All right.
Good morning, everyone.
The May 15, 2025 meeting of the Select Committee on Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy will come to order.
It's 9.31 a.m.
I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.
I want to acknowledge that there's a police officer memorial ceremony happening at 10 this morning.
This is to honor the officers who have given their lives in the line of duty.
Our hearts go out to their families and we thank them for their service.
This should be a shorter meeting today which will give us the opportunity to stop by the reception in the Bertha Knight Landis room afterwards.
I'd like to note that Council Member Moore is excused from today's meeting.
Will the clerk please call the roll.
Council Member Saka?
Here.
Council Member Solomon?
Here.
Council Member Hollingsworth?
Here.
Council Member Strauss?
Present.
Council Member Kettle?
Council President Nelson?
Vice Chair Rink.
Present.
Chair Rivera.
Present.
Six council members are present.
Thank you, clerk.
If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.
There's one item of business on today's agenda.
We have a presentation from central staff on policy considerations for the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy.
I wanna thank our central staffer, Jasmine Marwaha, for coming to council chambers to present today.
We will now open the hybrid public comment period.
Public comment should relate to items on the agenda or within the purview of this committee.
Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?
Chair, there are no speakers signed up today.
Thank you, clerk.
Then the public comment period is now closed.
Can you please read the public comments?
Sorry.
Will the clerk please read item one into the record?
Agenda item one, council bill 120981, an ordinance relating to regular property taxes requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 4th, 2025 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the city.
a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 84.55 RCW and to authorize the city to levy additional taxes for up to six years for the purpose of providing education support services designed to improve access to early learning, including childcare and preschool, academic, health, and safety supports for K-12 students, and college and career pathways for Seattle students, applying the exemption for low-income seniors, disabled veterans, and others authorized by RCW 8436381. authorizing a creation of a designated fund, directing the application of levy proceeds, establishing eligibility requirements for partners, establishing accountability and reporting structures, requiring a forthcoming implementation and evaluation plan, proposing a ballot title, authorizing the implementation of agreements for this levy lid lift, which will be commonly known as the families education, preschool and promise levy and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing and discussion.
Thank you.
This item has been read into the record.
Again, good morning colleagues.
Thank you for attending today to hear from our central staffer, Jasmine Marwaha, who's staffing us on the FEP levy renewal.
Jasmine will be giving us a presentation on her policy considerations of the legislation.
Colleagues, it is my intent to have this legislation go on the ballot as carefully written.
I look forward to working with you on the next stage after the passage of this legislation.
which is a very critical levy implementation and evaluation plan.
As you know, this proposal was thoughtfully crafted as a partnership between the mayor and myself with your interests as my starting point.
This has been a culmination of our joint efforts.
During my meetings with each of you, I very clearly heard your priorities for the continuation and expansion of childcare and preschool and retention bonuses for our childcare workers.
just as we provided during the pandemic.
I also heard your support for school-based health centers, mental health funding, and youth violence prevention for the K-12 students, and the continuation of the Seattle Promise Program for our public school seniors, including expanded pathways to the trades.
As you know, this levy proposal was built on past successful levies.
During Monday's public hearing, we saw strong support for this proposal.
We heard that support as well during the robust outreach with stakeholders that Deal, the mayor's office, and my office did on the front end.
It was important that I heard from you and from the people who are doing this work on the ground.
As you have no doubt noted, this levy is a 236% increase in funding from the last levy.
I'm mindful that this is a substantial increase and it was not taken lightly.
It allows for a significant expansion of early learning slots for those who need them most.
We're living through a time of unprecedented federal chaos and insecurity.
This expansion will cover some of the lowest income working families who may not receive federal assistance.
This is one of the reasons why we focus so heavily on increasing childcare and preschool slots, for example.
Our investment in these children today will provide benefits that last a lifetime.
The increase in this levy also allows us to maintain reliable and stable support for city programs that benefit our kids.
Right now, our job is to set this levy up for success at the ballot by moving this proposal forward.
I hope to have your support in the coming weeks as we finish this process.
And I said earlier, I look forward to working with you, DEAL, and stakeholders to develop an implementation and evaluation plan that meets the needs of our city's kids and their families.
Now I'll turn it over to Jasmine to give her presentation.
Jasmine, please state your name for the record and you can start.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Rivera.
Good morning, council members.
My name is Jasmine Marwaha on your council central staff.
And I'll be presenting Council Bill 120981, the proposed renewal of the family's education preschool and promise levy.
My presentation will essentially go through my memo.
So I'll start with a little bit of background.
I'll provide a summary of the 2025 BEP levy proposal.
I'll go through some policy considerations at a high level and talk about next steps.
And then there will be time for questions and comments.
So first as background, the city has considered and adopted six previous levies that have focused on education.
Most recently, the 2018 Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy that combined the previous Families and Education Levy with the Seattle Preschool Program Levy and then added Seattle Promise as well.
That was $620 million over seven years, and it expires at the end of this year, which is why we're all here today.
Just a quick note, as you've heard before, I believe, in this committee, local governments may provide supplemental funding to support K through 12 students, but basic education is mandated in our state consultation to be funded by the state and the Seattle Public Schools.
There are no similar restrictions on funding early childhood, pre-kindergarten or post-secondary investments.
This is the fourth time that this select committee has gathered to talk about the proposed levy.
And as you may recall, it started off with a first meeting on April 10th, where you all heard overview and lessons learned from the 2018 levy.
On May 1st, Deal and the mayor's office presented the 2025 FEPP levy proposal with their presentations linked here and in the memo.
And then on May 12th, this past Monday, you held a public hearing.
So, again, as I mentioned, for your consideration vote here in this process is Council Bill 120981, which establishes the FEP levy for 2025. In addition to sending the proposition to increase property taxes for the levy to the ballot, It also does these things listed here.
It includes a overarching policy statement that outlines high-level priorities and principles for the funding.
It contains a non-exhaustive list of educational support services that could be funded with levy proceeds.
It provides direction and guidance for the implementation and evaluation plan, which we'll talk about a little bit in a bit.
It establishes and provides some scope for the levy oversight committee.
and it authorizes the city to enter into agreements with public and non-public entities to provide these education support services and has some more requirements for those agreements.
Now, because all expenditures of levy proceeds must be consistent with this establishment legislation, the ordinance is written at a fairly high level without a legally binding spend plan.
Instead, in the first quarter of 2026, if this levy passes, you will be considering the implementation and evaluation plan where you will pass a six-year spend plan by ordinance, which can then be amended by ordinance.
And in addition to that, you'll obviously have your annual budget process as well to allocate funds for these purposes.
So having said all that, there is a starting point we're working from here.
There is a reason we got to a $1.3 billion figure.
And the next couple slides kind of slice that amount up in different ways.
And I should mention, too, that There are a couple of numbers we're working with.
One is $1.254 billion, which is how much is estimated, how much the property tax proceeds over the six years of the levy will be collected.
And then there's $1.326 billion, which is the total estimated spend plan because that involves a 2018 FEP levy carry forward and interest earnings as well.
So the tax burden is $1.254 billion over the six years, but the spend plan is $1.326 billion.
And so this slice...
Sorry, Jasmine, that's because there's levy of...
There's a few things that are...
making up the difference, which is the levy.
Are you going to get into that?
Yes, as I mentioned, it's carried forward from the 2018 levy as well as interest earnings that are expected from the amount.
And then there might be a couple other things as well.
So this pie adds up to the 1.326 amount.
And as you can see, the bulk of it is continuing the investments in the 2018 levy.
And there's 22% that would allow for existing youth programs that are funded with non-FEP levy funds to be switched over to levy funding.
And then there's 20% that would represent an expansion of programming.
Another way of slicing it is through these different buckets that have been provided as well by the executive and are attached to the summary and fiscal note of the legislation.
So I don't necessarily need to read through this chart.
You can see this here and it's also detailed in attachment one to my memo in terms of what made up those figures.
So we'll get to the policy considerations.
First, as I mentioned, the bill is written with the intention of leaving flexibility to approve more detailed appropriations within the $1.3 billion package through the adoption of the implementation and evaluation plan next year and during regular budget deliberations.
However, Council may wish to scale, repurpose, or provide further direction at this stage regarding the proposed investments to advance their priorities.
Or, of course, Council may choose to make no changes and wait to provide that direction in the I&E plan and the budget.
The next consideration regards levy outcomes.
Council Bill 120981 provides high level priorities and principles for funding, including increasing affordability and access to services, requiring that agreements with partner organizations contain goals and outcomes.
and require reports on progress towards achieving outcomes.
These are written at a high level to provide flexibility.
The council may wish to provide further direction on the outcomes or goals prioritized in the levy.
Or again, you can specify those outcomes and goals in the I&E plan next year.
The last policy consideration involves contracting.
So according to the ordinance, a deal is authorized to enter agreements with non-public entities using a competitive process.
There are a couple of exceptions that are spelled out in the levy to undergoing a competitive process.
One is in the case of emergency as determined by the executive or when the director of deal determines that a process is not feasible because the services are only available from one source or impracticable to solicit.
Now these types of exemptions are found elsewhere in our Seattle Municipal Code, but in some cases in our code it is required that the director provide a written explanation for pursuing the exemption.
So council may wish to provide this expectation of greater transparency in the levy when the department forgoes a competitive process, or council may choose to make no changes, and you can always provide this guidance in the I&E plan as well.
The next steps, so in a couple weeks we're going to gather again to discuss potential amendments.
And then there's two other committee meetings where we could, you all can discuss and vote on potential amendments with the goal of the full council vote on June 24th.
For amendments, please contact me by no later than next Thursday, so about a week from now.
And ideally, you contact me earlier so we can bake things at an earlier stage.
And then I will have that ready to go to place on the agenda in time for the May 29th meeting, just also keeping in mind the Memorial Day weekend there, too.
I think that is all I have for today.
Happy to answer questions or hear comments.
Thank you, Jasmine.
Thank you for taking us through that.
Colleagues, questions?
I don't see any hands up.
All right, no questions.
Then please, oh, Council Member Strauss.
Thanks.
Didn't want to leave any dead air here.
Jasmine, just wanted to share appreciation.
Thank you for walking me through your analysis.
Looking forward to digging deeper in here.
I believe you worked on this levy the last time it was here.
Is that correct?
I know that was my colleague, Brian.
Good night.
That's right.
Sorry.
My, my memory doesn't serve me well today, but it feels like you have that institutional memory from the last time around.
So I just wanted to share my appreciation for all your diligent work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member Strauss.
Anyone else?
All right, colleagues then.
Oh, council member Rink, I didn't see your hand up on here.
It's not coming up.
I'm not led in as a panelist yet.
Just in the general audience.
Thank you, Chair Rivera.
And thank you, Jasmine for today's presentation.
So just so I'm also clear, thank you for laying out just kind of the options that we have ahead of us, understanding that right now what's been proposed are these high level broad buckets.
We have a policy decision ahead of us in terms of how much we wanna hone in on a bit more of what those investments could look like.
And finding that balance there to create flexibility for ultimately the implementation plan, but we can also get specific by what some of these broad areas mean.
Is that correct?
Council can choose to be as specific as it wants in the establishment ordinance, just with the knowledge that whatever the voters pass, you know, the council cannot change.
So there have been examples in past levies where the levy education support services have been much more specific, have referenced much more specific populations serving, for example.
But it's completely up to the council in terms of that level of specificity.
And then the implementation and evaluation plan will work around that.
But I do believe that within sort of broader goals, you could have more direction around the broader goals and still allow for that flexibility.
So if that is of interest to council, Again, I encourage folks to work with me as early as possible so that we can strike that right balance for whatever council member is interested in that amendment.
Certainly.
Thank you for that, Jasmine.
And I think what's coming up for me, and I know my discussions with some of our community partners, just some questions about the high level buckets and what they theoretically could mean.
Perhaps a level a little bit too broad where they're wondering if we move forward with this levy, does this mean this thing particularly in the school safety bucket could be funded?
And so colleagues, I think there's some questions related to some of the funding areas being a little bit too broad at this point where we're hearing some of our core school and advocates that are for young people feeling like maybe there needs to be some additional specificity outlined before sending to voters so voters know what they're signing up for.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Council Member Rank.
And I will also add here to reiterate something that Jasmine brought up is that levy language is usually left broader because once you specifically put something in there, you can't change it because then the voter is passed by the voters.
That's why the levy is written in the four buckets with enough information, of course, to have voters vote for that thing.
The child care, for instance, bucket and, you know, there's going to be the K through 12 investments, et cetera.
The levy implementation and evaluation plan is the area where you can really designate these things.
We can as council because we have to approve the implementation and evaluation plan.
And so you can get as specific as you want in that plan.
But really, the goal of this is to get this on the ballot with enough information, obviously, to have voters support it.
But it locks you in if you get, I would say, in the weeds in the levy language.
And that's why most levies are written that way.
This isn't particular to this levy.
This is true of all levies.
if you go back and look at the levy language.
So I encourage you to do so.
Any other questions?
All right then.
Oh, Council Member Saka, the hands are not coming up on this today.
All good.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Jasmine, for your presentation here.
Always with levies, always need to strike the right balance between allowing for maximum flexibility should voters choose to approve this, and also providing specificity around key areas that people can get excited about.
And that's a delicate balance, but I support both principles.
In terms of the...
Historical precedent, Jasmine.
I understand you didn't personally work on the last levy, but that was Brian Goodnight.
But would just be curious to better understand high level, I guess, A, if any council changes were made, B, high level, if yes, what the scope of those changes were.
And then if like over the past two or three FEP levies, that would be helpful to better understand as well for context.
Now or later, if you need to follow up.
I think I can definitely provide more of that analysis for you and follow up with you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Council member Saka.
Council Member Hollingsworth, the hand thing is not working up here, so I wanna make sure, okay, you're good.
All right, and I agree with you, Council Member Kettle, I mean, Saka, you need to have the guidance in the levy language, so I was not suggesting it's either or.
I'm saying there is specificity in here on those buckets, very clear.
what we are trying to accomplish with this levy, we have to do so.
It's responsible to do so when we're asking voters to tax themselves at this level.
So that specificity is in there.
The weeds specificity is usually in the implementation plan process because you don't do programmatic pieces and levies.
that is contained, as you know, from having done the transportation levy and the implementation plan.
So that's all I was trying to distinguish, but agree that we need to be responsible to voters.
So they need to know what they're passing.
So thank you for those comments, Council Member Saka.
All right, seeing no further questions.
Council President Nelson was excused.
Apologies, I didn't say that earlier.
And, sorry, let me get to this portion of my script.
Okay, seeing no further questions or comments, this concludes the May 15, 2025 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy.
Our next committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 9.30 a.m.
If there's no further business, this meeting will adjourn.
I will say, colleagues, actually, when you get with, Jasmine on any changes that you would like to see or anything of that nature, please do let our office know so that we are prepared.
Thank you.
Hearing no further business, it's 9.56 a.m.
and this meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all.