?

Laurie, I'm so sorry.

Please send in your written comment.

We are not able to hear you.

So if you would please send in your written comment, we would be so happy to read it.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, we got through everybody.

So thank you for your patience.

There are no additional speakers.

The public comment period is now closed.

All right.

Now we'll proceed to our item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

Agenda item one, council bill 120981, an ordinance relating to regular property taxes, requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 4th, 2025 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the city, a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter and to authorize the city to levy additional taxes for up to six years for the purpose of providing education support services designated to improve access to early learning including childcare and preschool, academic, health, and safety supports for K-12 students, and college and career pathways for Seattle students, applying the exemption for low-income seniors, disabled veterans, and others authorized by RCW 84.36.381, authorizing a creation of a designated fund, directing the application of levy proceeds, establishing eligibility requirements for partners, establishing accountability and reporting structures, requiring a forthcoming implementation and evaluation plan, proposing a ballot title, authorizing the implementation of agreements for this levy-lid lift, which will be commonly known as the Family's Education Preschool and Promise Levy, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

This item has been read into the record.

Good morning, colleagues.

I feel like it's graduation day.

Thank you all for being here today.

This meeting gets us one step closer to putting this important levy on the ballot.

We will be voting on the underlying legislation and its amendments today.

The legislation will then move on to full council for a June 17th vote.

This renewal will help more kids than ever before.

It doubles affordable childcare slots to benefit even more kids and their working family.

It increases access across the city to our award-winning Seattle preschool program, adding hundreds more slots.

It will fund more of the highly utilized school-based health centers and will provide needed mental health care, both in person and via telehealth.

It continues universal access to a free two-year college degree and adds more pathways to the trades through the popular Seattle Promise program.

This last point is especially meaningful to me and I will be hands-on with the Department of Education and Early Learning deal, as we affectionately call it, and our labor partners while we develop the implementation plan.

These investments have made and will make meaningful, long-lasting, positive differences in the lives of kids.

That is why Seattle voters have come to value and trust this levy.

It benefits kids and directly supports their educational achievement.

It is important to me to preserve the integrity of this levy by not deviating from this course.

If levy investments are changed to support adults and not kids, we would be completely altering the scope of the levy beyond its historical use.

As I noted at our last meeting, this levy is already more than double the current 2018 levy investment.

There is plenty of funding to express your policy and investment priorities colleagues in the implementation and evaluation plan.

And just as in 2018, there will be a robust and public process for creating an implementation plan after DEAL has engaged with stakeholders and community members in a robust way.

More worth mentioning in the context of our conversation today is the discussion from the most recent school board meeting from June 12th, where Seattle Public Schools discuss safety measures for students and schools, including school resource officers, which SPS is calling school engagement officers.

At this meeting, SPS presented the top five safety recommendations for Garfield High School to keep their community safe.

These include increased security specialist staffing, community passageways partnership, student coaches slash case management, restorative practices, and regular SPD presence.

Garfield doesn't just want one of these things, they want all five.

It was meaningful to hear former Garfield principal, now current SPS administrator, Ted Howard, advocate for listening to students and community.

As he put it, and I quote, when we talk about racism and equity, no one can talk for somebody else, end quote.

Terrence Hart, the current principal of Garfield, who I had the pleasure of meeting last week, was very clear that officers would be there to build relationships with and support students like they had done in the past when Garfield had their SRO.

And I quote, Principal Hart saying, there is no way that as a black man, I will allow an SEO to run amok on our campus disrespectful and doing harm to our students, end quote.

Colleagues, the school district and the school communities, including students, parents, teachers, administrators themselves want many strategies, as do we all.

It's not our place to tell which strategies to use or which strategies to prioritize.

That is a decision for the district and the students and the school communities to make.

As an SPS mom whose children were in lockdown when a child was murdered in their school, I am in no position to tell any school what they should do to keep our students safe.

None of us are.

And here's a final point.

We need to acknowledge that students have serious needs.

Last year, 68% of fourth graders were not proficient in reading, and 70% of eighth graders were not proficient in math, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

That is why the levy's educational investments are critically needed so our kids can be successful in school and have access to good paying jobs across the city or anywhere they choose to be.

This is a moment for us to come together and get this levy on the ballot and then work through an implementation process that keeps our kids in the forefront.

All right, we're gonna move on now to our voting.

I am moving, I'm gonna move the bill for passage and then we're gonna go through the amendments.

After I move the bill, I'll talk about how the amendments are gonna flow.

I move the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120981. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

All right, here's how we're gonna do the amendments.

Council members will move their amendments in numerical order.

After receiving a second, central staff will provide a very brief overview of the amendment, and after central staff's brief overview, the sponsor will address the amendment.

After the sponsor addresses their amendment, we will open it up for discussion before voting.

These steps will be repeated for each proposed amendment until we get through all 12 amendments.

We will now begin with Amendment 1. Council Member Rink, you are recognized in order to move Amendment 1.

I move Amendment 1 as presented.

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 1. Central staff, will you please provide us with an overview after you state your name for the record?

Thank you, Jasmine.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Jasmine Marwaha on your Council Central Staff.

Right now, we have Amendment 1 sponsored by Council Member Rink.

This amendment would clarify that the priorities and implementation principles intended to be advanced by the levy would promote equitable access to services for historically underserved communities and ensure that safety investments in the levy prioritize addressing root causes of violence, non-punitive approaches, and do not contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline.

This list is intended to be high-level guidance and does not bind the Council to funding any specific services.

Councilmember Rinke, sponsor of this amendment, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that overview, Jasmine.

Colleagues, we've heard from over a month now, this Families Education Preschool Promise Levy is a deep investment into the future of our city's kiddos, as well as current families and students trying to forge a better path for themselves through education and working.

This is a vital levy that has already changed thousands of lives.

and will continue to do so.

And I'm committed to ensuring that we incorporate feedback from those most impacted, folks in schools, and the people who are doing the work at the level.

And for that reason, I worked with community partners, including all the members of the Keep Your Promise Coalition to ensure their voices were reflected in this levy renewal process, I and the community members have emailed offices and showed up in support for public comment and would appreciate your support on all my amendments today, but just starting off with Amendment 1 as moved.

This amendment puts the safety of students first and protects them as places of learning and safe spaces that will not be interrupted by fear.

We want to ensure safety in a holistic standpoint, as has mentioned before.

The yes and approach allows our students to know that they will not be unnecessarily penalized or criminalized.

This amendment also ensures that we are stating outright that this levy that is designed to achieve educational equity commits to doing so in writing.

And I'll close with these points.

Pardon me.

The safety around schools bucket of this proposed levy is new.

This is an expansion to the levy.

And to be very clear, this is a policy change This isn't something the levy has historically funded.

We've had a lot of discussion about the body and scope of the levy and the level of detail we provide at this level and stage, especially before the INE report is developed.

But colleagues, the detail we haven't gotten is the detail of how The proposed S-E-O program cannot be funded through SPD's current $457.9 million budget.

This is the biggest budget in SPD history, with nearly 60 million more than in 2019. And as was stated, this amendment does not prevent the SCO pilot program from going forward.

If this is a priority, I'm positive the executive and SPD will work with council and the school board to provide justification on how within a $457.9 million budget, we can carve out that funding for the pilot SCO program.

but I think we need to be clear with voters if this levy is adding funding to the SPD budget, and I ask you all, is that your intent?

This amendment provides clarity.

I think the SCO discussion is important and should be done in partnership with school communities and communities most impacted and the school board.

There aren't easy answers here, and I know we all want safety for our students, but I think we should be clear with voters here, and I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Ring.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized to speak.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I wanted to speak to this amendment.

First, there's a number of edits, recommendations regarding equity.

And, you know, I support those pieces.

In fact, I believe the entire levy is an equity levy.

really helping those underserved across the board.

You know, from the Seattle Promise Program, it's a perfect example, you know, reaching those communities that don't traditionally go to college one way or another.

And that's just like a perfect example.

And then the preschool program.

I view this entire levy as an equity levy.

With respect to amendment number one, the issue really comes down to the number three, para B number three, ensure that safety investments prioritize addressing the root causes of violence and non-punitive approaches and do not contribute to the school to prison pipeline.

In one sense, that's pretty straightforward, particularly the front half.

The challenge, though, is the line, the words, and do not contribute to the school to prison pipeline.

The issue is it's straightforward in one sense, but actually holding a lot between each and every word.

And an example of that is two email letters that we received as a council from Seattle School Board members, including the Vice President, District 3, Ms. Briggs, and District Position 4, Mr. Mizrahi.

In that email, it's totally focused on this point.

It's totally focused on the question of SROs or SCOs.

It's totally focused on the presence of SPD, which highlights the fact that there's a lot between every word in that part of the amendment.

But here's the challenge.

It talks about adding increased police presence.

Well, no, we don't have any.

And it says there's nothing to address.

the issues in terms of safety at schools.

As we heard in public comment, in terms of the number of incidents post the polling of the SROs compared to prior, that is something.

And later it's talking about evidence-based strategies and the like.

I'll be honest, that's become a throwaway term, evidence-based.

You can argue evidence-based came out of public comment, highlighting that these incidents came after the change.

They noted, you know, strong partnerships with organizations like community passageways.

I think that's really important.

Um, but then talked about, you must work to interrupt this school to prison pipeline, not reinforce it.

The implication that it's totally focused on SPD police officers, SRO, SEO programs.

And then later highlights in this letter email, you know, the need to take a more holistic and equitable approach to public safety, holistic, would require, as mentioned by chair, all the different aspects that are in play.

Each school, each neighborhood has unique pieces, but you have to have all these pieces in play and available.

And then for the position four representative, Mr. Mizrahi, you go straight.

Amendment one is particularly vital.

So, and then right next goes, cannot use levy funds used for punitive measures ensures that we align with best practices of supporting youth.

I would argue creating a safe environment for our youth is the best practice.

And then it goes, protecting students from criminalization.

That's a loaded term.

And that's a loaded approach, that's a loaded, you know, position related to SROs, SEOs, and the overall topic.

My recommendation to the two board members is to go to Seattle Channel and listen to Chief Barnes, a former SRO himself, former teacher himself, who spoke to this during Tuesday's Public Safety Committee meeting in our first confirmation hearing.

It is really important, and he is a key person in this.

It is really important for everyone to go to that committee meeting on Seattle Channel and watch it.

He was agenda number three.

And I recognize this is a sensitive topic.

You know, we work safety as a council across the board.

But it also includes school safety.

You know, that's my charge as chair of public safety.

And I'm looking to create, as part of our strategic framework plan, the opportunity to increase safety across our city.

But that also includes for our schools.

I also note in one of the letters talking about community safety, community passageways, that's important.

And we're gonna be looking at that from the Public Safety Committee perspective later this summer, looking at how that process is.

Because it's kind of not been really looked at in terms of is it nested with the overall security approach that we have as a city?

Is it part of the One Seattle approach?

Is it part of the strategic plan?

Is it aligned with the other alternative response?

We've been doing a lot of focus on care, Health 190-90, the different elements of alternative response.

But in fact, community safety is another element of alternative response, but it's on the ground, community base, and the like.

And I think it's really important, but it's also very important for us to ensure that it's achieving its goals, that it's achieving what we need to do.

Because this is at the bottom of this is we can't have true school safety if we don't have true school neighborhood safety.

And there's a lot of pieces to that.

There's a role for the city in that.

And I recognize the challenges related to the school board and the school system on this piece.

But I just want to say that I am committed as Chair of Public Safety to be working those pieces and to work the whole elements as noted in Tuesday's Public Safety Committee meeting.

And my recommendation, colleagues, is that we vote no on this amendment for the basic fact that The amendment and that line is straightforward, but every word holds a lot in between, and I think we need to avoid that because we won't get to a safe place if we start restricting ourselves.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Saka?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I echo the sentiment expressed by our Public Safety Chair in his word by word, provision by provision analysis of the proposed amendment.

From my perspective, I think, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, but as I mentioned last time, the impact and the import of this amendment, I find very troubling.

unlike every other amendment put forth.

Which builds upon.

The the levy adds to supplements.

I think this proposed amendment.

Is extremely limiting, extremely restrictive.

And.

I'm not prepared to tell the families of parents at Garfield, for example, know that they don't get, they don't deserve, nor should they be funded, school resource officers or SEOs.

This levy, if passed by voters, even in the absence of this amendment number one passing, It's not gonna unlock the door to wide-scale mass deployment of police in every school, in every neighborhood, in elementary schools, no.

What we're talking about here is an opportunity for limited use in a trial manner where the community clearly demands these kind of resources.

A few months ago, we passed a resolution calling for support for our first responders, calling for a balanced, holistic approach to public safety.

I think this proposed amendment runs directly counter to the spirit, goals, and intent of that legislation.

Yes.

equitable priorities and principles should control.

And they will, even in the absence of this legislation.

But aggrieved families, like those of Ammar Murphy Payne, deserve answers.

And it is not equitable that his killer, is still on the streets and his parents can't sleep at night.

It is not equitable that Seattle's first homicide victim in 2024 in my district, Mubarak Adhan, 15-year-old Chief South International High School student.

No one knows what happened to him, probably won't know.

That's not equitable.

Black and brown people were overrepresented in the criminal legal justice system, were disproportionately impacted by gun violence.

Policing, when responsibly deployed, is a part of the solution.

I'm not prepared to tell the families at Garfield or any school, for that matter, that is strongly clamoring for this kind of tech or these kind of resources, no.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment, but I do appreciate the intent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

I want to lighten the mood because I know we can go on and on and there's a lot for us to get through.

So I appreciate the spirit of this.

I would be comfortable voting for this if we made a verbal change to the amendment that I would like to offer my colleagues to see if that would if we can find common ground here, okay?

So the first piece, I'm offering for it to say historically excluded communities.

I don't believe the communities are underserved.

I mean that they're historically excluded because they're under-resourced.

So that's the first change that I would like to offer.

I'm sorry.

So instead of historically underserved, it'd be historically excluded.

Yeah, it'd be historically excluded instead of underserved.

So historically excluded communities.

And then the second, it's just a little technical change.

And then the second piece would be, okay, we keep ensuring the safety investments prioritize addressing the root causes of violence and non-punitive approaches.

And it would be excluding the prison to pipeline piece.

So we would take that out.

And what we would add would be including but not limited to restorative practices.

That would be my offer to the body for this amendment.

I'm sorry, Nicole or Amelia, if you could get me a USB drive, I can fix it and then I can put it up on the screen if you want.

a USB drive so I can take this and put it here.

Just give me like 30 seconds.

I don't mean to change it.

She recommended it, but is that an official motion?

That is an official motion of mine.

Sorry.

For the record, that's an official motion of mine to change from historically underserved communities to historically excluded communities, and then the next piece of adding the striking the school-to-prison pipeline and just saying, including but not limited to restorative practices.

That is my official motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Do people have comments or questions about this proposal?

And if I may, Madam Chair, what I'm trying to get to is to encompass all the things that I've heard our colleagues say, what I've heard from our people in the community, and also the parents at Garfield, the principals, that this is a holistic approach.

It would not be...

the language that Councilmember Kettle spoke to or Councilmember Saka, it would take out the piece where it might discourage community resource officers.

So that is my offer to the body.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

I have some comments.

I really appreciate your trying to bring some compromise to this amendment.

So I just want to say it's unfortunate that restorative justice, restorative services are being pitted against SROs.

These are all different strategies for how to deal and manage a situation at the schools.

They are all needed.

As I read earlier, there are five strategies that Garfield is putting forth to address safety.

So the idea that we would pit one against the other is troubling to me.

There is nothing in this levy.

DEAL will do the stakeholder process and the community engagement, including with the district, the parents, the schools, community-based organizations, to get to what these K-12 investments will be.

And I don't think that it is equitable for us to be prioritizing one of those strategies over another without Deal having done that stakeholdering work with all the stakeholders involved to get to what is needed.

Just because Garfield has indicated and Principal Hart has indicated they want SEOs doesn't mean that's gonna happen.

All of this work needs to go.

But what we shouldn't be doing as a body, a legislative body for the city, who are not the school district or the school board, all the students, we may be parents of Seattle Public School students, is directing what they do without doing that work.

Because there's room for all of these strategies.

So why would we, I'm not in favor of prioritizing SEOs over anything else.

So my point simply is, I'm going to be voting no.

I'm sorry, Council Member Hollingsworth.

I appreciate you trying to change the language to bring some compromise.

What is troubling to me is the prioritization of one strategy over another.

I support restorative justice practices.

In fact, I support anything and everything.

that will help keep our students safe.

So again, this is why I kept encouraging us to save all this for the implementation process because it gives the department actually the ability and to come to what is, what has to your point, Councilmember Kettle, the evidence-based piece.

What do community members want?

We don't know.

And we are not the school board, by the way.

The schools have to work with the school board to change the laws that the school board put in place.

That's not our responsibility.

And so we shouldn't be prioritizing this in this levy.

And one last thing I'll say in general, This levy, it's a huge levy, and this is a really small part of this levy.

So we need to let this implementation process and stakeholding process play out.

So that deal can tell us what they're hearing.

And here's what we, you know, we propose as a department who's doing this work is best for this levy.

And at that point, you can offer an amendment to include whatever it is you want that maybe you don't see in there.

But I think this is putting the cart before the horse.

Council member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

You know, it's interesting to go through the process, the legislative, the parliamentary process, and just little things like excluded versus underserved.

You know, it's interesting to me, like, what does that mean?

And as somebody who obviously didn't grow up in this kind of environment or these kind of these communities, it's interesting to me.

And it's a, you know, it's a learning point.

So I appreciate Council Member Hollingsworth on that, you know, because it's something to reflect on and, you know, make us think, particularly somebody who's come from my background in terms of race particularly.

On the change for number three, there's two things.

One is I agree that we do need to address the root causes of violence, and that's really important.

You know, that's kind of the goal piece.

Often my concern with elements of the, you know, our Seattle communities is that oftentimes we generally have a wish strategy to get there.

Like we wish these things to happen.

And that's something that I look to avoid like with our plan within public safety.

And at this age, non-punitive, we look to do that and have that.

So with the change, including but not limited to restorative practices, in my mind, doesn't constrict.

It does give a shout out to restorative practices, which will be coming up in the next or later amendment.

And so, Chair, recognizing the points you made, I will support Council Member Hollingsworth's amended amendment of Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Frankly, I don't know where in this discussion my comments truly belong, but I just wanted to note that you, Chair Rivera, hit the nail on the head when you noted what we're really here to do today, which is to vote on a levy that addresses some serious issues in our education system, and I'm speaking here right now about the kids that, for whatever reason, need academic help.

And I imagine that the average taxpayer agrees that this levy is absolutely necessary as it provides early learning opportunities and resources, K-12 programming and postgraduate assistance, and also career readiness and other pathways.

And so that's what we should be focusing on, and that's what this levy is about today, not the specific programming that we'll have the opportunity to address when we approve the implementation plan.

After the stakeholdering among parents, subject matter experts, student organizations, district officials, et cetera, has been done.

And while not necessarily eliminating the possibility of SROs in some schools, this amendment is not neutral.

And that's what we need to be right now.

because it's not our place to weigh in on this issue right now.

It's clearly, it's not necessarily, it's not controversial, but the issue of school safety is a bigger conversation and does require, as you just noted, or somebody else did, agreements between the city and the school district, et cetera.

So what I am just trying to say, I mean, well, let me note that when it comes to the topic of, when it comes to this topic, the opinions vary quite widely.

We did receive an email from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility arguing against SROs in school.

We have received, we've heard testimony and passion testimony from advocates and employees of restorative practices, nonprofits, and also the testimony of parents whose kids live with the threat of violence or violence every day going to school and your testimony as well.

So I'm just saying that I really appreciate Council Member Hollingsworth, your olive branch that you are offering here.

And I come back again to saying that it is, even that this discussion is better had when we discuss the implementation plan, just because it does distract from what we are trying to do today, which is get a levy before our taxpayers and make sure that it passes.

Thank you, council member Nelson, council member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

So, yeah, I want to echo the comments that you have made and the comments that Council President Nelson has made.

And I did want to say thank you to Council Member Rankin, Allingsworth.

But I, too, am of that position that we shouldn't be...

It's premature for us to be prioritizing.

And what I can say is, as somebody who served as a judge, in King County Superior Court, and every week, on every Friday, I had a sentencing calendar where I had to send people to prison for many, many, many years.

And most of the people I sent to prison were black males.

And it was disheartening and really felt like we were just part of a grind.

But what I have to say I noticed was the common factor for so many of those individuals was a lack of education.

They had not been able to finish, they didn't have a GED, they hadn't finished high school, some of them hadn't even finished middle school.

And to me, the most important anti-violence, anti-poverty tool is education.

Education, education, education, and mentoring as part of that, and the community wrapping their arms around our students.

in the ways that this levy attempts to do.

And this will get to my points later on about why I'm not voting for well-intentioned amendments that increase the size of the levy, because I'm concerned that with the financial pressures that we have out there, that that might jeopardize the levy to increase it.

And it is the best thing that we can do for our community and to turn the trajectory around is to provide for education and for support.

And to do anything that I think does not do that or jeopardizes that is a disservice to the larger issues that we are attempting to address.

And when I look at this language, when we say ensure that safety investments prioritize addressing the root causes of violence, I'm not quite sure how they do that.

When the root cause is poverty, when the root cause is lack of education, you know, lack of health care, lack of food, right?

So again, we need to keep our eye on the prize here, which is getting this over the finish line.

And then at that point, we can begin these discussions, these important discussions about implementation and prioritization and making sure that we have restorative justice, making sure that we have you know, support for our immigrant families, making sure that we have food, all of these other things, and the ability to provide for SERS or SEOs, you know, those are also an important component.

So for those reasons, I will be voting against the thoughtful amendment as well as to the other amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

And before I let you, Council Member Hollingsworth, close out if you have any more comments.

If not, we can...

Yeah, I don't have any more comments.

Yeah, I do want to say that I said this last time we went through the amendments, but just did want to underscore Deputy Mayor Washington's point about, you know, this language got added to in some way reflect, some of this language anyway, the race and social justice component.

And as she said, there was no undermining of or a lack of commitment on hers or the mayor's or Director Chappelle's part to racial equity or on my part for that matter.

And as someone who has been here through the entirety of the last seven year levy, working with Deal actually this entire time, I know their commitment to race and social justice.

So I just, for those reasons, the entire levy focuses and prioritizes kids most in need and has, there was a racial equity toolkit done there is a strong commitment.

So I feel this amendment also undercuts that fact that all that work has been done and will continue to be done as if some sense, or as if it's not being done and in some way it's not gonna get done.

It will get done.

And so I wanted to say that as well and raise the voice of Deputy Mayor Washington as well because I know they are committed to to our kids, to our RSJ efforts as a city.

So anyway, let's clerk take the vote on Council Member Hollingsworth verbal amendment to amendment one.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

No.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Abstain.

Councilmember Solomon.

Oh, excuse me.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

And Charity Veda.

No.

We have four in favor, three opposed, and one abstention.

Okay.

The verbal amendment passes, and we can get to the vote on the underlying amendment number one is amended by the verbal amendment.

Yep.

I apologize, I missed that.

This is the vote for amendment one as amended?

As amended by the verbal amendment.

And council member Nelson, is that an old hand?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Moore.

Abstain.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Sacca.

Abstain.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

No.

We have four in favor, two opposed, and two abstentions.

Okay, so now one sec, let me get back to my script.

All right.

The motion, sorry.

The motion carries and amendment one is adopted.

We are gonna go to amendment two.

Council member Saka, would you like to move amendment two?

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you.

I moved to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on amendment two.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on amendment two.

Jasmine, please provide us with a brief overview.

Amendment 2 would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the FEP levy under the early childhood category.

A feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool and subsidized preschool costs for families where SPP slots are unavailable.

This list is a non-exhaustive list and intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported by the levy but does not bind the council to funding those services.

Council Member Saka, you were recognized to talk about your amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues.

My hope is this one would be a little more straightforward.

Hopefully this one and the next few will be able to sail right through.

But this proposed amendment builds upon decades and decades of studies and research that makes clear that investing in universal pre-K or preschool is considered one of the best economic investments with the return of $7 or more for every dollar invested.

We know, and I couldn't agree more with my colleague, Councilmember Moore, a moment ago, education, is and does address the root causes of crime.

I would also add that jobs and economic opportunities directly address the root causes of crime.

And when we talk about the need, the imperative to prevent the school to prison pipeline, for example, we know, because evidence tells us, data tells us, that children who have been exposed to preschool, pre-K curricula, programming of any sort, their outcomes in education and in life are better.

Their high school completion rates higher.

College entrance rates, higher.

College graduation rates, higher.

Average yearly salary, higher.

Chances that they'll end up jailed at some point, lower.

So we need to put Seattle on a path to join jurisdictions like New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco and Denver and others.

who have taken significant strides to build true universal preschool for all programs.

And the sad truth is that if this levy were $2 billion or $3 billion, it still likely wouldn't get us there.

But we need to do something, and that's something here I submit as providing for a feasibility study to find the path that will allow us to do more.

Because education and economic opportunity are and do directly address root causes.

For those reasons, colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sacca.

Any questions, colleagues?

All right.

Seeing none...

I have a question.

Sorry.

I don't see your hand, Council Member Moore.

Go ahead.

That's fine.

My question is, this seems to me to be two separate pieces.

One is the...

feasibility study and then the second piece is to subsidize preschool costs for families where the slots are unavailable or I guess or not the ones that the families are choosing is that correct is it two separate things that this amendment is doing yes Okay, may I make a motion?

So again, I very much support, I think we've talked about this, the need for universal preschool and childcare, and I very much support that and support a feasibility study.

However, I have concerns about the second piece, and so what I would request or propose is that we make this two separate amendments.

So my motion would be to separate this and to have Amendment 1 be services may further include a feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool.

One motion, second motion would be subsidized preschool costs for families where preschool program slots are unavailable, second amendment.

This is a request to divide the question and as long as they can pose two different questions, the motion can be divided into two motions.

So the first motion would be to take up the first part of the sentence and then the second motion would be to take up the second part.

So the question then would revert to the current motion before us would be the first part of the sentence ending at preschool.

Correct.

Second.

Into two, yeah, it's into two motions, correct.

Motions or amendments because they're trying to vote on things separately.

Yeah, so the first question is going to be whether or not services may further include a feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschools.

That would be the first question.

Once we dispose that question, then we'll move into the second motion, which Council Member Saka would move that second part, which would be then to subsidize preschool costs for families where Seattle preschools program slots are unavailable.

Okay.

All right.

So Council Member Moore has made a motion, and it has been seconded, to separate out the two parts of this amendment.

So we will discuss now keeping just a feasibility study as the first motion, and then we'll get to the second motion.

Are there any, I see Council Member Kettle, did you wanna talk about this or the underlying amendment?

Okay, go ahead, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I, like Council Member Moore, had the same challenge with this amendment.

I do support the feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool.

As a father of a daughter who's gonna finish fourth grade, I'm not far removed from preschool.

I'm pretty close to it and saw the importance of preschool.

And understand the value of it and how a universal preschool would be advantageous to our city.

But the second part is signing us up for costs, that's the challenge.

If the second part was to be included in the study, then I would have been okay with the amendment.

The second part is the challenge, and so I support Council Member Moore and what she's looking to do so we have an understanding of you know, the second part that is in the amendment and that what council member Moore addressed.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

Any other comments about the first motion?

I will say that I support and council member Saka, you and I have had so many conversations about universal preschool and we both support this and we wish we could do this.

I will say that, and I know we were not able to talk earlier in the week, but we were going to talk about this.

I was going to propose the same separating out because the second part I think is as worrisome in terms of its impact to the providers.

So I support.

separating it out so we can vote on them separately.

But I really thank you and I admire your passion and share your passion for preschool and the importance of it, particularly when we talk about what kids need and what has long-term success for all kids.

Early learning has been proven to really make that big difference and impact.

And I agree with you, it dovetails Council Member more into what you were saying about education, education, education.

I'm living proof that education was the key out of poverty in my family.

So anyway, okay, then let's take the vote.

I'm keeping the first part, which says a feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool.

So the vote colleagues is, do you want to keep that in the amendment?

Correction, the motion, the vote you're going to be taking right now is only going to be on the first part of the sentence, which is services may further include a feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool, period.

That is what we're voting on right now.

Okay.

It's highlighted on the screen as well.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

I apologize.

Just a point of clarity.

We're voting on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Sacca.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

And Charity Veda.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Aye.

Now we will vote on the second part, which is, do you want to keep the subsidized preschool costs for families where Seattle preschool program slots are unavailable?

Any comments?

Any comments?

Council member Saka.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I apparently misspoke earlier when I said this was going to be fairly straightforward.

but all good, we've got all day.

So, yeah, in any event.

And I also didn't get to the second component of my talking points on this, which I realized after the fact.

In any event, let me just share briefly my thinking on this.

Again, we know every child deserves the same exact start.

This would help in part level the playing field.

But areas with access to the current Seattle Promise Program centers often overlap with under-resourced communities.

And subsidized preschool helps close opportunity gaps before they widen.

And we understand that the importance of the SPP program are the high quality curriculum.

However, not all families live close to SPP slots or they might not choose those SPP programs for whatever reason for childcare and preschool options that might not be the best fit for their family.

So this is to ensure that those families who need subsidies and want better choice and access for preschool can receive them in areas where SPP slots are not close by.

And I heard a concern lurking about costs.

Colleagues, I remind you, my amendments are cost neutral.

Zero cost.

Zero would add nothing.

I made the decision to not add $1 to my proposed amendments.

Zero cost.

on top of it would be inclusive.

So again, this amendment is about maximizing choice and flexibility for families.

It's another way of putting money directly in the hands of families in need to care for their child and make the best determination of what childcare arrangement works best for their families, especially for those that don't live close to SPP programs or think it makes sense for their family for whatever reason.

That's what this amendment is about.

I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Nelson, is that an old hand or a new hand?

Go ahead.

I really appreciate the spirit of what you're trying to do here, and I want to note that providing childcare is one of the big lifts that the Office of Economic Development has identified in the future of Seattle economy as something that we must focus on for all the reasons that you said.

I am concerned that if we study diverting money from the levy to any kind of preschool.

I understand that the existing preschools that aren't necessarily available to all parents, but I was just talking to the machinists the other day and they were talking about there are off hours that are really difficult.

And what happens when you go to work at a four in the morning, for example.

And so I think that there is space to really look at how do we provide for those families and not risk the muddying, the brand, for lack of a better word, of the award-winning preschool that this levy already provides for and pays for and what would happen if it starts to diverge, if the support from the levy starts to diverge from that program.

So I'm just a little bit nervous about what this will signal or what it means to people who are perhaps really voting on this levy because they're really motivated by access to the preschool program.

So again, I appreciate your efforts and I'm just gonna, I will have to be voting no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

Councilmember Moore.

Yeah, thank you.

And again, sympathetic to this issue.

I spend a lot of time trying to find childcare preschool for my three children and driving around the city, so I'm very much supportive of the idea, and I think that this is something that ought to be part of the feasibility study.

My concern is about, as articulated by both Council President and Chair Rivera, about diverting funds.

I'm worried about diverting funds from the providers And I'm also, frankly, a little bit worried about if we do this, there's less pressure on deal.

One of the things that we talked about in...

Preschool program slots in the north end where there's a desperate need for them and I want DEAL to make sure, I want to make sure the pressure is on DEAL to actually locate these slots where there's a great need for them and so that's why I think it's important to separate these and unfortunately I can't support this at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Moore.

Let's make sure there are no hands up here, other hands up.

I don't see any other hands up.

Oh, council member Strauss.

Oh, thank you, chair.

Thank you, council member Saka for bringing this amendment forward.

You've been a consistent supporter of preschool and childcare access.

It has actually, this is maybe the third time that you've been supporting this.

It is a consistent championship of a resource that we know Seattleites need for the adults to be able to go to work, for the adults to pick up the groceries, for the adults to be able to do anything, really, at certain times of their life.

I've heard colleagues say that they would not support increasing the levy, and I've also heard concerns about diverting funds.

Where we are today is a moment that we need to stand together to support childcare access, and that's why I'll be supporting your amendment today.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Any other comments here?

I will say that we're all in agreement about childcare access.

That's why it's being doubled in this levy, and we have hundreds more of preschool slots.

We all, that was when I had my individual conversations with all of you, this was something that was really important to all of you, and it is equally important to the mayor, so there was a lot of alignment here.

On the preschool, this particular aspect, Councilmember Saka, I... I would have preferred to have had the conversation with deal to do more research on this, to see the feasibility and its actual impact on the providers because the way the providers are set up, this could be, And I think it will divert funds from the providers and it will have an impact, which is why when I came here in January, I talked to Deal about how can we get slots where slots are needed if they're underutilized in one area of the city.

But the providers really rely on these funds to stay open.

And I have concerns that this will have that impact without having done that deal, having had the opportunity to do that work.

to figure out what the impacts will be, it might mean that it has a severe impact on a provider or some of the providers.

And so I won't be voting for this, but I very much care about the flexibility, which is I think what you were trying to create with this, if I'm not wrong, and happy to to keep working on that.

But that is a concern I have.

So thank you.

Oh, council member Nelson.

Just a point of, I have a- Just a second, council member Nelson.

I just see council member Rink's hand is up.

Thank you, chair.

I just wanted to quickly take a moment to thank Council Member Saka for bringing this amendment forward.

I think it's really thoughtful and forward thinking about what the future of our investments could look like.

I think this is a fantastic first step to really explore.

And I'm certainly curious about what kind of findings could come from a feasibility study like this.

And I want to thank you for being forward thinking and I will be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, I'm wondering if Jasmine, do you have a sense of how many of our preschool providers are unionized?

I do not know that off the top of my head.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Council Member Nelson, thank you.

I don't see any other hands, so let's move forward with the vote on whether you want to include this highlighted and subsidized preschool cost for families where Seattle preschool program slots are unavailable.

If you wanna keep this in the amendment.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

Council Member Moore.

Can we clarify what the vote is in?

It's on the second part of the sentence.

No, we're not keeping it.

It's a yes to retain it and a no to delete it.

Thank you, so no.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

Nay.

Three in favor and five opposed.

Okay, the motion fails and the verbal emotion by, sorry, not actually.

The second part of the sentence.

The second part of the sentence fails.

Okay, so then we will move forward with the underlying amendment, which is, no, we're done.

Move on to amendment three, thank you.

Okay, great, thank you.

We're done, thank you.

Thank you for your patience, colleagues.

There's been a lot more activity on changing of these than we've had in my recent recollection.

All right, Amendment 3. Council Member Saka, you're recognized to move this amendment.

All right, I move to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 3. Second.

It has been moved and seconded to move to amend Council Bill 120981 with Amendment 3.

Yes.

Amendment three sponsored by council member Saka would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the FEP levy under the K through 12 health and safety category afterschool programming for at-risk youth.

This list of educational support services is not exhaustive and intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported and does not bind the council to funding these services.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

You're recognized if you want to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will abstain from any cover commentary around anticipated time and duration for conversation, but I'll just say, I was gonna say this one, I think this one is straightforward, it's five words or whatever, but all this would do is make clear that afterschool programming for youth, particularly those at risk or at opportunity, depending on how you view it, would be included and covered as part of the program too.

And again, cost neutral, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I just wanted to thank Council Member Saka for bringing this up.

And this amendment actually goes to the earlier discussion because this is about providing options to whatever program that's being developed with each school.

So I just wanted to thank Council Member Saka for this amendment because it does promote school safety.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Anyone else?

We'll say that already does this, so calling it out here is just calling out something that the department already does, so thank you.

Why don't we move forward to a vote?

Oh, sorry, Council Member Moore, didn't see your hand.

Go ahead.

No, that's fine.

I, too, just wanted to say thank you very much, Council Member Saka, for bringing this.

Obviously, very important, and I appreciate you specifically calling this out, so thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

All right.

Now we'll proceed to the vote on Amendment 3.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Tarasaka?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

And Chair Rivetta?

Aye.

Seven in favor and unopposed.

Great.

The motion carries and Amendment 3 is adopted.

We'll go on to Amendment 4. Council Member Moore, do you want to move your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 4, Version 2. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to move Council Amendment 4, version 2 to Council Bill 120981. Jasmine?

This amendment would add food assistance to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the FEP levy under the K-12 health and safety category.

Again, this list is non-exhaustive and intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported.

It does not bind the Council to funding these services.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council Member Moore, do you want to speak to your amendment?

Thank you.

I think this is very straightforward.

I know that this is already done, but like we did with the previous amendment, I think it's important to specifically call out food assistance.

I've kept it broad, again, to allow for discussion about more specifics in the implementation plan, but just really given the federal cuts that are affecting AmeriCorps, the federal cuts that are affecting, you know, programs like Hunger Intervention that run after-school weekend and summer programs, I just think it's important to specifically highlight food assistance, and that's why I brought it, and I would ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Any comments?

Clerk, oh, Council Member Hollingsworth.

I'm sorry, thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to thank Council Member Moore for bringing this forward, especially highlighting food assistance.

I know that we all on this, I don't like speaking for you all, but I know we've all talked about how important food assistance is, so thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Okay, let's proceed to a vote, please.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Eight in favor and unopposed.

The motion carries and Amendment 4 is adopted.

Moving on to Amendment 5. Council Member Rink, would you like to move your amendment?

I move to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 5, Version 3.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented in Amendment 5, Version 3. Jasmine.

Amendment 5 is sponsored by Councilmember Rink and it would add $2 million annually or $12 million total to the expected revenues generated by the FEP levy and would allow for investments to support the Fresh Bucks program for K-12 students and their families.

Fresh Bucks is a voucher program distributing $40 a month to individuals of low income.

And currently, the 2025 adoptive budget includes $6.9 million for the program, enrollment of 12,000 households, and a wait list of approximately 4,000 households.

The estimated tax rate needed would be six-tenths of a cent in addition to what's proposed in the introduced version, and it would have an estimated average additional tax burden of $6.26 per year to the median value property owner.

The amendment would also add food assistance for students and their families to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the FEP levy under the K-12 health and safety category.

Again, the list of educational support services is not exhaustive, and it does not bind the council to funding those services.

However, if this amendment passes and the additional revenue is raised, council's intent would be to use the additional revenue of $2 million per year towards supporting a school-based distribution of Fresh Bucks vouchers to students and their families.

Thank you.

Council Member Rink, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

As we've seen with the instability of the federal government's policy decisions, it is vital more than ever for our city to step up to the plate and designate money that keeps our families fed and healthy.

As was provided to all of our offices, the Sweetened and Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board released their 2025 and 2026 budget recommendations, voicing their support for both amendments four and five.

We know that hunger significantly impacts a child's ability to learn, and we want those outcomes for all of our children, regardless of their income.

So the expansion of the Fresh Bucks program through the FEP levy will get our city closer to clearing the over 4,000 households who are on the waitlist waiting to receive fresh food for their families.

This is a lean program, as I mentioned during our last committee meeting.

This is a program that currently serves over 12,000 households, offering a $40 monthly benefit to households at 80% AMI or below.

And it's a small team managing this as well.

There's just a handful of city staff that work on this and distribute this incredible program.

It has tremendous economic benefit and invests in our local food economy with customers spending fresh bucks, benefits at over 40 local retailers, including eight locally owned independent grocers, 17 farmers markets and farm stands, and 16 Safeways.

And the program unamended has a $7.71 million impact on our local economy.

$535,000 of that is spent at farmer's markets and independent grocers.

A few weeks ago, I was visiting with Family Works in District 4, and one of the things that came up in our discussion was how many families that they're serving are currently on the Fresh Bucks wait list.

This amendment offers an opportunity for families who are on that wait list to finally get their benefit and be able to get fresh food on the table.

And colleagues, I ask for your support on this today.

And pardon me.

On a final note, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the threats to SNAP happening at the federal level.

They're talking about cutting a third of SNAP.

And this is an opportunity for us to take a step locally, step up to this moment, and make sure that people stay fed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Any questions or comments, colleagues?

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Again, I want to say thank you very much to Council Member Rink for bringing this.

Clearly, we need to do more for food, for students and families.

So I'm very much supportive of trying to find ways to find additional funding, particularly given the cuts that we're seeing to SNAP and other programs.

But again, as I said in my earlier remarks, I am not going to be voting for anything, no matter how well intentioned and necessary, that does increase the size of the levy, just because of my concerns and the fact that we are already doubling it.

So I will be voting against it, even though I support the intent and underlying need that this is seeking to address.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Similar to Councilmember Moore, yes, we need to continue our work in this area.

And I think the city is, in terms of my engagement on this, nearly 39 million.

The challenge is related to the levy itself, the age eligibility requirements and so forth.

And so in a sense, this would be more appropriate for the general budget process that we go through versus the levy.

And solely just for that reason, I'll be voting now.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just want to thank Councilmember Rink for bringing this forward.

Support the spirit, intent, the goals.

and yes, the substance of this amendment too.

So I will be supporting this today.

I am mindful of the cost burden, the additional cost burden on the taxpayer, the property owner, I have a little heartburn because of all the amendments, proposed amendments that add incremental costs to the levy.

This one I think has the highest, but I support Fresh Bucks program.

I support expanding access to food, and I will be therefore supporting this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Rank for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink, for bringing this forward.

Sorry, I cannot speak today.

My apologies.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

I think obviously you all know how passionate I am about food, food access, and food stability for families.

I will I'm not today.

I think that this would be better served in our general budget process.

So unfortunately, I won't be able to support this today, but I really appreciate the expansion of this, particularly for families and look forward to our budget process, making sure that we can safeguard our families for food this fall.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Councilmember Nelson.

Just by way of explanation for my vote, I echo that two things.

This is an item that could be negotiated in the implementation plan, and I am concerned about adding to a levy that is fairly sizable.

I don't remember what percentage over the current one, but that is also...

helping to drive my decisions about things that are adding to this levy.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

Any other comments, colleagues?

I'll just say, colleagues, that I, beyond adding to the levy that's already more than double last time's levy, I do want to say that I do support the Fresh Rucks program.

I look forward to conversations in the fall about this.

I support feeding people, of course.

I grew up in a big Puerto Rican family where we didn't have very much.

And what we did had, everyone was always welcome at our table somehow.

It was like the story of the fish.

It multiplied because I think we just cared so much about people.

So that's just my way of saying I care about feeding people, and I don't think that Fresh Bucks belongs in the levy.

It is not a program squarely for kids.

It is families, and Fresh Bucks goes to individuals.

It goes to families without kids.

It is not, and also we have food assistance for kids in this levy, very squarely for kids.

We feed kids in the summer.

We feed kids after school.

We provide snacks.

Um, at their afterschool programming, we provide snacks in the childcare and preschool facilities.

So there is food in this levy.

And because of that, I will not be supporting this amendment and want it just to explain why.

All right.

Unless anyone has any further comments, let's go.

Yeah.

May I offer some closing comments on my amendment?

Thank you.

And thank you, colleagues, for your comments.

I do want to offer some clarification.

As discussed during the last committee meeting, we would be able to address on the programmatic level to ensure that these funds serve families, understanding, yes, the Fresh Bucks program serves a number of households, including single adults, but we can address on the programmatic level, ensuring that these funds serve families.

And I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention, I understand a number of folks have mentioned addressing this in our upcoming budget discussions, and I'd be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous budget deficit that we are facing, and that this is an opportunity to be able to grow our revenue, to be able to distribute funds and programs out to community.

So rather than cutting more slices out of an existing pie, this amendment before you is growing that pie in a really meaningful way, 4,000 households.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I'm not sure, and maybe you can tell us how the program would go about differentiating and distinguishing between the families with or without children.

I don't know what that would take.

Sometimes things seem a little easier than they really are, and I'm wondering if you have some information to share in that regard.

just because I know this is a program that Office of Sustainability and Energy manages, not the Department of Education Early Learning.

And because of the KID component, I don't know how that would work.

So I only bring this up in the context of your comment just now that we would separate the two.

And I think some programs are easier to do that than others.

So do you have some information about that you could share?

I'll invite Jasmine to speak on this.

So currently, Fresh Bucks has a distribution through community-based organizations.

So some vouchers are distributed directly from the city, and some are distributed through community-based organizations.

So it is feasible that you could have distribution of vouchers that go through the schools to the students and their families, similar to how they have other third parties distribute these vouchers.

We don't...

Oh, go ahead.

I was going to say I double and triple checked with law after the last committee, and they were comfortable with the language here if the vouchers go to students and their families, specifically benefiting K through 12 students and their families.

And so if it's distributed through schools, through family support workers, that they were comfortable with that.

And that could be addressed again at the programmatic level.

Thank you, Jasmine.

I didn't have legal issues.

The levy could fund whatever we designate it funds.

And as long as the voters pay for it, I more know that there is a logistical thing.

Things seem easier to be done than they really are.

And I know that the departments, it adds a layer of this administrative piece to it.

And I didn't know if you actually had talked to the department and they laid out how this would work.

So we're making assumptions about how it would work.

That is correct, based on the fact that they currently do distribute vouchers through third parties, so the schools would just be another third party.

True, but not Fresh Bucks type vouchers.

Go ahead, Council Member Moore.

Yeah, so I just wanted to say I'm thinking that because Amendment 4 passed, which is the broad category of food assistance and in the early part of the levy we are talking about services to children and families, that this ability to revisit the issue of money for fresh bucks through school vouchers and that sort of thing can be done in the implementation plan.

And I certainly would encourage that that discussion happen in the implementation plan.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Moore.

The department can have those conversations, but also just to say that the levy does fund food.

So we are funding food for all kids at school and their after school places.

So this is happening.

And the other thing is that with the fresh bucks, again, there's that adult piece that we don't do with the levy, so expanding the scope.

In any event, unless there are any other questions, let's move forward with the vote.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

Council Member Moore.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

No.

That's three in favor of five opposed.

Thank you.

The motion fails an amendment.

Five is not adopted.

Let's move on to Amendment 6. Council Member Strauss, would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 981 as presented on Amendment 6, version 3.

Second.

Thank you, colleagues.

This amendment is critical to preserving the city's incredibly popular and renowned environmental education and outdoor learning program for Seattle's kids and families.

For those who may still not be familiar, is the city program that does things like take thousands and thousands of our kids on field trips, nature walks, and provides educational opportunity to do hands-on learning in our parks, forests, and on our beaches.

A lot of those kids come from under-resourced Title I schools, and for many, this program is their only gateway to the outdoors.

It's a modest program, currently made up of less than nine employees, but that work is supplemented, is expanded by nearly 100 amazing volunteers.

On Tuesday, I joined some of these volunteers at the tide pools near, and Councilmember Saki, you might have to help me out with this, Mequamooks Park.

Close enough is what I've been told.

The intertidal zone in West Seattle, where the volunteers had just finished taking a bus full of Seattle second graders on an educational walk.

On that walk, they learned about our oceans, our local biology.

They even saw a giant Pacific octopus, unfortunately no longer with us.

The volunteers told me story after story of the impacts of these educational opportunities and what those impacts have made on our students.

For many of the kids, this is something they look forward to all year.

The current legislation does good work.

It restores some of the funding of the program.

Only 38%, though, which was traditionally the only portion that funded student learning.

We've heard from the people doing this work that that simply won't be enough.

We have an opportunity to do more.

We should take it.

At a time when basic science like climate change and the core tenants of environmentalism are under attack, few things are more important than getting our kids out into the real natural world for some hands-on learning.

My amendment would restore the full funding for the environmental education program, which again, colleagues, adds on to what the mayor's proposal correctly funded, which was the portion that was dedicated to youth.

My amendment will give the environmental and education and outdoor learning team and their volunteers the resources they need to keep this incredible program working.

While there are still more conversations to be had during the implementation phase of this work, this amendment gives us the flexibility to do it right.

By fully restoring the environmental education program, we can guarantee our city's kids and families continue to receive the nature education and outdoor experiences that make our city such a great place to live.

And we know this program is capable.

The return on investment is incredible.

With just a modest investment, they achieved incredible things in 2024. Alone, they hosted 5,383 students from 65 schools for field trips, with a large portion of those coming from the underserved schools.

They hosted 38 public programs and guided walks in 20 parks around Seattle, teaching members of our community about native plants, mushrooms, birds, and mushrooms and salmon and more.

They ran 188 community partnership programs and served 1,693 participants, helping ensure everyone has access to meaningful outdoor experiences, especially groups who don't have access to these natural areas.

They managed a team of about 100 dedicated volunteers who spent more than 4,000 hours for free Walks and educating people about the outdoors and intertidal zones, saving the city, giving the city a return on investment on investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I have heard concerns from colleagues that this amendment would fundamentally change the levy because it would teach adults a thing or two.

Colleagues, we all know that this levy legally cannot fund adult activities.

My apologies for not more proactively clarifying at the last committee that this amendment would in fact mean the volunteers would change from educating adults as well as children to just educating kids.

And no, we're not gonna pass a law requiring chaperones to wear earplugs because they might accidentally learn something from our volunteers.

This amendment is about educating kids in nature, about getting a huge return on our investment.

It's about retaining our volunteer corps who live the one Seattle motto by volunteering their time and life to educate other Seattleites about the natural wonders that are right in front of us in plain sight.

And yes, it does change from doing all ages programming to youth only programming.

And if this amendment doesn't pass and we have to reduce staffing, we lose volunteers.

We've seen in recent months the direct impact of closing programs and then trying to rebuild them.

Bonneville Power Administration comes to mind.

Wildland firefighters who were laid off earlier this year only to be tried to be rehired right now come to mind.

If we choose today to reduce our volunteer core because we are inflexible about who our volunteers are educating, it is in my opinion that Seattleites lose out.

It will cost more money to close half this program and restart it than it will to keep operating and keep our volunteers volunteering.

Thank you to the many, many people who have written into the council, sharing your stories and advocating for this program.

I can share from my personal life The ability to raise baby salmon in fifth grade, my alma mater, Adams Elementary School, has taught me something that has lived with me my whole life, that when I walk down to the seawall, the rebuilt seawall on the waterfront, I don't have to guess as to why there's glass tiles on the sidewalk.

It's not because underground Seattle's below it, it's because our salmon fry need a little bit more light to be able to use that habitat to stay away from prey.

This amendment before us has the potential to change public policy in 20 years by educating kids today to be ready to be leaders in the future.

Colleagues, I hope you'll join me in ensuring this program has the resources they need to continue doing their important work and getting an amazing return on investment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, any questions?

Jasmine, I think he sufficiently covered them.

Unless you have something to add.

Great, thank you.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just wanna thank Council Member Strauss for bringing this forth.

Thank you for attempting to pronounce the name correctly.

That's all I can commit to doing sometimes is trying my level best and asking for patience and grace when I fall short.

In any event, I'm proud to support this amendment today.

Thank you for being a champion of environmental learning and environmental justice.

Thank you for providing a funding path for this critical need.

And also thanks for your verbal clarification that we're not going to require ear protection of any sort for any adults that might accompany and chaperone youth engaging in these wonderful learning opportunities.

But I support the environment, support enriching our youth and connecting them with the wonders of the natural world.

This would unlock things.

opportunities across the city, including in my district, more environmental learning opportunities, and for example, Camp Long and others.

So I'll be supporting this today.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, council member Saka.

I was going to make a point about bringing up ear protection, but I'm not going to go further on that.

Um, council member Strauss, thank you for, for bringing this amendment.

Um, it's, um, it's very important, you know, and I think about, as I mentioned earlier, my experience, um, and what it offers our children across our city, the different programs that we have.

The Environmental Learning Center, much like the PacSci, Pacific Science Center, SoKey, the Aquarium, Woodland Zoo, all these gems, these that we have in our city are really important for kids as they progress forward in their development.

And to have that kind of hands-on is so important.

And then separately, to the point of return on investment, the number of volunteers that are associated with this program is incredible, and their dedication to the program.

And to not take advantage of that return on investment would be unfortunate.

So I support this amendment in keeping with this overall approach that we're doing as a city.

And I should also highlight too, we should give a shout out to our parks and to our libraries.

This combination, parks, libraries, along with our beautiful zoo, our aquarium, the Pac-Sci Center, and the Environmental Learning Center is key for us as a city, and it shows where our heart is, but it's also mindful of doing the right thing, because it plays into so many things across the board as we move forward as a society, so thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Any other comments?

Let me go up here.

I got my hand up.

You have?

Uh-huh.

Oh, I don't know why it's not.

Okay, go ahead.

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Again, I thank you, Council Member Strauss, for bringing this.

Obviously, this is an incredibly important service that's being provided.

We all support environmental education.

Again, as I mentioned, I'm not supportive of increasing the levy for any of the things.

Everything that's come before us is all valuable.

I would just note that we have a lot of arts programming that is also not funded that was cut in our last budget, and I feel a little uncomfortable picking and choosing losers a little bit here with increasing the levy.

I wanted to bring funding to both have free lunch for the entirety of the city and decided not to do so because that would have increased funding for the levy.

I also wanted to increase the funding for school-based health centers but chose not to because it was also going to increase the levy.

So just for trying to be respectful of making sure that we are not increasing the levy, that we are not picking and choosing losers, which we are sort of doing here if we choose this over food.

So for those reasons, while I agree it's an important program, I think that we can fund it through our general fund and that we ought to be doing that.

And again, I support the intent, but for the reasons I've laid out, I will not be able to support this amendment.

Thank you.

Let me make sure I'm not missing anyone else here.

Colleagues, I will say I got some facts on this one because I was very clear that we were funding the educational pieces in the levy for the learning program.

So the youth learning programs are already funded in the levy.

So Council Member Strauss, I got a little confused by what you were saying in terms of this is going to youth since the youth programs are already in the levy.

I will say that in terms of the volunteers, Parks is planning for a new approach to recruiting and training volunteers for the environmental learning program as well as program scheduling.

They anticipate that this will include significant involvement by their volunteer sun guides.

This is information I got from the Mayor's Office from the Parks Department.

Under the assumptions in the 26th endorsed budget, the Discovery Park Visitor Center would be closed on an ongoing basis unless SPR was able to find a partner to operate it, which I actually think is a great idea because just yesterday in the Parks Committee, we had a presentation about the golf courses, and I remember the golf courses were in peril of closing, and the Parks Department found a partner, and now the golf courses are doing great.

And so that is without, and they're self-sustaining, this would be a great program to find a partner so it could be self-sustaining, because we all support environmental learning.

I have a bachelor's degree in biology, so I, of all people, support science.

And then, of course, it just makes it really difficult with our funding challenges.

And I will say that Parks also said that there was a water main break at the site flooding the Discovery Park visitor center mechanical room the damage was extensive and the facility has been closed since so I'm not really sure what's going to happen with that water main break that seems very substantial.

So all that said and given that the levy is already funding those youth learning programs I do not support increasing the levy to add things that are not square on youth focus and I would support parks finding a partner to engage in a partnership like they did the golf courses.

So this can be self-sustaining and we're not always every year during budget scrambling to figure out how we will support these environmental learning programs because they are important.

So for those reasons, I will not be voting for this.

And to council member Moore's point, I know everyone had things they would have liked to have added to this and they didn't.

And so I feel really strongly about that.

I would have wanted to support everyone adding to it.

But we don't have that ability.

So I also feel like we're picking and choosing who gets to add and who doesn't.

And for that reason, I also didn't support any money ads.

So all right.

Council Member Strauss, you're recognized.

Colleagues, it's 1145 and this is amendment six.

We have six more amendments to get through so I'm gonna ask that you please do what you can to limit your comments so we can get through this because I know other folks have other meetings and we also have a two o'clock.

Good Governance Committee meeting.

Go ahead.

You're recognized.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you.

Colleagues, just responding, Chair, to a number of the points that you just made, talking about office space, this is not about the Discovery Park Center or necessarily about Camp Long, the two locations that these volunteers have used for office space.

It is, you know, they...

do need to have office space somewhere.

But what we do know, you shared about the Discovery Park environmental, about that center.

It has, as you represented, had a water main break and there are, and I know that the Parks Department is pursuing future opportunities.

So this amendment has really nothing to do with Discovery Park.

nor about Camp Long, which also suffered a fire disrupting their office space.

So, yes, they do need office space somewhere.

It doesn't really matter where.

Colleagues, I will remind the body that we have had the second downturn revenue forecast, and I believe that the last time there was two in a row in 2020, but the last time we were in the economic conditions that we were in was in 2008. The statistics that I represented just a moment ago, they represent the entire return on investment that we get.

From nine people, we get 110, 109 people working in a one Seattle method for Seattleites, volunteering their time and lives to help other people.

Those statistics cannot be achieved without this amendment, even though you have to substitute out the adults, because these folks won't be teaching adults unless they're chaperones not wearing earplugs.

But I think that this is a modest investment.

It's a huge return on investment, and it's a really good idea for Seattleites.

So I urge your support and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

As Council Member Moore aptly pointed out, we just voted down money to increase the levy for food, which I would say is a huge return on investment.

But we can't do all of it.

So anyway.

Let's go ahead and take the vote, please.

Thank you, Amelia.

Number six, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Moore.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

No.

That's five in favor, three opposed.

All right, the motion carries and Amendment 6 is adopted.

Let's move to Amendment 7. Council Member Rink, you are recognized to move your amendment.

I move to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 7, Version 2.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120981 with Amendment 7, Version 2. Jasmine, thank you.

Amendment 7 sponsored by Council Member Rink would add $1 million annually or $6 million total to the expected revenues generated by the FEP levy.

This additional revenue would allow for further investments to support restorative practices.

Restorative practices promote conflict resolution, harm repair, and healing with the intention of reducing disciplinary incidents and creating a safer and more supportive school environment for students.

The estimated tax rate you need to allow for this additional investment would be three-tenths of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value, with an additional tax burden of $3.13 per year to a median value property owner.

The amendment would also add restorative practices to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the K-12 health and safety category.

This is a non-exhaustive list that does not bind the council to funding those services.

However, if this amendment passes and the additional revenue is raised, council's intent would be to use the additional revenue averaging a million dollars per year towards supporting restorative practices.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Do you want to add?

Thank you, Chair.

So colleagues, Amendment 7, we are calling for restorative practices to be specifically funded, as this program has historically been funded by FEP, underspend, or reserves.

This program, again, serves that yes and approach to public safety.

We know that connecting students with trusted adults and providing them a space to heal without judgment has led to incredible outcomes with a reduction in suspension days and punitive measures.

Colleagues, this program allows for our students to enter the world after school with conflict resolution, relationship building, skills, all while centering student justice.

And when I was at Garfield on last Friday, I heard directly from students about the impact their restorative justice staffer has had on their lives and what a positive benefit they've brought to their school community.

The impact of the continuation of services for restorative practices allows for students to heal, and $1 million will fund approximately six FTE practitioners.

Multiplying that impact by multiple classrooms with multiple students, the impact is immeasurable, and I ask for your support today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, questions, comments?

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Restorative practices, this amendment has been one of interest to me, particularly from a public safety perspective.

And this too, like some of the others, came up on Tuesday with our confirmation hearing with Chief Barnes and had noted the benefits of restorative practices and what that means in terms of school safety, but also the safety in the neighborhood of our schools, but across our city.

And again, in terms of return on investment, it is important to note that in terms of what it does for that school environment, safety, school safety environment, but our general public safety environment, and that these lessons, these social emotional development lessons, and I think about social emotional development a lot nowadays, again, going through this as an elementary school parent and these challenges, particularly coming out of the pandemic and how that has been impacting our young people here in Seattle.

And this investment in that process, I think, could create also, as noted by Chief Barnes, you know, benefits down the line as well.

When they're young adults in their 20s, I think about, you know, the situation in and around our after-hours establishments where, you know, decisions, poor decisions are being made.

I think about, you know, first in union where young people are making decisions.

um, poor decisions and one lost his life and, and the like.

And I think that that benefit is one that would be beneficial to our city.

So contemplating this and understanding, you know, what we're doing in terms of this budget.

I mean, this levy in terms of the amount, um, I will be supporting this one.

Thank you.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that we added this language in the First Amendment, recognizing that this was part of a safety piece.

And so that is...

that is where I feel most comfortable supporting this and making sure that the restorative practices are done with the implementation process on this.

Full disclosure, I fully support this, fully support the restorative justice practice, but not necessarily this amendment that calls it out and adds more additionally, because I know that we're gonna have that in the implementation process.

But I also wanna say for the record, I, I'm very close to this work as I have really close family friends who work at different high schools all across the city who are funded by this, in addition to a cousin who works in the McKinney-Vento program who works directly with the restorative justice programs and obviously knows the importance of this.

But I think this is better served in the implementation process as we're deciding where those funds go.

But I just wanted to say for the record because I don't want this to be yes or no.

Do you support restorative justice practices or you don't?

That is just not where it is.

So I had to state it for the record for all the people that want to create some type of back and forth and so forth.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Hollingsworth.

Any other comments?

Look here and make sure I'm not missing anyone.

All right.

Well, I would just say about this, beyond the fact that it's an ad and the levees already the size where we don't need to make ads.

I also feel really strongly that we, as I said earlier, I support restorative practices in any investments that will help our kids succeed in school and feel safe in school.

I feel strongly though that earmarking, this is an earmark to this group and we are not earmarking things for other organizations.

I don't think it's equitable.

I think that there will be an RFP process and the department will work with community, um, on all of these investments, including restorative services investments.

Um, they will do the stakeholder ring.

They will build what the program will look like, what the offerings will look like.

And I have committed, and I did, um, email with the, with the organizations that are doing restorative practices.

And I did tell them that they, um, would do a converse, would have conversations with deal as part of the stakeholder ring.

work and as part of that implementation work so for those reasons I won't be supporting this but I really think that things like this pick communities against communities it makes it where you're picking losers and not and I don't think that is equitable and I think if we're going to talk about equity then we really need to put our money with our mouth is and not then turn around and and then and then pick and choose in something like I think everyone needs to be the same playing field for all of these investments and it should go through that implementation process.

And again, I support these investments and there's a place for all of this, but to prioritize something over another.

in this way, I don't think is equitable.

So thank you, analyst.

Do you have further final comments?

Council Member Ring, sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm looking to make sure no one else had questions.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you colleagues for your statements.

I think what is clear is that this body does see some value in restorative justice approaches and the ways in which it can contribute to school safety.

As we've talked to students directly and have heard about the impact that these practitioners have had in their communities, I think it's important to note that not every school has these practitioners, and this would be a step that we'd be taking to ensure that we can expand this type of service across our community.

And so, again, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rankin.

Also, we can't force the schools to take these services, so I don't know which schools want them and can afford them or which schools have chosen not to have them.

That's all the research that we need to do as part of DEAL's implementation plan work.

Okay, I think we're ready for the vote, Amelia.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

And Chair Rivera?

No.

That's four in favor and four opposed.

The motion fails.

Okay.

Motion fails and amendment eight will not be adopted.

Sorry, amendment seven will not be adopted.

We'll move on to amendment eight.

Council Member Rink, do you want to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120981 as presented on Amendment 8, Version 2. Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120981 with Amendment 8, Version 2. Jasmine?

Yes.

Amendment 8, version 2, sponsored by Councilmember Rink, would add $600,000 annually, or $3.6 million total, to the expected revenues generated by the FEP levy.

This additional revenue would allow for further investments to support vulnerable communities.

The additional tax rate needed to allow for this would be two-tenths of a cent per thousand dollars of assessed value with an estimated average tax burden of $1.88 per year to a median value property owner.

The amendment would also add support for families from vulnerable communities to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the K-12 health and safety category.

This list is not exhaustive and doesn't bind the council to funding those services, but if the amendment passes and the additional revenue is raised, council's intent would be to use that extra $600,000 per year towards supporting families from vulnerable communities.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council Member Rink, do you want to address your amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, these are uncertain times.

I know that's not lost on any of us, but there are so many in our community who are facing uncertainty and are experiencing an immense amount of fear.

because of the federal administration.

We all spoke about this on the dais just on Tuesday, and we need to take action.

We cannot sit idly by and watch our neighbors and our community be taken away or live in fear.

We need to speak and act.

This amendment is a reflection of our values.

Yesterday, I walked into the federal building to accompany four immigrant families facing deportation.

Four families, four sets of parents who came to America seeking safety and opportunity.

Not one had an attorney to defend them.

There were legal observers, there were advocates, but no one had an attorney.

Not one person had adequate representation against a system designed to tear families apart.

And I watched a mother hold her daughter, knowing that Trump's machinery of cruelty could tear them apart and separate them forever.

This amendment offers an opportunity to defend our neighbors by expanding legal services that would put lawyers in those federal courtrooms, ensuring that families have the representation they deserve when their lives hang in the balance.

The $600,000 will impact our families and students by ensuring that approximately 150 students or families of students will receive legal protection and be able to continue going to school.

Colleagues, I am imploring you, this is an actual opportunity for us to meet this moment.

We can be remembered as leaders who stepped up when our communities needed it most.

We can unite as a community who looked at an unjust system and said, not on our watch, not in our city, and not to our kids.

And I ask you for your support on this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, comments?

Councilmember Kettle, is that your hand first?

Yes, go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

On this amendment, one of the challenges, well, first I think as a reflection of Seattle values is the fact that these services within the levy are available to everyone to include those from vulnerable communities.

No questions asked.

And I think that's really important to note.

I think that's a reflection of us as a city and our values, and it goes to the point made by Council Member Rink.

My concern with this amendment is that essentially it creates, to be frank, a target for the federal administration to go after, which then in turn could have second and third order effects, which could be detrimental to the vulnerable communities in themselves.

And for that reason, and that concern is the reason why, despite understanding the intent behind it, I think in a practical way, it could create challenges for our vulnerable communities.

With that, I will be voting no.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Any other comment?

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, again, as I've said, and I'm Every amendment that adds more money to the levy, I'm voting against it for that reason, even though I support the underlying intent.

Certainly, we do need to meet the moment.

And I guess I would use this as a time to call out my colleagues, some of our colleagues in the legal profession, The Kids in Need of Defense program started out as a pro bono program through Microsoft.

It expanded and I guess they got to the point where they had paid staff and that's been cut.

And so I would just really issue a call to my colleagues who are still practicing And there are many large law firms in the city of Seattle who have robust pro bono programs.

And I would urge them to step up to the plate today to be there, to be the ones representing the voices of the children and the families who are being deported without due process.

This is a moment.

This is a call to action to those in the legal profession who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to do right by their community.

And so I'm just taking this moment to issue that call and that urge.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Any other comments?

One second.

I want to make sure I'm not missing any.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

And just for the record, so the general public knows, we're one of 38 cities that has an office dedicated to immigrant and refugee services in the country.

over $6 million and we do have a legal defense fund as well.

And so I just wanted to highlight that as well that we have, we're continuing to put in protections for our immigrant and refugee families here at the city.

And I know that is something that all of my, again, I don't like to speak for all y'all, but I've talked to a lot of you.

I know that's one thing that we really want to continue to put forward and center.

So I just wanted to say that for the record that we are one of 38 cities in the country that has an office strictly dedicated to immigrant and refugee services and that just shows our commitment as a city for that and we will continue to center that and put forth protections.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Any other comments?

Colleagues, I also want to remind everyone that this levy does have, it funds immigrant kids as well.

And all our services at the city, we do not require proof of status.

So all our services funds, all our residents in Seattle, and I know that our levy funds the most, the kids most in need in our city.

That is where the levy funds go, and that includes immigrant kids.

So just to center us and know that our levy will go to support immigrant kids even without this amendment.

Again, it adds money to the levy, so I will be voting against it.

And I appreciate Council Member Hollingsworth, you can always speak for me in matters such as these because I agree.

These are all, I support all of these.

items, but I'm not able to support this particular amendment because it adds money, but I feel good that I know immigrant kids are supported by the levy in general.

So thank you.

All right, call for the vote, please.

Chair.

Oh, sorry.

Council Member Rink, go ahead.

Thank you colleagues for your comments, and I appreciate the, again, reminder that Seattle is a leader in so many ways for protecting our local immigrant communities from the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, and yes, ensuring that immigrants and refugees are able to access city services, a wide swath of them, all of them.

We're not prohibitive in that way at all.

And so yes, immigrant kids will benefit from the FEP levy investments, and that's a fantastic thing.

immigrant kids will have their parents deported in this city.

It is already happening.

And how safe will they be then?

We have issues with unaccompanied minors appearing in court by themselves.

Councilmember Moore stated it correctly that kids in need of defense as an organization has had to close their doors.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors having to appear in immigration proceedings by themselves without legal representation.

And that is a haunting thought.

And again, I encourage folks to go into, go down to the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building and witness for yourselves.

When everyone waits with bated breath, hoping that the judge does not dismiss a case, a mother has to let her two-year-old go.

That is the reality that we're dealing with in this city, colleagues.

And I just have to center that before we take this vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Amelia, thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

Council Member Moore.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair Rivera.

No.

Three in favor, five opposed.

The motion fails and the amendment eight is not adopted.

Moving on to, sorry, I think that was amendment eight.

Version two is not adopted.

Moving on to amendment nine, council member Strauss, you're recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, I move to amend council bill 120981 as presented on amendment nine, version two.

Second.

Jasmine.

Amendment 9 version 2 sponsored by Councilmember Strauss would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the college and career supports category.

Public sector careers such as those with the Seattle Fire Department or Seattle Police Department.

This list is not exhaustive and intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported and does not bind the council to funding those services.

Oh, sorry.

Councilmember Strauss, you're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you.

This amendment is pretty straightforward.

It calls out some important career training and pathways that are possible, gives the example of public sector careers where we all know our cities and other cities around the country need help recruiting well-qualified applicants.

And as I've talked to a few people in these fields, it's not just that we need to create high school to career pipelines, it's that we really need to get into the middle school to career pipelines for...

jobs such as those with the trades, the Seattle Fire Department and the Seattle Police Department.

While there's much more work to be done in the implementation plan, I think it's important to call these priorities out.

These are clear priorities we can all agree on, and as was reported, it is not an exhaustive list.

This amendment does not limit what career pathways can be included in the implementation plan.

Thank you.

Hope to earn your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, questions, comments?

It doesn't look like anyone has a comment or a question.

I will say that I will not be voting for this amendment because the language is written including the trades by design to be inclusive of all the trades and I think that this amendment is prioritizing the public sector careers, and that was not the intent of the levy that was proposed.

We already also do fire departments, so that's already codified as it's already a program within Seattle colleges.

There is a fire program that I'm always proud to share.

Chief Scoggins helped design the curriculum for And I've been in conversations with the colleges about a Seattle Police Department program if possible.

So I support all these trades, but I support all the trades.

And I think this is prioritizing some over others and calling them out like this, particularly the public sector careers.

And so because of that, I won't be supporting this particular amendment.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I note that both this amendment and our next amendment are basically amending the same area.

And one question that I had was whether the original paragraph D could remain the same and then that the next two amendments could be, you know, separated from that and then placed to basically as an example of, um, D.

and yeah, of those pieces.

So then there's separation to the point that you made, but then also highlighting the importance of like what Council Member Strauss had noted, and no doubt Council Member Sacco would note in his next amendment.

It's just a question for the chair, for the two sponsors of this and the next amendment, and potentially, I guess, I'm not sure, 100% on the process from a clerk perspective.

One option that we could do if the body would like is to move to amend this amendment with Amendment 10 and then that would be then reconciled and then it would be with the additional language would include Council Member Saka's language.

and then that vote would occur as to whether Council Member Saka's language in Amendment 10. If it's included or not, then the final vote on Amendment 9 would occur.

So it would be up to the body if they wanted to move Amendment 9 with Amendment 10. Jasmine, anything else?

Could another option be we create an Amendment 13 that combines the two, and then I can have that ready to go by the end of the...

If you're able to, we can withdraw this one and then consider amendment number 13. That would combine the two.

I could have one clean amendment as amendment 13 and we can move on to amendment 11. Correct.

You could do that as well too.

That's another option.

Sorry, if we were to move forward today, what would we do?

There's two options.

The first option would be to amend amendment nine with the language in amendment 10 or withdraw amendment nine at this point.

And Jasmine will develop amendment 13 that would conclude amendment language from both nine and 10.

Council member Strauss, I see you have your hand up and this is your amendment.

So I wanted to recognize you.

Thank you.

I might also offer that If we pass each of these amendments individually, they will stack on top of each other and will require much less work and confusion amongst all of us while we're in this meeting.

So I would recommend that we just vote on these separately.

And my best guess here is that if something looks weird after we do this, we can have a technical fix at full council.

That's correct, Councilmember Strauss.

You could also consider them separately because they are able to be reconciled after this vote.

That would be my preference.

Can I, if I can add, jump in?

Yes, the reason this is version two is because I sort of rearranged the words such that they could be stacked together.

My understanding of what Councilman Kettle wanted was to retain the first part of the sentence.

So that would be the difference.

But if that's not, if it's just about stacking the two amendments, then I agree.

So I think maybe we could clarify what the intent is about combining the amendments.

I trust the advice of others when it comes to the process.

I was just proffering this in the sense of keeping the original paragraph D, keep it clean, and then having the opportunity.

Either way, as Council Member Strauss was saying, whatever's preferred, if that's a preference, to do that.

option is potentially to amend this amendment to add back in the stricken language, including the trades, and then we would do that for Amendment 10 as well.

I can move to keep the language...

to amend the amendment to keep the language, then we would vote on that.

And then we can move forward.

And then at the end, you just reconcile the bottom language with whatever passes.

Yes.

You would have to amend both amendments, but that might actually be no.

No.

If we move to amend it right now to retain, include the trades, and if that passes, then when we consider Amendment 10, we'll move Amendment 10 with the exception of that language because it's already been retained through the motion right now.

So those are the two options for that specific language right now.

Okay.

Go ahead, Council Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I stand with Council Member Strauss and I support his proposed way forward.

I think we're getting a bit hung up on the form over the actual substance.

I think the substance of these amendments, ideas stand on their own and I am absolutely confident.

and our central staff experts together with our DCC experts in our ability to reconcile any technical wording, minor glitches.

And so that's the way forward I would offer in the interest of keeping us moving forward.

Thank you, Council Member Sacca.

Council member Nelson, you've been waiting, so I'll recognize you.

Thank you.

It is confusing when we go here.

I didn't quite understand in the beginning why including the trades was was removed and then added at the bottom.

Here's what I want to say.

I want to thank your leadership for including a pathway to the trades in this levy.

It is the first time this has been done, and the mechanics will be worked out between Deal and the school district, et cetera.

I'm sure that it's more complicated than I think right now, but I just want to say that that is When I was talking to a woman named Virginia Balthea, she works at the Seattle Public Schools.

And when I've told other folks about this addition, it has been really appreciated and recognized as quite necessary to provide for alternatives for people that want to do something after high school, but not necessarily go into the traditional community college track.

So thank you very much.

I'm just taking this opportunity to thank your leadership.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

And I will say the path to trades is part of the Seattle Promise.

This would expand that path to trades and perhaps work with our labor partners who have accredited trade schools.

And perhaps the kids, if the thing they want to pursue is not available at the colleges, is there opportunity for them to pursue it at the trade school?

This is something Deal and I have been in conversations with some initial labor partners on.

So in the implementation stage of this, we will do that stakeholder process and then really drill into what this could look like.

But Councilmember Saka, thank you for raising the point.

I will say it was important to me to include the language, including the trades where it is. because it elevates, it's not an example, it's not a may be supported and include, but not, it is, it will include the trades.

And that's why it was important to me that that language was above.

So I would like to keep the language above, but I can always bring in amendment 13 on Tuesday, if that makes it easier than what Amelia was suggested is I could move to, and thank you council member.

I wanna thank you council member Kettle because you were acknowledging my interest in this particular piece and the importance that this has to me.

So I wanna appreciate that on your part.

Amelia, is it easiest if I move?

Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Moore.

You're recognized to speak.

My apologies.

No, that's okay.

I think I must be off your screen.

Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate the point that you just made.

Thank You councilmember Kettle for raising it I I do think that it is stronger and it is mandatory when it's included at the top including the trades versus may be supported and then it's a list of possibilities and since this as council president noted this is Brand new and it's incredibly important and we want to make sure that there's no Ambivalence about it.

I think it strengthens it to have including the trades where it was originally inserted So however, we get that language.

I'm supportive of Thank You council member more Amelia would it be okay then we just bring that as a on Tuesday and

It's up to a council member if they'd like to move to amend it at this point.

If not, of course, then as you mentioned, you can then move it again on Tuesday.

I'm fine moving forward and saying I move to amend the language in amendment number nine to keep the stricken including the trades.

Second.

Oh, okay.

It has been moved and seconded to keep the language including the trades where it is under D.

Any?

Chair.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Just to clarify, this is a yes and moment where we are keeping the trades in two places.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Wonderful.

Music to my ears.

I'd say let's vote on this and keep moving.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

Any other questions?

No questions or comments further?

That is an old hand, I assume, Council Member Strauss, since you just spoke.

Amelia?

We're voting on keeping that language in, not the underlying amendment quite yet.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Charity Veda.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Okay, the motion passes to keep the including the trades language in amendment number nine, version two of Council Bill 120981. Now we're gonna be voting on the underlying Amendment 9, Version 2, to Council Bill 120981. Was there further discussion about this Council Bill?

Okay, oh, I'm sorry, of the amendment.

Do you have anything else you want to say?

Colleagues, I urge your support.

This is a good amendment.

They're good priorities, and it's a non-exhaustive list.

Thank you.

Okay.

Great.

Amelia, call for the roll, please.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

And Chair DeVetta.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment 9, Version 2 will move forward in Council Bill 120981. Now we're going to Amendment 10 to Council Bill 120981. Colleagues, we're almost there.

Council Member Saka, do you want to move your amendments?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move to amend council bill 120981 as presented on amendment 10. Second.

And I would be open to, for clarity as a friendly amendment, porting over that same conceptual change from the previously adopted amendment number nine, where we essentially put added

Correct.

Restore the language, including the trades at the beginning and then the other bit.

It would be amendment 10 with the exception of that language because that's already been decided.

So it would be already been.

But thank you for saying that, Councilmember Saka.

All right.

Jasmine, do you want to talk about this amendment, please?

Yes, Amendment 10, sponsored by Council Member Saka, would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the FEP levy under the college and career supports category.

Support for foster care youth transition to adulthood and support for career pathways in the information technology sector that utilize coding languages.

This is a non-exhaustive list intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported and does not bind the council to funding those services.

Oh, thank you.

Council Member Sacco, would you like to address your amendment?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And as Jasmine noted, this amendment would do two things.

Support foster care, foster youth transitioning to adulthood.

And as a former foster kid myself and as someone with multiple siblings in the system, including one who...

aged out, my late brother, and seeing firsthand the struggles that that has that people encounter.

This would provide additional support and services and help address foster care to prison pipeline, foster care to homelessness pipeline, you name it.

Bottom line, calling out a particularly vulnerable group in a non-exhaustive list format.

And the second thing importantly this would do is provide additional empowerments in this case, vis-a-vis Digital Skilling Initiative, and ensure, and there's, again, a non-exhaustive list of coding programs and languages for specific coding skills that are in high demand for our region's high-tech employers, and just call them up, ask them, what are the top programming language that you guys and skills that you guys recruit for, and these are the three.

And so I want to make sure that any programs and digital skilling, we're actually not just teaching people how to be savvy on social media.

I want to make sure they're ultimately learning to code, for example, so they can get employment in these high-tech sectors locally.

Thank you.

I ask for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Kettle, I see you have your hand up.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Thank you.

I just wanted to commend Councilmember Saka for his advocacy related to foster care.

The points he made are real.

They have impacts in terms of what we're seeing on our streets.

It shows the challenges that we face and how important it is, going back to Seattle values and the like, that we do right with respect to the foster care system.

That said, the rest, yes, this is similar to the previous amendment.

And I'd like to have it all kind of brought together in a coherent way.

And that's just the point that I was making earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Any other comments, colleagues?

I am.

Council President Nelson.

I was going to make this comment before with your other amendment, Council Member Saka, but I just also want to express my appreciation.

You have educated me about what it's like being a foster child and also the system as a whole.

And I think that your experience has really benefited the whole body.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Any other comments?

Council Member Saka, I'll just say that the levy You know, foster kids are a priority population for the levy, so I wanted you to know that because it's important.

It is a population that the Department of Education and Early Learning focuses on as a priority population, and I didn't know if you knew that, so I wanted to call it out.

All right.

Did you have any last words you wanted to make?

Okay.

Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Thank you.

Okay.