Select Committee on the FEPP Levy 6-Year Implementation and Evaluation Plan 7/08/2026

Good morning, everyone.

The July 8th, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise levy, six-year implementation and evaluation plan will come to order.

It is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Lin.

Here.

Council Member Rink.

Here.

Council Member Sacca.

Good morning, here.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Chair Rivera.

Thank you, Clerk.

Please note for the record that Council Member Juarez is excused from today's meeting and Council Members Strausen, Vice Chair and Council President Hollingsworth are excused until they join us.

Today we'll be learning about and voting on the substitute bill for the FEP, Families Education Preschool Promise Levees Implementation and Evaluation Plan.

We will have our central staffers, Jasmine Marwaha and Tracy Ratcliffe review some technical changes to the bill as it was introduced, or sorry, as it was submitted, and then additional evaluation language that were made to the transmitted I&E proposal.

We'll then get briefed on the amendments that were submitted.

And so what we'll do today, colleagues, just preview is we're going to vote on the substitute bill and then we're going to just get briefed on the amendments and then we will at the next meeting vote on the amendments and vote the bill out of committee.

All right.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

There are 13 in-person speakers and eight remote, making for a total of 21 public commenters.

All right, then everyone will have two minutes to speak.

Clerk, will you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Thank you, Clerk, and let the record reflect that Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth has joined us.

All right, all the mics are available.

So if I call your name, you can step up to any of the mics.

That'll make the process go a little smoother.

We have Madeline, and I'm gonna apologize out of the gate if I mispronounce anyone's name.

So please correct me.

Madeline Vestika, Prithiva Shanmugam, Oliver Mishka.

Go ahead, Madeline.

I had to go with the shorter one.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Madeline Vistica, and I lead our work addressing childhood hunger at United Way of King County.

I first do just want to thank the committee for recognizing the importance of addressing food insecurity for Seattle kids and families and for prioritizing that through this process.

I do ultimately want to express strong support for moving forward with the proposed implementation of universal meals on the original timeline beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

We know that school meals are one of the most effective tools that we have to ensure that students are well nourished and ready to learn and to grow.

They are in place and poised to scale and meet the need at schools throughout our community.

During the years when meals were available at no cost through federal waivers, participation increased across the board, including among low-income students who previously faced stigma and other logistical and other barriers to accessing meals.

At the same time, we know that the current federal income limit for qualifying for free school meals does not reflect what it actually costs to raise a family in Seattle.

Today, a family of four must earn less than $60,000 a year to qualify for this support.

And we know that there are so many families earning just above that threshold who are still struggling to make ends meet.

We hear from parents like Marissa who works full-time, earns about $65,000 a year, and doesn't qualify for free school meals for her kids, but still regularly worries about how she will afford groceries to put dinner on the table, serve breakfast, and pack lunches every day for her teens.

or parents like Diana, who was excited to move her family to a new home, only to learn that meals weren't free for all students at her kids' new school, and they experienced stigma as only a handful of free and reduced eligible students for the first time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madeline.

Prithiva Chanmugam and then Oliver Mishka, followed by Caleb Towalda.

Welcome.

Hello.

I'm Pritheeva Chanmugam, and I live in District 3, and all three of my grandchildren attended schools in the district, and many of their classmates were from low-income families.

I have a PhD in food science.

I'm a retired registered dietitian, and I work for the Baton Rouge Public School Food Program before joining the faculty at Louisiana State University.

I oppose Council Member Hollingsworth Amendment to defund universal free meals for Seattle students.

Studies have shown that nutritious meals are vital for student success in school.

Means testing costs money.

Dietitians in programs that are means tested spend a large proportion of their time evaluating applications for free and reduced meals.

If future funding is a problem, Maybe Seattle's taxes could be made fairer so that vital programs like universal free meals do not have to be cut to keep taxes low for wealthy individuals and corporations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oliver Mishka.

Oh, let the record reflect.

Councilmember Strauss has joined us remotely.

We have Oliver Mishka, followed by Caleb Towaldi, followed by Hanan Shefka.

Good morning, City Council members, staff, and all those joining today.

My name is Oliver Miska.

For the record, I'm here testifying on behalf of a candidate for State Rep, Jaylen Scott, who I serve as Campaign Manager for.

Jaylen wants to acknowledge the deep commitment to addressing food insecurity for youth and families in the 37th Legislative District.

We are testifying in opposition to amendment number six today.

We're here today because we're standing on business by standing up to big business.

Nine states have universal school meal programs.

Washington passed the historic millionaires tax this last legislative session, and that's a huge deal.

But we stand here today with universal school meal programs at risk because lawmakers are being extorted and threatened by big business and mega-millionaires who are throwing millions into repealing this legislation.

We understand that that puts Seattle in a difficult position, but it is no excuse for us to back down from the promises made by our electeds to ensure every student has a meal at school, because they need nutrition to learn.

It's proven.

We already have great programs serving many of our low-income students, yet, right now, those families fill out paperwork.

The district proceeds to ensure eligibility, sinking limited funds into gatekeeping what seems like basic needs for our students.

We don't need families to jump through hoops we need to show our public schools are universal and for everyone.

Delaying this program breaks a promise, no matter how we spin this amendment.

We support the mayor's proposal and hope you move boldly, not out of fear, trusting that voters this November will not listen to corporate propaganda and will not repeal the millionaire's tax.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got Caleb Toolda, Hanan Shefka, followed by Sebo Shadiwa.

So sorry.

Good morning, Council.

Thank you for having us.

My name is Caleb Twolday.

I'm an educator in Southeast Seattle.

I'm also running for state representative in the 37th Legislative District.

And I want to talk a little bit from an educator's perspective and also as a former free and reduced lunch kid.

I was part of that program as a kid in elementary school, and I carried that stigma growing up here in Seattle, dealing with housing instability, dealing with food insecurity.

And it shouldn't be something that a kid has to carry with them, that stigma of having to be that odd one out.

Universal meals solve that.

Growing up, or thinking about this amendment, I'm disappointed, not only as that former free and reduced lunch kid, but also as the educator who sees kids that show up not being fed.

You see it show up with their engagement.

You see it show up in how they walk in lethargic.

We should be feeding all of our kids.

This was a promise that we made with the FEP levy, and it should be a promise that we keep.

I understand the intent behind this amendment, but the added hoops and putting universal meals at risk is not worth it.

and I believe we share the same concerns about food access and supporting students, but access matters.

Universal school meals reach every student automatically with no application or extra steps for families and a voucher model would require families to apply, qualify and redeem benefits through a limited number of participating vendors, creating additional barriers for the very families we're trying to support.

I urge you to vote no on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caleb.

One second, commenters.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that the ding is distracting to people.

They think that public comments over, but it was a different ding.

We've corrected now, so that shouldn't happen again.

All right, we have Hannon Shrivka, followed by Sebo Chudyiwa, and then Ramin Bakshi.

I'm so sorry, folks.

Hannon?

Okay, great.

Welcome.

Hello.

My name is Hanan Shirka.

I use she, her pronouns, and I'm a staff member at FEAST, one of the Seattle-based nonprofits that supports high school student organizers in their efforts to improve food justice and mental health in their schools.

I'm speaking today to oppose amendment number six to the FEP levy.

Young people should be at the center of decision-making about issues they face, so I'll be quoting written comment from young people who aren't here today, as well as sharing sentiments informed by the young people I've worked with over the past two years.

This amendment not only delays universal school meals, a win that Seattle families celebrated and were depending on for this upcoming school year.

It also leaves universal meals at risk for the following five years of the levy.

Maintaining the current free or reduced lunch model instead of universal lunch this year would require that again, parents and families apply for the program, which is a barrier to use.

Even if all students who qualify were to apply and use the program, a family of four where two adults are working full-time making just minimum wage would not qualify for free or reduced lunch.

In the words of Caitlin, a student at Chief Self High School, there will still be free and reduced lunch for those who need it.

I ask, what about me?

My family isn't below the poverty line.

We can still go grocery shopping, but quote, money gets tight fast, especially in expensive areas like Seattle, end quote.

Need is defined very narrowly and universal school lunch would unburden many families who don't qualify, but are still struggling financially in the current economic climate.

We know that for many schools, the only place they're getting food throughout the week.

Shayla, a student at Franklin High School shared, quote, unfortunately, I haven't had the best access to food at home and described school as, quote, my main source of food throughout the day, end quote.

When I work with young people to envision the future of food access at their schools, their dreams are beyond just free meals.

They discuss, intentional sourcing from local farms, meals that reflect the cultural food staples across our diverse student body, nutritious meals, less processed food, more fresh fruits and vegetables, and food at snack times, just to name a few.

Universal meals in the 2026-27 school year is already a delay in meeting student needs.

We cannot push this another year.

I will end with words from Salem, a student at Chief Self, quote, no student should have to worry about being hungry while trying to learn.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SIBO, followed by Raman, followed by Tatiana Brown.

Welcome.

Good morning Council.

My name is Sibongela Chajgiewa and I'm a Program Manager at Immigrant Guide and I also work in Seattle.

Today I want to urge the City Council to reject the amendments to the Family Education Preschool and Promise Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan.

Seattle voters approved the FEPP levy with the expectation that the city would implement investments as they were promised, including the universal school mills.

The council should honor that commitment without changing the program's focus or delaying its implementation.

Universal school meals are one of the most effective ways to reduce childhood hunger because every student has equal access without applications, eligibility requirements, or fear of being singled out.

They eliminate stigma and protect students' dignity and ensure that no child is treated differently because of their family's financial circumstances.

While addressing food insecurity outside of school is an important goal, replacing or supplementing universal meals with a grocery voucher program is not the right approach.

Vouchers-based programs can create barriers to participation, require families to identify themselves as needing assistance and may unintentionally increase stigma.

Universal school meals provide support in a way that is equitable, inclusive and seamless for every student.

I also oppose delaying or restructuring a voter approved program based on uncertainty about future revenues.

The city should implement the levy as approved by voters and address any future budget challenges through the normal budget process if they arise.

Please reject the amendment 5 and 6 and preserve the universal school meals program as originally adopted.

Seattle students deserve a program that is universal, dignified and implemented without delay on unnecessary changes.

Thank you.

Thank you Sibu.

We have Ramin Bashi, followed by Tatiana Brown, followed by Lak Trun.

Hello, my name is Ramin Bashi, and I am the Food Access Coordinator at FEAST.

Exactly one month ago, I stood right here and shared the significance and impact of of universal free lunch for all SPS schools.

My testimony today carries the same message with more weight because you all made a commitment.

Our students need and deserve free breakfast and lunch when they were at school, not next year, not if the millionaire's tax passes, now for this FEP levy for the upcoming 2026-27 school year and for the next six years to follow.

Our commitments are too often over-promised and underserved, and this pattern degrades trust in our system.

This sends a clear message, we are not prioritized.

Over a decade ago, student organizers at Feast named something that should feel obvious, but hasn't always been treated that way.

Students should be able to eat fresh, free, and culturally relevant food at school without barriers, without stigma, and without having to prove that they deserve it.

Needless to say, free school lunches felt like a big win, not only for food justice, but for our movement as well.

And then yesterday, we received disappointing news that actually there would be no free lunch.

So today, we continue to show up to fight on something that you said was secured.

we cannot keep pushing the can farther and farther down the road.

This amendment is a band-aid solution to a deeper gash.

Pushing this back does not center the wellness of our youth.

If we cannot prioritize food justice in our school systems right now when we have the opportunity, when it has been publicly committed to and widely celebrated, there is less trust that you might view it as a priority later on, especially when the conditions become harder.

We have shown our students the Feb Levy as an example of what food justice can look like in schools and how big of a win this is.

And when the voices in this room are heard today, we will show our students this as an example of the impact of organizing.

But pass this amendment instead and our students will feel firsthand how their voices have been ignored and they will again witness the failures of over promising and under delivering.

We need free school meals for all students this year, all year long, not something else.

Thank you for looking to you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ramin.

We have Tatiana Brown followed by Lactran and then Jacob Filecki.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for having us today.

My name is Tatiana Brown, and I come to you today as both a candidate for State Senate in the 37th Legislative District and a long-time food justice advocate that is trained in equitable policy design.

I think we share the goals of how to get food to students who need food and how to create the conditions for students to thrive in schools.

When FEPP, the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy, was announced two months ago to expand food access to 53 more schools this upcoming year, our community and city was ecstatic.

Not only was this building on the legacy of expanding access in 2022 to 2023 when free lunch was brought up from six schools to 40 schools, but it hoped to be bold and bring free meals from the 53 to now 104 schools in our system.

It was an example of building equitably and boldly.

53 schools already received free in-school lunch, and based on data the city took, we estimate it saves $1,200 per child for a family.

As a leader from the 37th, where all 26 of our schools already have universal free lunch, you might ask why I'm speaking to you about expanding this program when our students are already taken care of.

This is an example where policy is working well and we're reaching the most disadvantaged.

I believe we have a genuinely good policy that is demonstrating it has reached those that need it, and those schools with the highest proportion of students on free and reduced lunch.

And because of that, everyone else in their school gets to gain.

And it has created a base where we have grown access to free fruit and vegetables.

I believe our district can lead as an example of solutions that meet our needs and that we will be a force to bring the benefit to others we build from there.

We know making meals a universal benefit like desks or textbooks directly increases the number of students consuming nutritious breakfast and lunch each day.

but when we are deciding if we will include 6,800 more students into this program and we know we can expand the service, I implore you all to not defer.

Students across Seattle, our region and our state deserve universal breakfast and lunch.

We have seen the many benefits in their life, their families' lives and educational outcomes.

Let's invest in it and we are investing in our future.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We have Lactran followed by Jacob Vilecki and then Najma Tajal.

Lak, welcome.

My name is Lak Tran, and I'm a student in Seattle who graduated two weeks ago.

I'm a former free and reduced lunch kid, and I want to voice my opposition to Amendment 6. I want to start off with what we know.

We know that when students are fed and their basic needs are met, they are able to show up as their best selves.

They can focus and engage in class because they are not distracted by hunger.

We also know that when there is an eligibility limit for school lunches, families in the middle so often get left out because food insecurity does not only affect families who qualify for food assistance, but it also affects everyone.

A voucher program will create additional barriers for the families that we are trying to support.

Universal school lunches will close the food access gap for 6,800 Seattle Public School students and save families $1,200,000 a year per child.

We must not create a system where students need to prove that they are hungry before they can eat.

I urge your support of free school lunches and a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lak.

We have Jacob Filecki, followed by Najma, and then Menzeba Hasafi.

Jacob?

All right.

Good morning, Chair Rivera.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Vice Chair Rink and to members of the Select Committee.

My name is Jacob Faleca, and I am the Public Policy Engagement Specialist at The Voice of Tomorrow, and I want to start by extending our deepest gratitude first to the council members who have stepped up to sponsor these critical amendments.

Thank you to council member Alexis Mercedes Rink and your staff for the incredible speed and work for sponsoring amendment number two, which ensures that we are actively studying and closing opportunity gaps before kindergarten.

We also want to warmly thank Councilmember Eddie Lin for sponsoring amendment number three.

Bringing real family child care experience into the Levy Oversight Committee is a huge win for representation, and we look forward to continuing the conversation about eventually securing permanent voting spots for active providers and hubs.

As a policy team, we know that getting the language right takes time and we cannot leave the safety of our programs to wait to chance or wait to sort out operational details down the line.

That is why we think it's incredibly smart to look at the timeline between now and the July 22nd hearing as a gift, as a beautiful window to slow down and truly workshop these amendments with the community.

We also want to make sure that our competitive process stay open and fair and we are advocating for technical amendments to RFP language for vital programs to match the language of the child care workforce program.

The family child care mentorship and the homeless child care and the developmental bridge programs are all missions as community-routed hubs like Voice of Tomorrow to bring unique expertise and approximate the culture and community to run these programs successfully.

Finally, on amendment number four, we see a beautiful path forward to solve two urgent needs at once without pausing our early learning momentum.

We want to be in the middle with a balanced kind of split, and we commend the effort to want to propose dedicating certain funds to keep low-income K-12 students fed when school is out, but also we want to have the original funds to help fund a starter preschool voucher pilot.

We encourage you, Chair Rivera, to extend that period of amendments and continue a workshop period to make sure our children are fed, providers, parents, and children are supported, and our policies are truly equitable.

Thank you so much for your time and your partnership.

Thank you, Jacob.

We've got Najma followed by Manzaba, followed by Sarah Gaspard.

and then we'll go down the line.

Najma, welcome.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Najma Egal.

I'm with Voices of Tomorrow where I serve as the Community Advocacy and Engagement Specialist.

I would also like to start by thanking Council Member Lynn for sponsoring Amendment 3 and Council Member Rink for sponsoring Amendment 2 to help close persistent opportunity gaps.

I'm here today to strongly support expanding representation for child care providers on the Levy Oversight Committee.

Our neighborhood providers are the backbone of Seattle's childcare system, yet for far too long, the policies that directly impact their work have been shaped without them having a permanent seat at the table.

In my role, I work closely with family childcare providers every day.

I hear firsthand about how the challenges they navigate, the barriers they face, and the creative solutions they develop to serve children and families.

Their lived experiences is expertise, and their voices are invaluable.

They should not simply be consulted after decisions are made.

They should be a part of making those decisions.

If we want this levy to be successful over the next five years, we need designated voting seats for active family child care providers and community-based intermediary hubs on the oversight committee.

These providers understand the realities of implementing these policies because they live them every day.

They have earned more than an opportunity to provide feedback.

They deserve a seat at the table and a real voice in how these public investments are governed.

We ask that the Council use these weeks leading up to the July 22nd hearing to continue engaging providers and community members so these policies can be strengthened before the final vote.

By ensuring providers have meaningful representation, we can build a stronger, more equitable childcare system that truly reflects the needs of families and communities it serves.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Najma Menzaba Hasafi, followed by Sarah Gaspard, and then we'll go online.

Welcome.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Oh, is this on?

Sorry.

Good morning, everybody.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair.

You have to speak into the mic, sorry.

Oh, let's start for time again, Jacob.

Sorry.

Yes, that's back.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, great.

Excellent.

Again, good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for having us, Vice Chair, Chair, and all council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your continued willingness to hear directly from the communities who will ultimately experience the decisions that are made here.

My name is Menzeeba Hasati and I serve as the Public Policy and Strategic Planning Manager at Voices of Tomorrow.

I'm born and raised right here in Seattle, but I've lived most of my adult in West Africa where I started my family.

During my time there, I learned something very profound that remains in my paradigm.

I live with it, I walk with it.

In French, you will say, .

If you want to know how to cross the river, ask the people who do it every day.

In many places around the world where traditional culture and human quality are still valued, this proverb reminds us that wisdom isn't measured by proximity to power.

It's measured by the mastery of lived experience.

My journey through activism and motherhood has taught me that people closest to the challenge often have the clearest understanding of what it will take to solve it or to face it.

I hear that same principle reflected in several of the amendments before you today.

I'd like to thank Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rink who's virtual for championing the amendment that examines opportunity gaps pre-K, and council member Eddie Lynn for recognizing the importance of family childcare voices in levy oversight.

Those amendments reflect a willingness to learn from the people doing this work every day.

As you continue refining the preschool voucher pilot, I ask that you also protect the opportunity to learn through implementation.

A smaller pilot that moves from planning into practice while continuing to consult with the expertise of community partners, many of us who have filled this room today, will reveal for us far more than one more year of just theory alone.

Implementation is where families experience your decisions.

It is where trust is built or lost.

If we truly want equitable outcomes, we must invite the people who cross the river every day to help guide the way forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Manziba.

We have Sarah Gaspard and then we'll go online.

Good morning, Chair Rivera and members of the committee.

My name is Sarah Gaspard.

I live on Capitol Hill and I'm testifying about strategy number four, basic needs and also amendment four.

Growing up below the poverty line, I qualified for free lunch and it saved me on nights.

I wasn't sure if there would be dinner at home.

I know firsthand how vital these school programs are, but I also know that students' basic needs don't end when the school day finishes.

This is personal.

In 2021, while I was working in the National District, I had come across a 19-year-old homeless CEO who was struggling with substance use addiction.

She was a recent SPS graduate.

Once she handed back her cap and gown, the system dropped her.

I support the levy.

Amendment 4 adds weekend and school break food assistance, which is a good step, but the housing target in table 18 stays at a minimum of just 90 students.

Food support does not equal housing for students.

It is deeply disappointing that we aren't doing more to fight a real safety net and prevent our SPS graduates from falling through the cracks, but again, thank you for still providing food support for students who need it, because food is a right for all our students.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

We'll go to our online commenters now.

Please remember to press star six to begin.

We have Aidan Carroll followed by Anissa Dehir and then Sawita Abdi.

Aidan, please press star six and you may begin.

Did it work?

It worked.

We can hear you.

I am speaking today in opposition to mean testing of food programs and of other programs, we've heard about how much the bureaucracy takes out when you end up trying to put walls around things that aren't terribly expensive in the first place.

I would note we've had this same discussion from the buses and trains for years.

in New York City.

We're seeing that effort being put to make the buses free.

And the first time I came to Seattle City Council was 10 years ago.

I think Katie Wilson was there, but I remember speaking on the importance of making transit free because two years earlier there was a man killed by police at Soto Station because he thought that the fare enforcement was potentially some kind of immigration police.

We know how it impacts people when you end up having to not only stigmatize them and create extra work the system has to spend its money on, but also what it does have to make everyone else either be above a threshold and pay exactly the same, whether they're extremely wealthy or just fairly middle class.

If you had to do something like this, you would want to do it through something more graduated, like the social housing where everyone is paying a third of their income, no one is turned away for lack of that ratio.

Finally, I understand you're under pressure, you think you are, from people who are fighting the millionaires tax, but when you're standing between A line of protesters and a line of police.

You don't turn to the protesters and say it's not worth it.

You turn to the police, but the protesters to your back and you tell the police it's not worth it.

That's what you need to do.

Thank you.

We have Liz Hughes, followed by Anissa Dehar and then Sawita Abdi.

Liz, press star six and you may begin.

Liz, please press star six to unmute, and then you may begin.

Liz, we're gonna go to the next speaker, but we'll come back to you.

Aneesa Dahir.

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

Hi, everyone.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Anissa and I'm here representing my mother, Khadja Dahir and our family childcare program located in Columbia city.

For 19 years, my mother has started our community and I have grown up working alongside her.

And for the last five years, we have been proud partners of the Seattle preschool program.

We serve families from many different backgrounds, including first-time parents, those who speak English, sorry, those who speak languages other than English at home, and parents who work long non-traditional hours.

We recently had the privilege of hosting the mayor, Katie Wilson, in our home to discuss the importance of community representation in these critical moments.

It is because of that experience that I want to thank Councilmembers Alexis and Councilmember Lynn for undertaking amendments two and three to ensure that the levy includes expertise and filing and opportunity gaps that surround the child care sector.

However, I am concerned about the proposal and amendment for to delay the SPP waitlist voucher pilot and relocate nearly $1 million away from early learning.

We understand the need for food security for our children, but we believe this creates a difficult choice between two essential needs.

Rather than delaying the pilot for report, I urge the council to move forward with a smaller test version this year.

I believe early learning dollars should remain in early learning.

We have been extremely underfunded and overextended over the years, and we are ready to do more to support these children and families.

I respectfully ask the council to adopt the amendments proposed by Voices of Tomorrow, which would ensure that the neighborhood-based providers are fully included as partners in this effort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Liz Huizar, we're gonna go back to UNC.

If you press star six to unmute, There you are, I can see you did that.

Welcome.

Yes, good morning.

Good morning.

Apologies for the delay, but good morning council members.

My name is Liz Wieset and I am here once again representing the Southeast Seattle Education Coalition.

First, I wanted to thank you all and Dio in particular for all the various community engagements that helped shape the levy.

CSEC was proud to be a part of those conversations because they reflected a shared belief that the best education policy is created with community and not just for them.

That's why I want to speak today not only about the amendments themselves but about the process.

Overall, we support amendments that strengthen accountability, improve coordination across city departments, and reinforce the levy's commitment to closing opportunity gaps.

We especially appreciate efforts to improve transparency through de-aggregated data, strengthen restorative approaches, and recognize community-based organizations as essential partners in implementation.

At the same time, these amendments were released only yesterday.

After months of community engagement, this stage of the process feels disconnected from the collaborative approach that brought us here.

Community organizations like ours need meaningful time to review proposed changes, talk with families, and understand how these decisions reflect the priorities that we've heard throughout Southeast Seattle.

Community engagement doesn't end when the listening sessions are over.

It continues through implementation, accountability, and the decisions made along the way.

As you continue this process, we ask that you preserve not only the investments this levy makes, but also the partnership with the communities that helped shape it.

That partnership is what will ultimately determine whether these investments deliver the equitable outcomes we all want for Seattle children and families.

This is an opportunity for us to really learn about the amendments and not just react to them.

So just timeline considerations.

Thank you for your listening and leadership during this process.

Thank you, Liz.

We have Sawita from followed by Lillianne Ballesteros, excuse me, and then for Dean Poptiba.

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

Sueda, I see you're unmuted.

You may begin.

Apologies, it's Sueda that's next.

Apologies, you may begin.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Soweda, and I serve as a health coordinator with Voices of Tomorrow.

My role is to bridge the gap between families and the healthcare system, and I spend my day monitoring health screenings, tracking referrals, and coordinating with community partners to ensure that children who need extra support aren't left behind.

I am here to urge the adoption of an amendment regarding the developmental bridge.

Part of my mandate is to ensure that children with suspected delays get connected to quality early intervention services.

Right now, the developmental bridge language is too restrictive.

It limits service delivery to narrow set of existing agencies.

which creates a barrier for the families I serve who are already struggling to navigate complex health systems.

As someone responsible for maintaining our program's health and safety compliance, I see the value in expanding these services to qualified community-based hubs.

These hubs are trusted partners who already speak our family's languages and hold deep roots in the community, allowing them to deliver these services under the same rigorous standards I help maintain will drastically increase the number of children who receive early identification and follow-up care.

Please support this amendment to ensure that health services, health resources are accessible, culturally responsive and effective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Soweda.

We have Lillianne followed by Ferdin and then Alberto Alvarez.

Lillianne, You may begin.

Press star six.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning to the council.

My name is Lillian Ballesteros and I'm a resident of Seattle and the executive director of Latino Community of Washington.

In our work, we support students and families here in Seattle, including supporting families who are struggling to access food for their families.

We provide food assistance to low-income families, but we caution against framing targeted food vouchers as a replacement for universal school meals.

We see that when barriers are set up, families suffer.

When families face administrative barriers, they do not access the food and resources they need and students do not thrive.

Universal access remains the strongest equity approach we see because it reaches all students, it reduces administrative barriers and avoids stigmatizing families who need support.

We encourage the Council today to balance immediate needs with the long-term goal of a sustainable, equitable food access system for young people and fulfill the promise for universal school meals and also to continue keeping this process inclusive of Family Voice by allowing the time for families and community groups to review these amendments and bring voice to what families and students need here in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lillian.

We've got Ferdin.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Hello, can you hear me?

Good morning, we can hear you.

Okay, awesome.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Ferdin Patia.

I'm an organizer at the University of Washington.

Just graduated a few weeks ago.

And I'm just here to speak about Amendment 6 and here to speak against it.

I was very disappointed to learn that this council may consider means testing universal school meals, which would essentially gut the program because it wouldn't be universal anymore.

If there's any lesson we ought to learn by now, if that means testing does not make a program more efficient, nor does it help everyone who may need it, what it is is an expensive scam, essentially.

Forcing students to apply income eligibility requirements, all of these things place an unnecessary administrative burden on the city government.

to tabulate exactly who qualifies for a program.

All that costs money.

In other words, you're asking the study to spend taxpayer money to cover less people.

Seattle voters expected there to be food for their children, so you should give their children food, as you promised.

A $3 million cut to universal school meals would be a disaster and a complete reneging on the promise made by this council to the working families of Seattle.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for Dean.

We've got Alberto Alvarez followed by Maya McKay and then Segal Jamali.

Alberto, you can press star six and you may begin.

Thank you.

I believe it is a God-given mandate that no child, no matter their family income, should ever spend a day hungry.

Council Member Foster and Council President Hollingsworth Your assessment for delaying the Universal Meals Program states, a one-year delay in implementing the Universal School Meals Program provides time to see if the long-term viability of this program is at risk.

What's happening here is wealthy men are using the legal system and our own democratic process to create a chilling effect.

It is a political game to them.

In this case, you have to play the game right.

When families have a tangible benefit, they can see what they stand to lose.

By delaying meals to our children, you are doing exactly what wealthy men wanted you to do.

Granting middle-income families universal school meals, it will be more likely a vote to keep the millionaire's tax.

Thank you all and have a good day.

Thank you.

We've got Maya McKay.

Please press star six and you may begin, Maya.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Maya McKay and I'm a teacher at Dearborn Elementary School.

Sorry, I get so emotional when I think about these things, but I just really want to speak strongly against amendment six by Hollingsworth and Foster to delay the universal food program.

As a teacher, I see these kids and it's like the best thing that's happened for our school.

We have this program and I remember the days of having to try to teach kids who are hungry and having to buy them food.

go to Costco every weekend, buying snacks, buying food, and you're basically just pushing the burden onto the teachers, the people who love these kids and have to try to support them, the family support workers who go out of their way to try to help these families who are struggling.

As a student, I also was a free and reduced lunch kid, and for whatever reason, I didn't I didn't qualify or I didn't get the paperwork in and I'll never understand but I remember in high school not having any access to food and going to school and not eating all day and asking my friends for food and not realizing that that was the right I was supposed to have and I just didn't have it.

Having teachers ask me if I had an eating disorder because they couldn't understand the idea that people honestly don't have access to food and it isn't a universal right I think the people who wrote this amendment haven't had those experiences.

They don't see the kids who need this food.

They don't see the middle class families like myself now that I'm a teacher and I have two kids trying to get to work super early in the morning at elementary school with food and all the things that your kids need and how much this really helps every single family in our school know that their kids are gonna have at least food that day.

And I think all the other things on that list that your funding are great, but feed the kids first, and then everything else should be...

Thank you, Maya.

We are...

Seagal Jamali is next, and then we'll go to three more in-person speakers.

Seagal, please press star six, and you may begin.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

My name is Seagal Jamali.

My name is Seagal Jamali.

I am the Seattle Preschool Program Manager at Voices of Tomorrow.

My work focuses on expanding preschool programs, helping new classrooms open, and making sure families who need these services actually access them.

Because I work on expansion every day, I know that lasting growth depends on using the talent and expertise already in our communities.

That's why we support opening programs like Family Child Care Mentorship, Homelessness Child Care, and the Developmental Breach through an open competitive BAR-FP processes.

Communities, rooted organizations, and experienced providers should have the opportunity to bring this expertise to this program.

These are small implementation details.

For the local organizations trying to plan for the future, certainty matters.

That's why these competitive guidelines should be written directly into the levy language, not...

Sorry, my mic.

not left to future decisions.

I support using this time before July 22nd to straighten the levy and make it the best it can be.

Finally, I support the Fourth Amendment because it offers a balanced solution.

We can continue funding meals for lower-income K-12 students during the summer by also launching a small, equitable preschool voucher pilot for families and providers.

We don't have to choose one need over another.

We can feed children today while creating more preschool opportunities for tomorrow.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Segal.

Going back to in-person speakers, Leo, excuse me, Leo Felit Bagmonte, followed by Myles Hagopian and then Reagan Medema.

Leo, welcome.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Leo.

I'm a District 4 resident.

I'm a junior in high school.

I also serve as president to the Seattle Student Union, and I was appointed to Mayor Wilson's transition team.

As part of Mayor Wilson's transition team, we had listening sessions across Seattle.

We seemed to be ages four to 24, reaching more than 200 people.

One thing we heard consistently was the need for free school meals.

Students and families told us that even if they do not qualify for free or reduced price lunch, the cost of paying for lunch every day is still a burden.

Even among those who do qualify, immigrant families told us they do not apply because of fear and many others simply do not apply because of shame or because the process is difficult to navigate.

Providing universal free meals will benefit all students.

Students cannot learn when they're hungry.

Believe me, I know, I'm a student who can get very hungry.

Universal School Meals will help students learn, improve their wellbeing and keep kids safe and well fed.

I urge you not to roll this back with amendment six and send best fully with school meals for our students because when it's inside the schools, which amendment six will take it outside of the schools, there are way less barriers for students to get food and sure students are getting the food it's being paid for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leo.

We have Miles followed by Reagan.

Miles, welcome.

My name is Miles.

I go to Franklin.

I'm also a Seattle Student Union.

I want to speak also in support of free lunch for all students and universal lunch.

I think it would be a crime to deny children food at school.

I mean I don't think if your child was hungry you would ask for any paperwork before giving your child food.

In the richest city I think it would be absolutely criminal to deny any child food.

I think that's a right that we all deserve to have no matter income or anything and I just know so many students at my school rely on that.

Even if they aren't free and reduced lunch, many students still don't have money to eat out because Seattle is ridiculously expensive.

And I just think if your child was in the same position, you would not want that.

And I don't see how any of you could sleep at night knowing there's kids in the richest city that need food and aren't getting it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miles.

We've got Regan Medema.

Welcome.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Regan Medema, and I am here today on behalf of the Hanna for Washington State Senate campaign, and we are in support of the free and reduced school meals program included in this levy.

Providing free school meals to every student in every school guarantees better learning environments for both kids and teachers and cuts food costs for families across Seattle.

This meals program would be a concrete step for Seattle to become the best version of ourselves, one where local government materially delivers on promises to become a city where families can flourish.

We have an opportunity here to close the food access gap for about 6,800 students in the Seattle Public Schools, many of whom face barriers to accessing federally funded meals or ineligible despite experiencing food insecurity due to low federal eligibility thresholds.

We can directly serve thousands of families who are estimated to save $1,200 per child per year, many of whom live and work in the 43rd District.

Making basic nutrition as Free and Universal's K-12 education is common sense economic and education policy.

We strongly urge you to support this program and urge you to maintain it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Regan.

And I should say, and I didn't stop any public comment today, but we can't take public comment from campaign-related matters, so we can take public comment from folks as yourself but so please keep that in mind for future.

No, no, it wasn't just you actually.

I should have said it earlier but I hate to cut people off when they're giving public comment on something so important to folks but it is really important that this is not campaign and it is not a political event so you really need to limit your comments to you yourself which I think can happen so I just wanted to let you know for future reference and for future commenters because I know we have at least one more I think online.

So thank you.

Thank you everyone for your comments though today.

Let's see.

Anthony D'Amico, I see your name, but it says you're not present.

No?

All right.

Any other?

We're done?

Nope, Chair.

That was the last registered speaker.

Okay.

Sorry, Anthony.

You look to be on the list, but not present.

We will move on.

Please, if somehow you can hear us, but I know it says you're not present, just go ahead and send your comment online and anyone can do that as well.

Send us your public comments online.

All right, colleagues, I believe we've reached the end of our public comment period.

We will move on to our, sorry, public comment period is now closed officially.

We'll now proceed to our items of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

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

Thank you, clerk.

Colleagues, as I said earlier, today we're going to be doing two things.

We'll be hearing and voting on the substitute bill, and then we're going to be hearing and discussing the 11 amendments that have been brought, but we'll be voting on the amendments at the July 22nd meeting.

We're joined by our central staff, Jasmine Marwaha and Tracy Ratcliffe, and you're at the table now, so would you please state your name for the record and you can begin.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

This is Jasmine Marwaha on council central staff.

And Tracy Rassif on council central staff.

All right.

Do you, I believe you can talk, speak to the underlying.

Okay.

Sorry.

We're got to consult with the clerk.

Cause I was told two different things.

Okay, we're gonna move the bill and then you can speak to it.

I move to recommend passage of Bill 121240. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

We will now consider the substitute.

Now we'll go to Tracy and Jasmine.

Thank you for the grace, everyone in chambers, colleagues and online.

Council members, you have in front of you, or attached to the agenda actually, a substitute for the introduced version of 12140. This substitute makes really just two substantive changes.

And it corrects, frankly, errors that central staff made in terms of making the transition from the transmitted version to the desired substitute in front of the council.

The first change would be to correct the date for the Seattle Preschool Program voucher pilot implementation date to 2026-27 school year.

We had erroneously put the 27-28 school year in the introduced version.

The second change would be to add in frequency of service, and this would be found in each one of the implementation standard tables.

It really is about the frequency at which a program would be provided to the targeted population.

And so we erroneously had deleted that from the version that the council member wanted to have included and that the executive had requested that we include.

And so it just reinserts those frequency lines in the implementation standards.

The rest of the changes, and there are a few here and there, are really purely technical changes, correcting numberings of tables or references to table numbers, and that is really the substance of those technical amendments.

Thank you, Tracy, and apologies.

I think I miss-said your last name.

It's Ratzliff, not Ratzcliff.

I don't know why I said that.

Apologies for the record.

All right, is there, do colleagues have any questions before we take the vote?

Wait, wait a second, apologies.

Now I have to move to amend Council Bill 121240 by substituting attachment one version two for attachment one version three, which is the version that I believe Tracy just spoke about.

That's correct.

Now I will go to any questions.

Oh wait, I need a second.

Wow.

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

It has been moved and seconded to substitute the attachment.

Are there any comments or questions before we take the vote?

Alright, before we take the vote, I'm just gonna say thank you for the patience this morning with the back and forth.

There were different versions and we were trying to get the right sequence of events and so my apologies.

Thank you for sticking with me on that.

Alright, let's take the vote.

Clerk, please.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are eight in favor, zero opposed.

Thank you.

Clerk, the motion carries and substitute attachment one version three is adopted.

All right.

Now that we've voted on the substitute bill, central staff is going to introduce the amendments one by one.

and then I'll recognize the sponsor to address their amendment.

I'll take any questions and then we'll go to the next amendment and we will be taking a vote, colleagues, next week on all these amendments.

So this is for briefing and discussion today on the amendments.

I will say it is my intent to move a chair's package with the bulk as many of these as as I think that there's broad support for.

And then, so we'll move that as a chair's package and then any that, you know, any that should not be in the chair's package we'll take individually next time.

But I think that'll streamline the process as well.

Back to you, Tracy and Jasmine.

Council Members, moving to Amendment 1. The sponsor is Council Member Rivera, and this amendment would direct the formation of an interdepartmental team that includes the Department of Education and Early Learning and the other key departments that have programs and services funded by the Families, Education, and Promise levy.

This IDT would meet quarterly, and really the intent is just to ensure an alignment with the requirements of the levy and that all of the departments are coordinating with one another in the implementation and evaluation of programs and services funded by the FEP levy.

Thank you, Tracy.

I'll address this colleague since it's the amendment I'm bringing forward.

This is the first time in the levy that we've had investments in the levy that are usually and are carried out by other departments like HSD and the Parks Department and OSC, Office of Sustainability and Environment.

So the intent of this IDT is to ensure a formal process by which those departments are going to collaborate as they implement these programs that are under the FEP levy to ensure that they both conform to the language of the levy and they do what voters said we're going to do, and then also to ensure that, you know, they're working together on any cross-pollination.

In some instances there are similar investments in both departments or in across all the departments.

So it's really to ensure that we are coordinated and everyone's working together and we are, each department has insight and weighs into each other's investments.

So we're not duplicating efforts that are not coordinated.

And this is really in the best interest of all the kids and families that are being served by this levy.

So that is the point of this IDT.

is not just to ensure that it conforms to the levy, but that they're also really working together to ensure that we're not duplicating efforts and that all the investments are being implemented in the best way possible with that coordination piece together in mind.

Happy to answer any questions, colleagues.

If not, we'll go to Amendment 2. So let me see here.

I don't see any hands raised, so why don't we go to Amendment 2?

Amendment 2, to add strategy goals to close opportunity gaps.

This amendment would add strategy goals in each of the three domains to reflect the goal to close opportunity gaps for populations furthest from the achievement of the goals in each strategy.

The FEPP Levy Ordinance states that an implementation principle of the levy is to achieve levy outcomes and advance educational equity.

The evaluation framework described in Section 1 of the INE plan further includes the question to what extent and in what ways do FEP investments improve educational equity, close opportunity gaps, and build a better economic future for Seattle children and youth.

The INE plan provides for a robust process to ensure continuous quality improvements of investments with reporting indicators disaggregated by demographic characteristics.

So this amendment would reflect the desire to measure the success of the levy in part by closing opportunity gaps for those furthest from levy goals, which is consistent with the FEP levy ordinance and other areas of the plan.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Councilmember Rink is sponsor.

I'll recognize you to address your amendment.

Thank you so much, Chair Rivera.

Colleagues, the opportunity gap is the way that uncontrollable life factors such as race, language, economic position, and family situations can contribute to lower rates of success in educational achievement, career prospects, or other life aspirations.

This FAP levy is an important opportunity for us to explicitly state that closing the opportunity gap is one of our strategy goals and something that we're going to evaluate levy success on.

So as central staff identified in their memo and the presentation in our last meeting, this amendment reflects the desire for the I&E plan to provide clear consistency with the FEP levy ordinance and to frame the closing of the opportunity gap as a measure of success for this levy.

So you can also see that reflected in the tables in Amendment 2 that this would add opportunity gaps are closed for populations furthest from goals as a part of the FEP levy strategy goals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Colleagues, any questions?

I don't see any raised hands.

I just want to say, because I appreciate you bringing this, Councilmember Rink, I will say there is language within the body of the INE that talks about the closing of gaps for kids.

I appreciate that you want to put it on the table because you know this is so important that we want to add it to as many places as possible.

But I also know that the department worked so hard on this issue that I didn't want to leave it unsaid that there are various parts in the I&E itself that talks about the importance of closing opportunity gaps and in general that talks about, you know, assisting the kids that are furthest from educational goals, et cetera.

wanted to say that as well.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

And thank you, Jasmine and Tracy.

We'll go to amendment three.

Amendment 3. This amendment would request a deal to report annually to the Levy Oversight Committee on the Seattle Preschool Program's mixed delivery placement rates, recruitment activities for family childcare or FCC providers, provider demographics, administrative barriers identified by participating FCC providers, and progress towards FCC inclusion in SPP.

This amendment would also specify that the FEP levy oversight committee members having experience in childcare should include but not be limited to experience in family childcare.

The intent of this amendment is to provide greater oversight on FCC inclusion in FEP levy investments.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Councilmember Lin, you're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues.

I just want to uplift the incredible importance of our family child care providers.

They are often able to provide culturally relevant services to our diverse community, especially in Southeast Seattle.

They are often able to provide in language childcare, and I'm thankful for Deal for already providing a mixed delivery model for our preschool program.

It's great to provide options to our families, whether that is in Seattle schools, whether it is in some of our larger preschool programs, but I just want to continue to explore and encourage our placement of our preschool program with our family childcare providers, again, to give families options and flexibility to meet their needs.

And so with that, we'd love your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Lin.

Colleagues, any questions?

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Lynn, for bringing forward this amendment.

Really appreciate your leadership on this.

I'll just share that this issue is deeply personal for me and my family and many of my neighbors in the Delridge community in West Seattle where I live.

When my own children were younger, they attended a childcare program run by immigrant and refugee providers, where I saw firsthand the incredible care, cultural connection, and stability that family childcare providers offer to Seattle families.

My office has spent time, a lot of time, meeting with family childcare providers, including Voices of America or Voices of Tomorrow.

Shout out to Menziba, who testified earlier, to better understand the barriers that they and other immigrant and refugee childcare providers face in participating in the Seattle Preschool Program.

One message came through loud and clear in those conversations.

Family childcare providers want to be partners in delivering high quality early learning services.

They also want transparency and a better understanding of where they're succeeding and where barriers still exist.

This amendment responds directly to that feedback.

I believe by requiring annual reporting on mixed delivery placement rates, recruitment of family childcare providers, provider demographics, the administrative barriers, and progress toward greater inclusion, this amendment creates the kind of accountability that complements our broader early learning system.

So, love the amendment, frankly, everything about it.

For those reasons, I actually asked to co-sponsor this amendment alongside Councilmember Lin, and I'm grateful for Councilmember Lin and his leadership on this issue.

I'm proud to support it alongside him.

Councilmember Lin, are you fine with the co-sponsorship?

Thank you.

Well said, better said than I did.

So thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Councilmember Lin.

Colleagues, I should have said too, this is an opportunity if you want to co-sponsor any amendments to let our central staff know, since we are in a public forum and we're not taking votes today, we can have I believe up to four co-sponsors per amendment, as was delineated yesterday or the day before when we were doing the transit measure.

So if you want a co-sponsor, please do say so.

Let's see, Council Member Rank, I see your hand up.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I just have a brief comment on this amendment and then a question for you just in terms of process.

But to start with my comment on this amendment, I want to thank Councilmember Lynn for bringing this forward and reiterating the importance of childcare serving immigrant, refugee, and multilingual communities served by family childcare providers.

This report on the progress towards FCC inclusion on SPP and understanding administrative barriers is so crucial.

and so thank you for bringing this forward.

A question to the chair just related to process.

I appreciate the comments you just made related to, you know, this being an opportunity for sponsorship, a co-sponsorship.

A question since you mentioned at the top of this meeting that you'll be developing a chairs package and including things in the chairs package that have SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT.

ARE YOU BASING THAT SUPPORT BASED ON CO-SPONSORSHIPS?

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO ENGAGE IN TODAY'S MEETING TO REFLECT PRIORITIES TO HELP INFORM THE CHAIR'S PACKAGE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER RINK.

NO, IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON EVERYONE HAVING TO CO-SPONSOR TODAY.

only four people would be able to co-sponsor anyway, but more central staff will check in with me and we'll figure out between all of us what things we think have the most support and so that makes sense to put in a chairs package.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that point.

I will ask to be a co-sponsor on this one.

I would ask the sponsor if he is willing to accept that co-sponsorship.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Wright.

Of course.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lin.

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

A stale hand.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I don't see any other hands-up colleagues.

I'll just say, like the last amendment, I appreciate my colleague Councilmember Lin's amendment to raise up the voice.

I do want to say that the department already works with family, child care, providers that are part and they are part of the SPP program, but I understand the importance of it and wanting to uplift the voices and also to get more information.

I certainly support reports and more information and data by which to make future decisions, so I really appreciate you bringing this amendment forward as well.

I would like to co-sponsor this.

I'll just say it out loud.

I'm the chair, but I just want to say, you know, really support this.

So thank you, Council Member Lynn.

All right.

Council.

Oh, sorry.

Central staff amendment number four.

Amendment number four.

This is co-sponsored.

I should have mentioned the sponsors earlier.

My apologies for each amendment.

Amendment four is sponsored by Council members Foster and Hollingsworth.

This amendment would require that prior to implementation of the SPP waitlist voucher pilot program, The deals submit a report to Council examining SPP waitlist trends disaggregated by demographic factors describing how the SPP voucher waitlist pilot prioritization advances levy goals to close the opportunity gap for those furthest from kindergarten readiness and reflecting engagement of stakeholders such as families, institutional providers, and family child care providers.

After the development of the program in school year 26-27, according to this amendment, the program would be implemented in the 27-28 school year.

This amendment would allocate the $927,710 that was proposed to be spent in the 26-27 school year for the voucher pilot towards funding instead food assistance to low-income K-12 students over weekends and school breaks, excluding summer.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council Member Foster is the sponsor.

You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, central staff.

I'll speak to the intent of this amendment now, and then the funding component I'll speak to a little bit later when we discuss Amendment 6. So with this amendment in particular, this is in response to a desire to ensure that as we embark on this new Seattle Preschool Program waitlist voucher pilot, that we're doing so in a way that is going to be equitable and reaching the families who need it the most over the term of the levy.

As currently conceptualized, it was written to prioritize council districts where there are more than 10 Seattle Preschool Program providers with deal-managed waitlists.

to be the priority for investments.

And so this amendment in terms of its change here is saying that this may include but may not be limited to that to give us an opportunity to ensure that as the SPP voucher waitlist program is implemented, that we are taking an approach that ensures that we are prioritizing equity in the delivery and including other demographic factors that may be important as we're thinking about who has access to the Seattle Preschool Program.

so that is the intent behind this amendment and giving the department another year to put together the program in such a way we can feel certain that over the lifetime of the program we will be serving the families who need access to it most.

The second component of this amendment is the funding investment and I'll hold my comments on that until we get to amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Questions, colleagues?

I don't see any...

Oh, Council Member Saka.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Question for central staff here.

Can you explain how Amendment 4 would change implementation timeline for the SPP waitlist voucher pilot compared to the underlying implementation plan?

and specifically whether it creates any new administrative prerequisites or administrative burden before funds can be distributed.

One could argue that this creates some administration for the department to develop the report that's required in this plan.

I believe that there is limited administrative burden as it is conceived right now because it essentially will allow for families to choose CCAP providers if they qualify for this waitlist voucher pilot program.

And my understanding from Deal is that they had intentionally designed the program in order to be less administratively burdensome.

Thank you for that.

follow-up here.

Does the implementation plan already include reporting or stakeholder engagement related to the voucher pilot?

And if so, what additional information would this amendment require?

I'm not aware of any specific engagement regarding the voucher pilot.

I believe there is a summary of stakeholder engagement that is attached to the ordinance, which I have not committed to memory, so I'm not quite sure, and I can look that up and get back to you.

Thank you.

That would be very helpful.

I first want to thank the amendment sponsors for putting this forward.

I do have concerns about this particular amendment that would purport to redirect vital SPP voucher pilot funding and one community priority and I'm concerned it risks pitting one important community priority against another.

But I appreciate the intent here and I'll reserve other comments for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you.

I appreciate your comments, Councilmember Saka.

I just want to ask central staff, again, if we could reiterate this component of the voucher waitlist pilot program as sort of a separate independent project.

Can we speak to why it was that council districts were identified as the primary way to, as written without the amendment?

the sole way to make this designation and what information we have about what that will mean for equity and the distribution of the pilot program dollars.

My understanding from DEAL is that, again, the district level prioritization was chosen for ease of administration.

They had considered for smaller geographic divisions or other ways, but ultimately decided on the council district prioritization.

and I'm not sure what consideration of equity was considered in their prioritization.

I just can't speak to that.

Thank you.

Oops.

Councilmember Saka, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say, That feature in particular, I absolutely love.

And if the amendment just included that feature, more specifically on page two of the five pager of this amendment, the sort of third full paragraph, red line version beginning with additional eligibility requirements for the SPP waitlist voucher pilot may include, but not limited to.

If it was just that clarification language, 100% would support, would not have any concerns about this.

Um, but, but, uh, I do have some, some concerns, um, for the other, uh, substantive changes, but I, but I do appreciate the, again, the intent behind this.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, colleagues.

I, I'd like to say a couple of things about this, just because I've been working with the department for so many years and I know that their SPP program is an award winning program and they worked so hard on this program.

So, when they were given this task to do what they normally don't do, which is this voucher program, I know that they were very thoughtful with how they would implement this program, and they wanted to implement it this year because they know there's a need, there is a wait list in some districts more than others for the SPP program.

So, that is to say, sometimes people want a preschool near where they live and others where they work, depending on location, like what's advantageous for their families.

So there are some wait lists in some areas of the city and not others.

And this program is a little bit universal in its intent because if there are spots available and no one's using them, then we offer them to folks on a sliding scale.

So some people are paying more than others for the program if spots are available.

So I know all of that went into consideration when the department developed their initial proposal, which of course, as it states in the INE, they're going to develop the proposal this year.

They're probably doing that as we speak in preparation for the fall so they can start it on the fall.

So I don't think the council district conversation was to uplift any one council district or another.

They were looking at where are their wait lists and where aren't their wait lists and where there, which council districts or areas of the city really, it's more areas of the city where there might be, there isn't really a need because there are empty spots that they're offering to, you know, the public writ large versus their priority is they prioritize families, you know, who need this the most.

That is how they prioritize the program in general.

I just want to say all that.

I appreciate your focus, Council Member Foster, but it's important to me that you all have the information because I've been working with the department for so long.

I have some information.

Maybe you have, maybe you don't, so I don't want to suggest you're not well informed.

But I do know that with this particular program, I know all these aspects because I've had similar questions over the years.

So that's why I really appreciate you bringing this forward and having the conversation if nothing else.

So thank you council member Foster for allowing us that opportunity because then it gives the public the information too they may not have and they may not know aspects of the SPP, you know, because we don't always get the fine details of these programs.

So thank you.

back to you all for Amendment 5. Thank you.

Council Members, moving to Amendment 5. That's sponsored by Council Member Rivera.

This amendment would direct the Department of the Department of, Director of the Department of Early Learning and Education and Learning to obtain feedback from the Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools and the leadership of Seattle Charter Schools regarding the development of the K through 12 investments.

Thank you.

Um, Tracy, this just uplifts in the way that, um, other council members, you've brought your, um, amendments to uplift things that are important.

I think it's really important as the K through 12 investments are being implemented that we're, um, having, getting feedback from the superintendent and, and Seattle public schools and also the charter schools, because we make investments at the charter schools too.

So the leadership at those public charter schools to make sure that we are all aligned, more conversation amongst us is important.

Of course, these investments are not to supplant anything that the district is doing, and they don't get the final say, obviously, but there should be feedback being considered since we serve the same exact kids.

So we really should stay connected and focused and aligned, and this is what I wanted to uplift by this amendment.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any questions.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you so much, Chair Rivera, and thank you for bringing this amendment forward.

I'm always in favor of improved collaboration between different institutions, particularly when it comes to our shared goals of supporting our young people.

So thank you for bringing this forward.

My question is more just in a point of curiosity just around our current practices around engagement with charter schools.

I know we as local government have a number of touch points with Seattle Public Schools, but I'm wondering whether you central staff or maybe this is a question for Deal about our current cadence of engagement with charter schools.

We don't, I don't have that information, but I can definitely follow up with the department and get back to you.

And I can say Council, thank you, Jasmine and Council Member Rank.

It's my understanding that the department stays in touch with all of these entities.

This is really more to codify and uplift something that the department already does, because again, the public doesn't always know how the public doesn't readily know how the department engages with these entities.

they do work with the charter schools leadership and also the SPS superintendent and principals.

And this was more to uplift and codify something that they already do.

I don't know if that answers your question and we can get you more information if it doesn't.

Council Member Ring, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

Let's go to Amendment 6.

All right.

Amendment 6, which is sponsored by Councilmembers Hollingsworth and Foster.

So this amendment would add $500,000 a year for a total of $3 million over the six-year levy period to provide food assistance to low-income students over weekends and school breaks, excluding summer.

This assistance could be provided through vouchers that would be distributed by school personnels to families identified as in need of such assistance.

This program would be funded by delaying implementation of the Universal School Meals program until the 27-28 school year, freeing up the $3 million to support this food assistance program.

This would leave $4.7 million to be used to fund the School Meals program in the 27-28 school year.

Currently, there is a legal challenge and potential ballot measure that threatens the millionaire tax, which is the ongoing funding source for this proposed program after the implementation of the program with the city's funds.

So a one-year delay in implementing this universal school meals program provides time to see if the long-term viability of this program and its funding source is at risk.

Thank you, Tracy.

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

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

And I also want to thank the people.

I know a lot of them left, but thank you to everyone who came to advocate for universal meals across the city.

We are completely aligned.

And like they say in the street, 10 toes down alignment on there.

And I want to kind of ground us a little bit because understanding, and I think some commenters spoke today about some people being on free and reduced lunch.

and having weekend meals and break meals in summer and how they just really relied on that.

My mother worked at the school district as a sub for about 10 to 12 years.

And her job specifically was to make sure that the kids that needed food over the weekend had that bag of groceries to take to home.

That was her thing.

And if a child needed it, she would come out of her pocket all the time to make sure that they were fed.

So that was all the time.

that's the type of food access that I know.

And then also experience working at different food distributors through the pandemic, jumping on forklifts, going at 5 a.m.

to pick up food around the city of Seattle to make sure that people have food access.

So I know that this is a little spicy and I'm going to go ahead and walk through this so people kind of understand where the intention is and what we're trying to do and more than happy to listen to people engage.

I don't want to, I don't just want to say food access was my number priority on council.

So anyways, just want to say that.

So the question before us isn't like whether we get there, it's how we get there strategically.

And I strongly believe that a sequence implementation of a universal meal program paired with a program that can supplement food insecurity for low-income families for winter, mid-winter, and spring breaks and potentially weekend meals.

This amendment would have the universal meal program to start in 2027, 2028. That funding budgeted from the budget that came from the 2026, 2027 school year would not go back into the reserves where it was originally sourced from, but it would be redirected to close the gap for weekend and school break meals.

18,000 kids qualify for free and reduced lunch school meals every day.

Southeast Seattle has 26.5% food insecurity rate with roughly one in four household struggles to consistently access food.

Three out of every four schools currently providing universal meals right now, which I know some of the public commenters talked about from those schools, whether it was Chief Self, Franklin, heard a lot of those, are in South Seattle, Southeast Seattle, Central District, Del Ridge, South Park, and parts of West Seattle.

Southeast Seattle is also 13% of the population and 30% of the gun violence, and food insecurity directly links to gun violence.

The Othello Safeway has the highest redemption for SNAP benefits and Fresh Bucks in the entire state of Washington.

That is right here in the 98118 zip code.

The Rainier Valley Food Bank isn't the only meal program or pantry in Southeast Seattle, but it is the only food bank that can receive TFAP and EFAP dollars for federal funding in the 98118 zip code.

that food bank distributes 25% of all food bank visits in the entire city, that one food bank.

So Seattle operates an amazing summer meal program that serves children throughout the summer without requiring registration, ID, so I understand the access during the pandemic food banks were requiring a proof of address and that was a barrier and that got rid of that during the pandemic where people just said zip code and how many households, how many people were in their household to get food?

and some of those provisions are not there anymore.

So I understand about barriers, filling out paperwork, making sure that people, you know, some of those large cliffs that people have and the stigma, okay, when people when people are going to food banks and standing outside and not wanting people to see them standing in line to receive food.

I completely understand that.

And I think many of the highest needs schools are right now receiving universal meals because they qualify under a community eligibility provision, SEPP, a community eligibility provision schools that if you are 40%, if your school demographic is 40% or higher of the students who qualify for free and reduced lunch, everyone gets free lunch.

So we understand that that model works and we want to continue to expand it.

And those qualifications are high poverty rates, high rates of homelessness, more students in foster care, greater food insecurity, and then higher participation in SNAP.

And so when we were looking, when I was looking at this amendment and understanding what right now, what we were trying to do was number one, close the weekend food gap.

So looking at this through an equity lens, most school, most kids that are within these school districts, or excuse me, that are within these schools in the high need zip codes, do not have weekend meals, and their biggest time that they're suffering is midwinter break, winter break, and spring break.

Also wanting to maximize the Sun Bucks program and other nutrition programs.

Sun Bucks program just gives $120 to a kid's family for over the summer.

It's not a lot, but people, you know, anything helps as they stretch their dollars.

And this also to ensure Seattle Public Schools has time to build a sustainable program to maximize the impact.

And so, believing I wanted to put this out here for conversation, for us to have a really, really intentional conversation about equity when we're talking about Universal.

So I understand the piece for Universal.

I'm all about it.

I also wanted to bring in the conversation of equity component as well to this because anything south, and mind you, this is not even my district.

Councilmember Lynn's district, south of I-90, District 2, always advocating for District 2, does have one of the highest needs in our city for food access as well.

And so, what do we currently have right now that some of these fundings can go towards?

We have the Backpack Brigade.

That's in Seattle Public Schools.

That's where children get meals over the weekend, about 5,000.

On the east side, they're called Three Square Meals.

people get three squares, they're packaged at a warehouse and the teachers put them in kids' backpacks so they take them home to school.

Bellevue School District does a voucher program for mid-winter, winter breaks and spring breaks right now where they get vouchers to go to a grocery store so they can get the culturally I don't like using like relevant foods, but they get what their families want and what they think is culturally for them.

Also the Sun Bucks program, which I mentioned as well.

And so in addition to this, the other part of this funding would come from the Amendment 4 with the potential delay of the preschool voucher program to get redirected to this as well.

So it would add a little bit more if that passed.

But it has two sources of funding, potentially from Amendment 4 and then also from the Universal Schools Meal Program, which would start in 2027. So I'll stop there to answer any questions as well from colleagues or hear any feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Council Member Foster, as the co-sponsor, you're recognized to speak to the amendment.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Rivera.

And I want to start off with appreciation for Council President Hollingsworth, and I'm going to ask central staff a couple of questions and then make some more comments, so just so central staff is ready for that.

But, Council President, I want to appreciate you for bringing this forward and helping us have the opportunity to have this conversation in public around what we're thinking about with the dollars from the FEP levy and the INE plan.

We heard a lot of public comment today, and I'm extremely grateful to the folks who came and shared public comment.

And I know that so much of that was around concerns from this amendment.

And I think it's an important opportunity for us to say, and I'll just say for myself, I am so committed to making sure that our kids our babies, our students aren't going hungry in our city.

And I think what we are trying to put forward in this amendment is a question and a conversation about what is the right way to approach that.

It's not about the concept of gutting universal free schools.

It's about we have low-income kids, kids who are qualified for free and reduced lunch, as the council president just talked about, who are also going hungry during school breaks, during weekends.

We have lots of kids who have need.

And I think this amendment, as put forward, gives us an opportunity to implement the universal schools program still a year ahead of schedule from what was initially proposed by the legislature, as well as having another program that provides these vouchers and additional access to kids.

So that's how I am looking at this.

I'll also say I'm really excited to have continued engagement with many of the people who were here and gave public comment.

I think that was really important, and I want to make sure that we are being responsive.

And I will say there was a lot of people here who I love and deeply respect, and it's important for me to just acknowledge that.

But thank you, Council President, for that and also for the outline and the walkthrough of the approach here.

I want to ask central staff just a couple of questions because I'm hoping people are still watching.

I know a lot of folks laugh, but I want to ask central staff a couple of questions just to kind of clarify a few things that I heard earlier.

I know one of the things that we heard earlier was a concern around changing the FEP levy as it was presented to voters.

Was the universal school lunch program included in the FEP levy when it was sent to voters?

No, council member, it was not.

I think council had added in its deliberations the potential for food assistance to be provided by the FEP levy, but did not specify universal school meals.

Okay, thank you.

and then I wanna go to, I wanna make sure, and this is just to get it in clarity.

We've talked about this in previous committees.

I'm gonna repeat questions that I've asked before, but because I think now we have this amendment put forth.

So can you just speak to the source of the funding for the universal free school, the universal school meals program?

Surely, it would be reallocating the funds that had been put into the cost and risk reserve funds and they had So that was how they had come up with the $3 million in the first year and the $4.1 million in the second year.

Tracy, I apologize.

I'm going to ask you to repeat yourself because there was a mic blip moment there.

I'm so sorry.

The funding for the Universal School Meals Program came from the reallocation of funds that had been in the cost and risk reserve funds in the FEP levy.

Thank you, and then can you speak to, and I believe we, again, I know we talked about this before, but can you speak to the impact of the reallocation on the risk and reserve funds?

You are gonna tax my memory, because I don't have it now.

It reduces, well, hold on just a second.

So I believe what was presented in the adopted budget last year as sort of a cost estimate, it wasn't the final plan obviously, but the cost estimate had the risk reserve being at 2.5%.

and this would reduce that initial estimate to less than 1%, I believe is 0.38% or 0.32%.

And so that essentially means that there's less cushion to account for higher inflation than expected or cost overruns for other programs.

than expected, and so there's just less of a cushion to account for any unintended or anticipated costs.

Thank you.

And then can you, and so that one I did remember the answer to before I asked you, but this one I don't remember, which is, can you just remind us, is that point, I had 0.35% in my memory, but...

That was probably it.

But can you remind us?

She got it.

You're right.

Nice.

Every now and again.

Okay, can you remind us though, does that go down to 0.35 for the first two years as written or across the lifetime?

So it's the first two years.

Okay.

Got it.

And I think, and again, this is, to me, it's important to just have this in the public conversation.

And my understanding is at the end of the first two years, the goal is that the state would come in as the state has already made a commitment to fund universal free school lunch statewide through the implementation of the millionaire's tax.

But our options at the end of that two years, if for some reason that was not to happen, can you just speak to what our options would be at that point in time?

Well, the options would be to either reallocate from other programs or to continue to eat into our cost and risk reserves, I believe.

Thank you, and I want to be clear.

As amended, we are still using the dollars from the cost and risk reserve and putting those into funding for kids and low-income families as written.

So I wanna make sure that's also clear in the record as we're talking about where the resources are coming from and how the amendment functions.

So we would stay at that 0.35%.

We would have this program implemented over the course of the levy using those resources and it's my understanding that because this is essentially sort of a smaller population and a different design of the program that we're able to then have this go for the six years of the levy with those dollars.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry, Universal School Meals Program or- No, as amended.

The food assistance?

Yes.

With the food assistance?

Yeah, there is, because it's spread out over the six years, there's more opportunity to remain flexible if we do indeed need to dip into more cost and risk reserve later on.

And I should also clarify as well, I forgot to mention that another option if we do need to continue funding universal school meals would be potential underspend from the levy from year to year, but of course we can't budget for that right now.

Thank you so much.

And I appreciate that central staff.

And for me, it's important just to sort of highlight that and to have that clarity as we begin to engage in the public conversation around this amendment.

But from my perspective, the goal here is, again, we would still be able to to implement the universal free school lunch program one year ahead of schedule based on the state timeline.

And at the same time, we would be able to implement a program that I think complements it well, directing additional dollars to our lowest income families.

So, Council President, I appreciate your leadership and proud to co-sponsor this with you.

Thank you.

Back to Council.

Oh, no, you got it.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Saka, you have a hand up.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

A few quick questions.

First for central staff, then I'll share a few initial self-reflections.

First off, if you all wouldn't mind providing a little clarity on the following.

from an implementation perspective, what operational changes would schools or deal need to make if the weekend or school break food assistance program were added?

That's something we can clarify with the department.

My understanding is the way that the program is proposed now is that existing SPS personnel who already work with a lot of these low-income populations would be able to distribute the vouchers, but the administration needed to establish the program, or if there is any further administration, I think we'd need to check with the department on that.

Thank you.

I'm sure my next question pertains to precise data, including dollar amounts, if this were to be able to be implemented on the timeline as originally planned?

How many families would be served across SPS and students and families would be served under the original timeline?

And then what is the average cost savings to the average student and or family as a direct result of original timeline implementation by Seattle.

I don't think you'll have those numbers in front of you, but curious to hear offline, because affordability is a big concern right now in crises.

And first off, let me start off by saying this.

I am forever grateful to Council President Hollingsworth and Councilmember Foster as well for your leadership in bringing this forward.

You in particular, Council President, I appreciate how you framed your approach, described how your own personal, unique family and community, real life lived experiences and formed that approach.

We heard from some of the public commenters who also shared, were very brave in sharing their own kind of personal first-hand experiences with you know, free meals and why it's so important for all families.

You know, I've been public about my own as well, you know, knowing what it's like.

I've always been on free or reduced lunch, depending on the year and the application.

You know, it was either free lunch or reduced meals.

And, you know, I know what it's like to, when we talk about stigma, I know what it's like to inadvertently miss a school lunch because of the shame and embarrassment and worry that I had about going to the lunch line and paying the lunch lady three quarters, 75 cents, the reduced fee for my lunch instead of the full $1.50 or whatever it was at the time.

Stigma is real.

and so is the stigma that Council President described as well when we talk about families and food banks and accessing.

And I think this highlights the importance of firsthand real world lived experiences.

I do, as the related but not identical amendment for, I do have concerns with this, initial concerns with this amendment as well.

for similar reasons.

But here's what I know, is that the amendment sponsors have already shown themselves to be champions of food access and security.

I think what they're trying to do here is expand the pie, the net result of which would delay.

but they are, I know their motives, intents are pure.

I love the kind of analytical framework approach that was just described.

I just, I tend to disagree right now on the results and reasonable minds do disagree.

One thing I've learned is I've been in office a little over two and a half years in this role.

Who's counting?

But it's been an incredible privilege and honor to serve so far.

As someone who came from 10 years of the private sector before this, working in big law and big tech, working in startups, one thing that has been...

one learning that I've had is that government is woefully slow It takes time to pass bold investments, implement them, and then actually see the community impact and realize that community gain.

It takes time.

And as someone who is just naturally a hard charger, I go hard in the paint, and I know all of my council member colleagues do, too.

Government takes time, and I remember that very first January and February 24, after just taking office, we're sitting here at this dais, and we're talking about the state legislative agenda and how we can, as a city, rally to get the state legislature to pass universal free school meals for all.

We couldn't get it done that year, and we brought it up again.

and it is absolutely true that this was not an express or an explicit commitment to voters when it was on the ballot in November.

It's absolutely true.

What also is absolutely true from my perspective is that although it wasn't express or explicitly named, it was 100% contemplated by city leaders, by this body, by this dais, by upstairs in the seventh floor.

That was always the longer-term goal.

just so happens now we have an executive who is equally or maybe more excited than many of us downstairs about getting this done because of the affordability concerns that I alluded to earlier and because of this stigma, reducing the stigma.

Government takes time.

and I think we've passed legislation and challenged departments where applicable to speed things up, expedite, streamline to the full extent possible, but it still takes time.

I don't wanna wait another year plus for this.

It's a real life ready opportunity.

I think we need to implement.

So I'm just concerned that, you know, the amendment six, the purported delay of universal school meals to create a larger you know, six-year food assistance program, risk delaying the momentum and energy and day one implementation readiness we have today.

And similar to the other amendment, it also purports to pit very vital community needs, you know, against each other.

I would love to...

my initial reaction is, like, just, let's launch this.

Let's get this right.

first.

We have all the tools available.

Let's go.

Then, but it's fine ways to expand, but I'm just concerned about the potential delay and what that pretends for affordability, what that pretends for stigma, social stigma for our students, what that pretends for the long-term educational readiness of our future workforce.

Anyway, but I love, love, love, and each of these sponsors have shown themselves to be champions of this issue.

And I heard them say, they strongly support universal free school meals.

They're just trying to expand the pie, which I appreciate.

we need to go with this approach now, then let's have those other conversations later.

That is all, but I appreciate the amendment sponsors, Council President and Council Member Foster.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth, your hand is up.

Is that a new hand?

Well, that was to close, but I won't.

Oh, yeah.

But I don't want to mess up the meeting.

I apologize.

That's okay.

No, you can close.

I just didn't know if you had any other comments.

I don't see any other comments.

I have some, but I can say it after you were.

Well, I first, thank you, Chair.

I first want to thank Council Member Foster as well for her partnership on this and the intentionality behind it and talking about the complementing of the universal school meals program, this is a compliment.

And Council Member Saka, I'm actually glad that you talk about readiness because Caleb put out a video about 51% of black children are not reading at their grade level.

and that is a problem.

And the average household income of a black family is $55,000, and half of the murder victims in the city of Seattle, gun violence victims, are black males, and they only account for 4% of the population.

And I could argue that that is because of food insecurity and resources.

There are studies and information out there about that, and that's why I go so hard for the South End and for Southeast Seattle and for the Duwamish and for places that have been underrepresented and underfunded, particularly for this.

And I know that food can really heal communities.

So that's why I go so hard for this, and that's why I'm passionate about this amendment.

Now, the other piece I will close with as well is that I will listen to a lot of the groups.

I've worked with a lot of the groups that came for public comment and would like to work with them, hear them out, try to figure out a solution because I do feel like a compliment to the universal school meals program as we are centering food access, which was an amendment that we all supported to put in the implementation plan for food.

for this plan.

We'll work with the community because I do feel like this is a really important program for us to continue to implement for winter breaks, mid-winter breaks, and spring breaks.

Those are the times that kids are going very hungry and over weekends potentially.

So thank you all and I'll have numbers for you about the impact and savings and all that good stuff as well.

Councilmember Saka, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Foster.

Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

And I apologize, Council President, for making a comment after your closing.

But I wanted to share part of an email that I got yesterday just to introduce it into this conversation.

And so I'm just going to read from this really quickly because I think you're I wasn't going to share it.

And then you made your point around the impact of readiness and the impact especially on black students.

And so this person who emailed said, who actually was opposed to the money being used for school meals at all, they said, I'm writing to ask you to reject the $7.7 million allocation, or excuse me, allocation for the new school meals line item and to redirect the funds toward strategies that explicitly focus on closing opportunity gaps.

The $7.7 million could do more for student learning and safety after-school programs, summer school, or targeted academic support, supports for students with disabilities, investments that reach students the levy was designed to serve, rather than subsidizing meals citywide.

The strategy is only funded for two years, introducing a universal program, then potentially pulling it after two years, sets an expectation with families and school staff that the city may not be able to sustain, which risks eroding community trust rather than building it.

And this is a person who's a former member of the FEP Levy Oversight Committee.

So I wanted to share that.

It was an email that I got earlier this morning.

I didn't intend to read it until you made that point, I do want to just bring that back into consideration and again underscore part of the reason that I'm supportive of this amendment is because I believe it allows us the opportunity to target dollars to our most vulnerable students while still maintaining a portion of this commitment to go citywide earlier than intended by the state.

So sorry I didn't make that comment before yours, Council President.

I apologize for that delay in the process, but I just felt like I needed to speak to that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

I'm just gonna thank both sponsors, Council President Hollingsworth and Council Member Foster for bringing this amendment and for helping us engage in this conversation.

These are hard conversations.

I'm gonna say a couple things, which is that I know the deep commitment that Council President has to food in security and food access.

She's been talking about it since she got here two and a half years ago.

I know she's been working on it for way before then.

So I did wanna acknowledge that.

I also wanna acknowledge there isn't a council member that I've spoken with.

We all, and have said publicly, all nine of us, how much we care about our communities, food access, and particularly our kids having access to food.

This to me is a conversation about making hard choices.

And like many things, we agree on the outcome we wanna see.

We're grappling with how we get there.

And that's what I think is happening here.

And that is real.

So I don't want it unsaid that we do not support food access, particularly for kids, we do.

I was a free lunch kid.

growing up, and I'm so grateful that I had that.

I stood on lines for free cheese in the Bronx with my mom.

Loved the big block of free cheese, government cheese.

So I understand.

And really, I'm not alone.

I'm not gonna out anyone, but I know I'm not alone on this dais in that.

But I will share my own personal experience, I can do that for myself.

But so really just to say we all care about food access and food insecurity, particularly as involved kids, and then we're all grappling with what to do.

It is true that the millionaire's tax, we don't know what is going to happen.

I appreciate that the mayor wanted to fill a gap, but what happens when you know, if the millionaire's tax fails and then we don't have the continued, it is true that as you indicated, Council Member Foster and Council President, then what happens?

Like we eliminate the program.

How will we get funding to sustain?

All these are issues that we need to grapple with.

And I wanted to see it.

It's also true, Council Member Saka, that, you know, this is an important consideration being able to provide universal meals and reducing the stigma and access to everyone.

And I'm going to also acknowledge there are families on the cusp that don't have access to free and reduced meals, like barely.

And so I think this is, you know, I understand the public commenters who came to talk about that.

All of those things are true and I just hope the public knows that we understand that we do care whatever happens with this amendment and with the universal program that we all are grappling with that but we all care about this issue.

so that's what I wanted to say about that.

Let's go to Amendment 7. Colleagues, it's 11.30, I'm mindful of time.

I can be here as long as I don't have a time pressure but I know others do and so I'm gonna try to get us running through, I'm gonna encourage us to run through a little faster but there might be one other amendment I think that might have more robust conversation but Let's see how quickly we can get through some of these.

Thank you, Tracy.

Go ahead.

You betcha.

We'll move on to amendment number seven sponsored by Council Member Rink.

This amendment would allow elementary school restorative practices coordinators to be part-time.

The existing language requires that school-based services for the restorative practices must be one point FTE.

This just allows for elementary schools which may have a lesser need for a full-time position to be a part-time position.

Thank you, Tracy.

Council Member Rink as sponsor, you're recognized.

Thank you, Jay Rivera, and thank you for the overview, Tracy.

Colleagues, I had the absolute joy and pleasure of joining some of our restorative justice practitioners last year at the Wild Block Freedom School Summer Program, where I got the chance to read aloud, I Love You Mucho Mucho by Rachel Moss Davidson to Students, a book that celebrates multilingual families, but also demonstrates how love doesn't have language barriers.

I mention this because I want to daylight just how beautiful and important the work that is happening from our restorative justice practitioners really is and how it's happening all the way down to our elementary school level and what that looks like.

The Freedom Schools Summer Program is just one part of what WABLOC does on top of their restorative justice programming and this amendment would allow the restorative justice team to maintain their flexibility in collaboration with school counselors and social workers to support keeping these practitioners in elementary schools.

I know we all see the value in restorative justice programming when it comes to making sure that there are trusted and supportive adults present for young people that are providing that programming, but also to equip young people with important skills.

And data does demonstrate that using restorative practices keeps students in school, improves student academic achievement, and reduces suspension rates and disparities and mental health challenges present in schools.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, questions?

Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

No questions.

I think this is a great amendment.

I'd ask to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you, Council Member Foster, Council Member Rink.

I assume you're okay with that.

All right, she says yes.

Perfect.

Any other questions?

Council Member Rank and Central Staff, I'm just confirming this amendment, we already have restorative practices in the I&E.

This is just because it calls out one FTE that there's an allowance for a 0.5 or less, however it shakes out.

That is deal's intent, but I appreciate you wanting to uplift that voice and make that clarification, council member ring.

All right, great.

Council Amendment 8.

All right.

Amendment 8 sponsored by Council Member Rink would require a deal to submit a report to Council describing plan systems level coordination for the totality of school safety investments and a comprehensive framework for such investments.

This report is due to Council after school year 26-27 and prior to any planned competitive funding processes or contract renewals for the restorative practices, opportunity-based mentoring, and HSD school safety programs and as a condition of further funding for future years.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Councilmember Rank, you're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Colleagues, this amendment is a reflection of what council offices have heard, I would say, across the city from community members and organizations.

In many ways, right now, our city's strategy and investments into community and school safety in particular is a bit disparate.

And this amendment requests a report from DEAL, HSD, and other departments about their systems level coordination and developing that comprehensive framework for these investments.

Many of us or our staff were at the symposium led by the National Network for Safe Cities, and it was clear that it is imperative that our departments are working together with our community to address the larger issue of community violence facing our young people.

So we've seen this model of a citywide approach work in cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, and I'm hopeful with this amendment that we can really shepherd and bring together our city departments so we can have a unified approach in moving towards this proven model of work.

So I wanna thank Council Member Kettle and Council Member Lynn for their partnership in developing this amendment and happy to also turn it over to them to share any of their remarks on this work.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, questions, comments, Council Member Kettle and then Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to thank Councilmember Rink and her team for engaging with me and my team on this issue.

And it goes to some of the broader efforts that we're doing related to community safety, school safety, and also, as I've said many times before, that scene between traditional public safety and, as mentioned here, HSD, Human Services and the like.

And I think having this kind of comprehensive approach is really helpful and the partnership on it as well.

I've not rogered up yet in terms of co-sponsorships because admittedly these amendments generally across the board are new.

But for this one, I want to go as a co-sponsor and look to do on others after the fact later.

So thank you, Councilmember Ring.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

A few questions for central staff on this one in particular.

First off, can you please clarify the practical effect of making this report a quote, a condition of further funding for future years.

And would that create any risk of delaying, interrupting, or freezing funding for restorative practices, opportunity-based mentoring, or HSD school-based safety if the report is late, incomplete, or still under review?

Yes, this language essentially functions as a proviso for next year, and so it would require the report to be submitted to Council as a condition of releasing the funding.

For next year, and then there's some little confusing, admittedly, language about that kind of contemplates specific competitive bidding processes.

And so would this new report, or effectively proviso as you termed it, be triggered any time the department wants to undertake any new competitive bidding process, RFP, in connection with this work in subsequent years?

It would be after the year one of the levy, after school year 26, 27, and it would just be that point in time prior between essentially year one and year two of the levy.

Okay, thank you.

My understanding is that the underlying plan already requires annual reporting, quarterly dashboards, quarterly memos directly to the levy oversight committee, and quarterly status updates to the education committee chair.

Can central staff please explain what the new oversight mechanism this amendment adds that is not already available through those reporting structures?

Those reporting structures would report on levy impact related to the goals and the indicators included in the plan, and this report would require this sort of framework and coordination.

So it's somewhat separate in the sense of the reporting indicators don't necessarily speak to the coordination piece.

Okay, interesting, thank you.

The- Sorry, I'm going to take Chair's privilege here to say though, but the levy is very clear that the departments, that the deal director will work with the other departments on the levy investments writ large.

So that is already baked into the levy itself, the levy language.

So it does go to your question, Councilmember Sakai.

So I wanted to address it at this juncture, but go ahead.

You may continue.

Thank you, Chair.

That's consistent with my understanding as well.

But the amendment states that these programs are likely to have overlap.

Now, is central staff aware of any particular analysis and the record specifically quantifying that overlap?

or would council be effectively adding a funding condition based on an assumption that has not yet been substantiated?

My understanding is potentially that some of the council sponsors could speak to this because it's more anecdotal and stakeholder evidence that many of the programs that the HSD school safety funding funds may potentially overlap with the restorative practices as well as the potential for the opportunity-based mentoring because they target the same populations.

And my understanding is there already is a number of programs that sort of target similar populations and there is an issue, there is actually an issue with coordination, but potentially other council members can speak to that based on their stake-holding.

Sure.

Madam Chair, welcome the amendment sponsor if she has any other thoughts on this.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I will say that at least one of these programs listed as new and the department, as per the levy, will have to come back to us once they figure out how to implement it to ask for our approval to implement the program.

And then also, again, the departments are supposed to be coordinating amendment I put in was to ensure that that happened, just to address your question about the coordination piece already being baked in.

Councilmember Rank, you're the sponsor, so I'll go back to you if you have any answers.

Oh, to Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Rank first.

Yes, that's what I said.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Councilmember Rank.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I wanted to speak to, in my capacity as chair over human services.

I want to uplift that this year.

HSD did release the RFP on community safety investments.

And so that being an area in particular where we want to better understand where we understand conceptually and given the organizations that receive funding through that RFP Yeah, there is a lot of overlap in that work, but we want to be able to unpack that more.

I want to also uplift that the city has contracted services with consultants that are trying to unpack and understand on a deeper level where there is overlap in these efforts.

But I want to be very clear that the spirit and intent behind bringing this forward is trying to get all of the various city actors and departments together to really be intentional on coordinating these efforts.

I am happy to also turn it over to Councilmember Kettle who has worked more closely with the consultant that's trying to unpack some of this work and I just want to emphasize that the spirit here is to really get the primary city departments to at the table actually coordinating and setting a broader citywide strategy as again it's been identified that we need a unified city strategy in addressing community safety for young people

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Saka, you still have the floor.

I'm coming back to you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink, for bringing this forward and the added clarity there on this question.

I guess I'll ask a follow-up question directly of you as a sponsor.

So the proposed amendment makes and it kind of speaks to an initial concern that I have, but your proposed amendment makes future funding conditional on a report.

And so, absolutely valid, I would agree, you know, worthwhile goal of ensuring coordination.

But if the policy goal, rationale, and prime justification for this amendment is coordination, just curious why is a funding condition necessary instead of a mere reporting requirement alone, especially for programs serving students most impacted by gun violence and school disconnection.

Councilmember Rink, you are recognized to speak to Councilmember Saka's question.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I want to just uplift that another point that I didn't speak to earlier just around the fact that this is the first time we've had HSD investments of this scale into the levy and making sure that we're tying in outcomes from HSD with school safety goals and outcomes from both deal and the PEP levy.

So I wanted to name that first because I missed that point earlier.

I think we wanted to just demonstrate that we want to take the project of coordinating our city departments around this work as an important one.

I'm happy to engage with you on further discussion on how we came to some of these points, but I think we're trying to, in essence, bring folks together and add a bit of force around this coordination.

This is reflective of what we've heard across community about a real desire to make sure we have coordination.

And so that we want to be able to put real effort behind this matter.

And so happy to engage in further discussion too on this, but that's what I have to share for today.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Saka, back to you.

No, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Rink, for your initial responses there.

One more question.

Maybe this would be to central staff if the sponsor...

doesn't want to engage further, but the opportunity-based mentoring is already a new program being designed in 2026 through 27 with program details coming back to council before implementation in 27, 28. So what specific problem does this amendment solve that council could not already address through that approval process?

My understanding is that this would bring in the other programs mentioned, the restorative practices bodywork and the HSD school-based safety investments to also be incorporated and coordinated with the design of the mentoring program so that they're not overlapping and duplicating services.

Thank you.

Yeah, initial concerns are on the conditional funding.

I think the stakes are too high.

We're talking about the underlying subject matter of student safety, gun violence, et cetera.

A report alone would be appropriate, but I have initial concerns about the conditional funding.

Thank you, Councilman.

And when paired in the broader context of other amendments that we have, including yours as chair.

Anyways, thank you.

But I appreciate the sponsor for bringing this forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Lynn, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the discussion and debate here.

Thank you to Councilmember Rank for bringing this forward.

Just a few sort of points here.

One, I think we all care deeply about and have, you know, gun violence has impacted so many of our districts, so many of our families, and it's just been devastating.

and one, I'm thankful that for the first time the FEP levy included school safety so that we have a dedicated fund source to address this critical issue for our communities.

I do think it's a new sort of body of work for DEAL to take on.

I do think just in terms of over shepherding this level of investment in school safety.

And I also think that the one thing that I have heard, we have been having weekly meetings with SPD, with principals down in Rainier Beach, with the community, with our community violence intervention groups.

And the one thing that I have heard that is the most important is that for us to break down silos and to make sure that we are coordinating our strategies, our investments.

And so whether it's through this amendment or some other body of work, I think it is critical for us to lean into this to make sure that we have a solid strategy going forward, that we are working across departments, that we are working with SPS, with SPD.

And so I think that that's just something that we are going to need to work on in the next year.

And again, whether it's through this amendment or some other mechanism to work with the community on making sure that our investments around school safety are well coordinated and that we are breaking down those silos.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lane.

Council Member Kettle, you were recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate all the comments of my Vice-Chair on the Public Safety Committee and those from Chair of HS Human Services, Council Member Rink.

You know, this is a new area.

And as we know and work in public safety, and my points about us being a city of two minds, we always end up going sideways.

We end up having these competing elements that basically end up going nowhere.

And now we're seeing it with MHA.

So the conditions, it's about providing focus and leadership.

And I'm willing to partner.

And because this is the scene, this is not easy.

and it's complicated and there's a bunch of different aspects to this and, you know, we do need to focus, we do need to step forward.

You know, Council Member Lynn talking about silos and so we need to press forward because when it comes to school safety, we can't be of two minds.

We can't have some initiative that goes sideways and that's a great, as you can tell, a great frustration of mine across many areas.

and, you know, but with school safety and public safety more generally, particularly in the area that is in that scene that has all these different pieces are not traditionally part of public safety.

I think it's important to have that focus and some of the pieces here kind of drive that focus.

But I recognize the points that are being made.

And again, I'm happy to work with Council Member Wink with Chair Rivera with you, Councilmember Saka and others too, and Councilmember Lin because his district is facing a lot of these challenges, so to ensure that we are on the same page and that we're in a good place.

But again, this is an area that we can't be of two minds as a city and we need to press forward and ensure that we have a safe environment in our school system.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle, Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair Rivera, and I'll be brief with my comments here.

I just want to say I appreciate this amendment coming forward, and I think it gives us the opportunity.

My understanding is it gives us the opportunity to ensure that, one, we can communicate with anybody that is getting those investments in that first year up front, that we're going to be taking another look.

I think that's a good practice for us to be able to let folks know in that contracting practice.

that we're gonna be doing an assessment and then making a decision before that next round of funding.

So as I read and interpret this, I think that is a help for us and for the department so that they can provide that clarity to any partners up front that will be taking that look.

And I guess it's my hope when I look at this amendment that the opportunity to take that second look and to review those outcomes and information will give us the opportunity to make sure that our long-term investments are going to be stable and are going to be investments that we have confidence are going to get us to the outcomes that we all want, because school-based safety, as I won't repeat, because so many people have already said it, is just incredibly important.

So I will say I just appreciate the...

We're doing a lot of complexity and nuance in a few of these amendments today, and I appreciate you, Council Member Rank, for bringing this forward.

and I would ask that my name be added as co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

I don't see any other questions, so I'm gonna address this amendment before we go to the next one.

I always appreciate Council Member Rank.

I'm gonna let you go next.

I just saw your hand go up again.

Go ahead.

Thank you, I just wanted to offer some final remarks on this and thank you colleagues for the discussion on this topic happy to engage further to make sure we get this right.

Because the spirit of this amendment is to really demonstrate our focus and build towards a unified city approach for addressing this.

I wanted to also uplift because I didn't name this earlier that future RFPs would be informed by this report that we're trying to build.

and identifying which community orgs would be lead in particular areas in a broader strategy and what they might need more funding for.

And so looking forward to continued engagement to make sure we get this right.

And thank you to folks who signed on as co-sponsors today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Thank you.

Okay, I just wanna thank this sponsor for bringing this forward, particularly because it gives us an opportunity to have these conversations.

Colleagues, I'm gonna say something else also.

Releasing confidentiality when you're crafting amendments is really important because I imagine my initial amendment about creating the interdepartmental team to coordinate across all the departments that are named in the levy speaks to exactly what this amendment is speaking to in a broader way because the programs from HSD that are in the levy are not solely about school safety.

There's some other investments as well.

And so I wanted to make sure that across the board, all the investments are being coordinated with all the departments and across all the departments.

So we have a strategic comprehensive plan for all the investments that are being touched.

by this levy.

And that was the point of doing a formal IDT to do this work.

I didn't know this amendment was coming forward and maybe no one had seen the IDT amendment, but this, you know, it's important to coordinate because I think that it serves everybody best when we're coordinating these efforts.

To me, When I read this amendment, I will admit, I felt it was a little bit, the language was a little bit, left me positing exactly what we were getting to, but if it's a coordination on the community safety approaches, That is important, that was contemplated by the amendment I brought on the IDT, because that is one of the many programs and strategies that we will have to coordinate across all the departments for this levy.

So, you know, it's hard to single one out because there are many investments.

So I'll say that about this particular amendment.

I'm happy to work with you, Council Member Rink and Council Member Kettle, making sure that the INE is clear, that all the coordination on all the programs also includes this work.

I will say I appreciate you, Council Member Rink, for bringing up the symposium that I put together a few weeks ago to talk about the gun safety strategies.

Our colleagues, I invited folks from and worked with the national network to bring folks from Philly and have conversations with Baltimore about their gun safety approaches.

That is not exactly what this amendment speaks to entirely.

It is a comprehensive approach.

The community aspect is one aspect of the approach, but not the full approach.

and I think that's really important because you can't do just one aspect of the approach if we're gonna engage in comprehensive gun violence prevention work in the city.

It involves a lot of city and county and state departments and agencies and efforts and also including the community safety work.

So I felt that was important to say because this is a strategy that is a formal strategy by an organization out of the John Jay College.

I've spoken about this before, colleagues, but I don't want to, I want to make sure when we talk about that strategy that we're talking about all the comprehensive pieces to that strategy because otherwise it's not a complete picture and we lose something in that.

So I wanted to make sure and say that.

So thank you, council member Ring for this.

Happy to work with you and council member Kettle on best steps forward.

And let's move on to amendment number nine.

All right, Councilmember, no, wait.

All right.

Essential staff first.

Amendment 9, sponsored by Council President Hollingsworth.

This amendment would add exposure to college and career readiness activities listed in the enrichment supports for expanding learning opportunities.

The amendment will clarify that college and career readiness activities would include activities that would expose K through 12 students to college and career choices.

Thank you, Jasmine.

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

Thank you, Chair, and I'll be quick.

Thank you, central staff, Jasmine and Tracy for your help on this.

We're just adding a simple word, exposure to this line.

I know it might not seem like a big deal, but it is when we're talking about college readiness programs and the exposure resources, exposure opportunity for youth and that possibility as well for it to be supported by deals.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President and Vice Chair Rink.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Appreciate the amendment.

Love it.

One words, words matter.

And I would love the opportunity, if it please, the amendment sponsor to be listed as a co-sponsor and if it please the Chair.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

A sponsor says yes.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I too want to thank Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth for clarity and words matters.

So I agree and I support that.

All right.

Amendment 10. No, yes.

Amendment 10, back to central staff.

Amendment 10 is sponsored by Council Member Hollingsworth, and it would direct that the career exposure and exploration events for high school students that are connected to the Path to Trades programs would be culturally relevant.

Thank you, Tracy.

Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth back to you to talk about your amendment.

Thank you, and this is to complement your pathways to the trades.

Council Member Rivera working that into the implementation plan and having a culturally responsive outreach.

We see that similar with Hip Hop is Green to get people into farming.

They use music, they use wellness, they use food.

access as well.

And so having a culturally responsive outreach to the schools to get pathway into the trades, pipe fitting, dirty hands, clean money, I think is going to be a really great way to get more kids in these programs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

Words matter, precision matters.

It's just a few short words, but again, along the same lines as the other one, a seemingly simple or more straightforward amendment has the tremendous potential for a ton of impact in people's everyday lives.

So for those reasons, if it please the amendment sponsor, would love to be listed, and if it please the Chair, would love to be listed as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

It pleases me.

Great.

Central staff has noted that.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I too would like to ask to be signed on as a co-sponsor for this amendment.

I think this is great, and I thank Council President Hollingsworth for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Council President, agreed?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

If agreed, it pleases me.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

All right.

Any other questions?

Councilmember Foster.

is there space for one more on this?

I'd also love to co-sponsor.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I mean, Foster.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So we've got council members, Saka, Rink and Foster as co-sponsors.

All right.

I don't see any other hands.

I support this very much as well.

I know that the trade path to trees, when the colleges are doing their outreach efforts in the schools, They talk about paths of trades.

They also talk about this.

So to me, it's codifying what the colleges already do, but that's important.

And also wanna uplift colleagues that with this levy, they're gonna be able to do, the colleges are gonna be able to do that outreach in the middle schools.

so it's now expanding the outreach into the middle schools with this new levy, so that's really great.

All right, Amendment 11, last but not least.

Jasmine?

Yes.

Amendment 11, sponsored by Councilmember Rink, would add a prioritization for services in the Seattle Promise Pathway programs to support high-demand pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs leading to City of Seattle careers.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Councilmember Rink, you're recognized as sponsor.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

As Chair of the Human Services Labor and Economic Development Committee, one of the things I really appreciate most about working with our city's Office of Economic Development is their focus on workforce development.

This amendment adds in language in our Path to Trades expansion for Seattle Colleges to include high demand pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs that lead to city careers.

These programs are critical ways to enter apprenticeship track programs, network and build professional connections, which are so vital for workforce development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Any questions, colleagues?

All right.

I'll just thank you for this, Council Member Rink.

I support this.

I know we have a lot of great apprenticeships at City Light, for instance, and we want to make sure that as we're supporting the path to trades, we're also keeping our city in mind.

I support this, so great.

Okay, colleagues, that is the end of the amendments.

I wanna thank everyone for your, oh, Council Member Kettle, your hand is up.

Go ahead, Council Member Kettle.

The brief remarks after I take the audio back on.

at the conclusion of these amendments and the meeting overall to include public comment.

And it's revealing in a sense, and it goes to my discussions related to the STM, is that the affordability challenges that the people of Seattle face.

They're real and they cut across the board.

It shows up so much here.

and then also the good governance pieces and I've seen in some of these amendments you know that good governance piece making sure that we get things done right and I just wanted to to highlight that because it's important you know in terms of having discussions about affordability and and the the points made by public commenters from our colleagues during the course of this meeting really highlight the challenges that we face in our city.

And we should be mindful of all the different impacts and then, you know, the cause and effects and the ripple effects that come out of this area.

So I just wanted to take a moment to note that.

And so I appreciate that time, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

All right, colleagues.

We have come to the end of our amendments, the end of our meeting.

The bill before us was moved, seconded and amended, and we're now gonna postpone our discussion and final votes to July 22nd.

On July 22nd, we will vote on all these amendments and on the underlying bill and get this moving forward so the department can do its work.

I wanna shout out Jacob, who is still with us in the audience.

Thanks for sticking.

as sticking with us, a public commenter.

If there's no objection, Council Bill 121240 will be postponed to the July 22nd meeting.

Hearing no objection, the bill is postponed to the July 22nd meeting.

Seeing no further questions, this concludes the July 8th Select Committee on the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy six-year implementation evaluation plan.

Our next select committee meeting is scheduled for July 22nd at 9.30 a.m.

If there's no further business, this meeting will adjourn.

Hearing no further business, it is 12.08 a.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.

Good job, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

We made it.

Thank you, Jacob.

Thank you.