Select Committee on the FEPP Levy 6-Year Implementation and Evaluation Plan 6/30/2026

Good morning, everyone.

The June 30th, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise levy six-year implementation and evaluation plan will come to order.

It's 9.37 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Lynn.

Here.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Good morning, here.

Councilmember Strauss?

Here.

Councilmember Foster?

Here.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth?

Chair Rivera?

Present.

There are seven council members present.

Thank you, clerk.

Please note for the record that council member Juarez is excused from today's meeting and council president is excused until she gets here today.

Today we will be hearing from central staffers Jasmine Marwaja and Tracy Ratcliffe on the VEP levy implementation and evaluation plan.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the public hybrid 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?

Currently, we have nine in-person speakers and 11 remote speakers.

Given that, each speaker will have two minutes.

Clerk, will you please read the public comment instructions?

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

Speakers will be called in the order in which 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 and 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.

All right.

I'll say all the mics are working, so if you want to step up when I call your names to one of the mics, that'd be great.

We have Liz Huizar, Jennifer Putnam, and Jacob Filecki.

Welcome.

You may start.

Okay.

Well, good morning, council members.

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

CSEC is a coalition of community-based organizations, education leaders, and system partners advocating for equitable education systems.

From our vantage point, we know that improving outcomes for black and brown students requires more than great programs.

It requires strong alignment across the systems and organizations that serve them.

I appreciate the thoughtful plan before you all today.

It has many of the things communities have been advocating for including integrated student services, family engagement, expanded learning opportunities and partnerships with community organizations.

On June 10th, I was really excited to hear about the potential of advancing community school models.

As I read the implementation plan, many of the core elements are there, but my encouragement to council is about naming it and intentionally integrating community school models more thoroughly.

We don't just need another initiative, we need an organizing framework.

From where we sit, the challenge isn't a lack of good programs, it's fragmentation.

Families navigating multiple systems while schools, community organizations, and public agencies are often working towards the same goals through separate structures.

A community school model provides the infrastructure to align those supports, shape leadership, coordinate supports, and authentically bring partners to the table.

When implemented well, it helps ensure that every public dollar works harder because every investment is connected to a shared vision for student success.

As you consider the plan, I'm encouraging you not only to invest in the programs, but also in the leadership, coordination, and cross sector infrastructure that will make this approach more successful.

Black and Brown students don't experience their lives in silos and our system shouldn't serve them in that way either.

Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to Seattle's children and families.

I look forward to seeing the plan roll out.

Thank you.

Jennifer Putnam, followed by Jacob Filecki, followed by Menzeba Hasati.

Welcome, Jennifer.

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Putnam, the school transformation partner for League of Education Voters.

League of Education Voters has partnered with the South Shore Pre-K-8 School in Rainier Beach neighborhood for over 20 years.

One of the most important aspects of our partnership is our collaboration with local organizations that work directly out of Rainier Beach.

These organizations have made a huge difference in the lives of students at South Shore.

Families are able to, excuse me, organizations that are local to Rainier Beach community understand the needs of South Shore families and are able to tailor their programs to those needs.

Because of this, they become true partners of the work being done.

My hope is that the Council takes into consideration the years of service to a specific community.

The citizens served at the local outreach available when determining what organizations are offered contracts to be partners with schools in Seattle.

Community partners that are truly partners of the neighborhoods of the students they serve can only benefit all students in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Jacob Falecki followed by Munzeba Hassati and then Muna Hassan.

I'm so sorry if I've not said your name correctly.

No worries.

Jacob?

Alrighty.

Good morning, Chair Rivera, Vice Chair Rink and members of Select Committee.

My name is Jacob Falecki.

public policy and community engagement specialist at the Voices of Tomorrow, and I am here to address a critical flaw in the current implementation plan, the voucher pilots.

While well-intentioned, it places a severe administrative burden on providers to meet a high-level mandate without corresponding infrastructure investments, and honestly, it is setting them up for failure rather than success.

Additionally, we need true CCAP rate parity.

We encourage the language of a binding floor of dollar-for-dollar parity with state and King County rates.

Though up to 40% is a great investment, we want to see a minimum floor percentage be reflected in legislative language.

As of recently, we recently hosted the mayor for SPP provider daycare sit-in because we know that real change does require approximative power and representation.

A quick snapshot, family childcare sites serve about 5% of SPP slots, and SPP slots for home daycares have been frozen for almost a decade now.

The vouchers were a good increase for slots for parents and children alike, but as the current language stands, it creates new barriers.

We are now asking also for that in governance, and we have been seeking formal representation for our providers on the levy oversight committee as well, and we're prepared to provide you specific tracked change amendments via email and are fully available to meet with council members and deal staff to ensure this plan is viable for the entire provider community.

We appreciate the discretionary language and the dollars that have been fitted in that plan to be able to have continued dialogue as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob.

Menzeba Hasati, Muna Hassan, and Ashwag Mohammed.

Welcome.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you for letting me in.

Right here on the money.

I just want to say good morning to everybody.

Thank you for hearing us out.

I am the Policy and Advocacy Strategic Planning Manager at Voices Up Tomorrow.

Iftin, our CFO and Director, is unable to make it today, but I am here.

For over a decade, our organization has advocated for family child care providers as they are the backbone of early learning, for working families across Seattle, I would argue the backbone of our civilization and of our society.

Most of these people that we're talking about, when we talk about providers, we are talking about BIPOC women, refugee immigrant women, who are owning their own operations and doing the absolute best that they can.

These individuals are the masters of their lived experiences.

They know what works best for them.

They know what works best for these families as the individuals who are directly in front of them.

They are the child care providers that shift workers, nurses, restaurant employees, and first responders.

These are the ones that these individuals rely on when their centers close at 6 and these providers are staying open all day and into the night.

When Seattle voters approved FEPP with 80% support, they voted for all children.

Yet today, FCC providers hold only 45% of SPP seats, despite serving nearly 40% of the children in child care settings statewide.

The SPP voucher pilot, while it may have been a well-meaning program, unfairly sets the lack of child care onto the backs of our providers without the resources needed to maintain or guarantee equity for every child.

We are here to partner and would love to have any conversations regarding this implementation plan.

We commend the city's intent to close the CCAP rate gap.

We recommend, or we commend the SPP investment.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you.

Muna, welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Revere and members of the committee.

My name is Muna Hussain.

I'm a college professor of early child education, a DCYF in-service trainer, and an early learning professional who spent my career working alongside family home child care providers, children and families.

I'm here today to ask the FEP levy to continue investing in providers who make inclusion possible every day.

Family home child care providers are often the first and sometimes the only option for families of children with disabilities, developmental delays, behavioral health needs, and other specialized support needs.

These providers welcome children who may have been turned away elsewhere, yet they're frequently expected to meet the same program requirements and quality standards without additional resources, coaching or compensation that inclusive care requires.

Many of these providers I work with are immigrant people, women of color, multilingual educators who are serving children with complex needs in licensed family home settings.

They're doing extraordinary work and deserve to be included in these investments.

I encourage the city to consider how providers participate in CCAP and the Seattle Preschool Program can receive additional support when serving children with higher support needs.

Inclusion is not simply about enrollment.

It requires time to coordinate with families, participate in IFSP and IEP meetings, communicate with specialists, adapt learning environments, and respond to children's individual needs.

Providers should not have to choose between maintaining a sustainable business and providing high-quality, inclusive care.

I also encourage continued investment in professional development.

As someone who teaches future educators and trains the current workforce, I see firsthand that providers are eager to learn and grow.

However, professional development must be accessible, culturally responsive, and available in language providers speak.

When we invest in provider learning, we improve outcomes of children, strength relationships with families, and build a more sustainable learning workforce.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you, Muna.

And when you hear that, you still have 10 seconds left, just letting you know.

For future reference, but thank you, Muna.

Ashwag Mohammed Mahdi Ramirez and Anab Noor.

Hello, good morning.

My name is Ashwag Mohammed.

I'm a child care provider in North Seattle area.

I just have not long, I did not write anything.

I just need if you can provide help with children who are special needs.

so this program when I work with kids they get help from DCYF they have that program when we have a child who's autistic they can provide us with an extra hand to help us maybe for a few hours because some of them they are really in need some of them you cannot control them and we are we're not a center we are a small place and we do need an extra help if we can get it from you and the City of Seattle, one time I called them and they told me we don't provide that.

I really hope that you can help these families who have kids with special needs.

Also, I found out some of the families who come from City of Seattle, the co-pay is, even though they are working hard, the co-pay is very, it's big.

and some of them, they leave the City of Seattle program and they try to go and look for other programs so that they can get more help.

Thank you and I hope you can understand and thank you for having us and all the good work that you're providing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Oshwag.

Marita Amirez, Anab Noor, and then Laura Wright.

Good morning, y'all.

My name is Mari Ramirez.

I work as a RJ Training and Programs Manager at Wablock.

We're an organization working with SPS schools to help them build a culture around restorative practices.

We do this through training teachers, building up student leaders, and providing professional developments that are responsive and tailored to each school community.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for prioritizing restorative practices in this levy.

That means a lot.

It's really important work.

This work is really important.

We have heard and seen firsthand how it can transform educational spaces to be more joyful, more life-affirming, and to really support meaningful learning.

So thank you for your work on that, truly.

Looking at this implementation plan, we just wanted to highlight some important points.

First of all, funding for restorative practices needs to start at the elementary level, and I would love that to be explicitly named in this implementation plan.

Having worked in both elementary and secondary levels, I've seen how crucial it is to begin cultivating skills around relationship building, communication, and conflict resolution as early as kindergarten and even before, to be honest.

These skills carry through and interrupt the school to prison pipeline in a big way.

Sitting in circle and restorative practices is for all ages.

Second and most importantly, restorative justice is an indigenous practice and a practice rooted in relationship.

As this plan goes into place, it's imperative that the funding be allocated to those already doing this work in community.

For example, funding more RJ coordinator positions in schools and working with folks that are already doing that work, whether formally or informally in schools, is very important.

and there's a rich history of RJ in Seattle, so luckily there's a lot of beautiful work to already draw from.

Many educators are already leading this work in our schools and our community, and then rather than looking to institutions like the IIRC, I saw on page 40 that was kind of seen as like a potential training that I would want folks to have, rather than looking to institutions.

Let's look to relationships as credibility, look to experience as credibility, and look to the rich community that Seattle already has in building out this work, rather than looking to institutionalizing this work more.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mari.

Anam, Noor, Laura Wright, and then we'll go on to the online speakers.

Welcome.

My name is Anab Nura and I'm the Education Director at Wablock, which is an organization that partners with schools to support the implementation of restorative practices.

I'm here to talk about the importance of prioritizing community-based relationships and capacity building efforts in the implementation of restorative practices.

Last year, 90% of school staff surveyed on Wablock reports shared that restorative justice trainings have supported them in shifting away from punitive discipline.

We have seen a three to 12 point increase in how students answer questions surrounding student voice, leadership, and sense of belonging in schools that currently have restorative justice programs and or have a restorative justice coordinator on site.

Teachers shared that systematizing regular staff restorative circles, quote, facilitates a kinder, quicker problem solving process, end quote.

At the elementary level, Wild Block works closely with social workers, counselors, multilingual IAs, assistant principals, and classroom teachers in an effort to build the capacity of a school community to lead and understand this work so that restorative practices in circles are not just something we do when there's a problem, but a true routine and system that is embedded within the school.

Students as young as fourth and fifth grade are trained as circle keepers and build confidence as leaders who can solve conflicts.

Students are exposed to tier one circles and restorative practices at a young age so that as they get older and the conflicts and problems that we are called to sit in circle for get more complicated.

Students are already equipped with the skills to engage deeply in a self accountability and repair process.

This happens under the guidance and leadership of adults that are rooted within the school community and whose proximity to the school allows them to assess next steps to ensure fidelity and relevance when implementing restorative practices.

I encourage the council to prioritize the capacity-building efforts of educators, restorative practice coordinators, and community-based organizations that have successfully been supporting the implementation of restorative practices within Seattle Public Schools for years.

You have six seconds left.

You're good?

Okay.

Thank you, Ana.

I appreciate you being here.

Laura Wright is our last in-person speaker, and we'll go to online.

Hi, Laura.

Welcome.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Laura.

I work with Wallblock.

I'm actually gonna cede my time, because my colleagues just did an incredible job hitting all of our points, so thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Laura.

All right, we'll go to online.

We have Catherine Barr, Jaime Marsh, and Chime Prasuth.

If you press star six, Catherine, you may begin.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Catherine Barr.

I'm the Executive Director of Operations at STEMPath Innovation Network.

I'm commenting on the FEPLEVEM implementation plan STEMPASS provides youth with meaningful opportunities to explore science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through hands-on learning experiences, mentorship, and real-world skill development.

Our programs help students connect classroom learning to real-world applications and future career opportunities.

By exposing youth to STEM role models, we are building pathways to higher education and family wage careers in our region.

Funding from the Seattle Human Services Supporting Youth and Young Adults for Success initiative has supported the growth of our Young Entrepreneur Project over four years, growing from 30 students to over 100 annually and evolving into a credit-bearing CTE elective at Cleveland STEM High School.

In Spring 2026 alone, 90% of our students increased knowledge of STEM careers, confidence in STEM, and motivation to pursue additional STEM classes, and 90% reported increases in critical thinking, problem solving, and leadership skills.

Our YEP students consistently share stories of how our program has helped them take their ideas from the drawing board into future careers, whether that's learning the skills to make them happen, or connecting them with STEM apprenticeships or internships that support their next steps.

More than 250 youth have been supported to reach their dreams through this investment.

We thank you for including SPIN in the list of Ready to Launch nonprofit partners and support strong and sustained funding for supporting youth and young adults for success initiatives in the Levy implementation plan as part of Ready to Launch.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you, Catherine.

Jaime or Jamie, I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing your name.

You can press star six and you may begin.

Hi, good morning members of the committee.

Thank you for your time and partnership.

My name is Jemaine Marsh and I serve as Executive Director of FEAT.

We work alongside BIPOC and low-income high school students in South Seattle to improve food access and mental health resources while developing youth leadership and social-emotional skills through mentorship.

Today I'm speaking from our deep experience as a current PEP levy recipient and as a partner to the network of community-based organizations utilizing these critical investments.

to elevate our students' educational experiences.

What we're seeing on the ground right now is immense uncertainty.

We are deeply concerned about how potential loss of school support staff combined with increasing grant restrictions for CDOs will impact our youth.

As our city's grant structures evolve, we want to ensure they maintain the baseline flexibility required to meet immediate student needs and provide continuity of care.

Community-based organizations are asking to move forward as true partners actively collaborating with you on the design of this process.

We want to bring our decades of collective expertise to the table to help inform complex decisions and ensure that our community's feedback is thoroughly integrated.

Therefore, my ask and invitation this morning is to deepen our collaborative feedback loop.

We ask for an ongoing, robust community engagement process throughout the entire lifespan of this six-year levy.

Let's work together as true partners to ensure we get this right for our young people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jimei.

Next is Chimei.

Press star six and you may begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Chimei Precious and I'm here today as both the mother of a Seattle Public School scholar and the executive director of a community-based organization serving Southeast Seattle called the Gift for Arts Collective with a mission of violence prevention through arts education, working in school and out of school time.

From both perspectives, I know that schools cannot do this work alone.

Community-based organizations are deeply embedded in our neighborhoods.

We have trusted relationships with students and families that often remain consistent even when school leadership or staff changes.

We see what happens before school, after school, and at home, and those hours matter just as much as the school day.

Our students thrive when there is a strong ecosystem of support between families, schools, the city, and community organizations.

When the ecosystem is disconnected, it is our young people who feel the impact.

As conversations continue about how youth funding will be distributed next year, I ask that community-based organizations have a meaningful seat at the table.

We need greater clarity and transparency about the funding process including how RSQs will be structured, whether funding will flow directly to CBOs or through schools, and how partnerships will be supported.

Too often, organizations learn about these opportunities at the last minute.

Plans shift quickly without knowledge and new deadlines making it difficult to plan and continue providing critical services.

The call to action is simple.

First, bring community organizations into the planning process early, not after decisions have already been made.

Second, strengthen partnerships between the city SPS and trusted CBO so that students experience seamless support from home to school to after-school programs and then back at home.

Finally, I ask that you explore these questions publicly and bring clear answers back to the community.

Those of us doing this work every day understand the needs of our neighborhoods, especially in Southeast Seattle, and we are ready to be partners in building great solutions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chime.

Crystal Smith, followed by Wesley St. Clair, and then Jasmine Habib.

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

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Sorry, Crystal, we can hear you.

Okay, all good.

Hello, my name is Crystal Smith and I'm the Director of Education with Speak With Purpose, which is a Black-led, community-based organization that has partnered within Seattle Public Schools for over 10 years now.

We are in six Title I schools in the central and south end of Seattle.

And Speak With Purpose is a public speaking organization and the only one within Washington State.

We partner with schools intentionally during the school day to make sure it is accessible to all students.

Our educators co-teach alongside classroom teachers to deliver culturally responsive curriculum focused on leadership, literacy, self-advocacy, and confidence.

Our students write speeches, incorporating their personal stories from their lived experiences while also taking a stance on something that they want to see change within their community.

I'm here to speak about the K-12 support and specifically thinking about the community school model.

With diminishing school budgets, This is going to be so important.

And this is important to us as a black led community based organization.

We want to make sure that we are an organization as well as other organizations here today and beyond that are considered as we're looking to innovate with this community school model, how we make sure to have those voices at the table with those organizations that have been within communities within schools know families for over 10 years now.

So just wanting to make sure that that is something that is being considered.

Thank you.

Thank you, Crystal.

Next, we have Wesley St. Clair.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Oh, and further record.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Wesley.

Sorry.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, council members, for your continued investment in Seattle's children, youth, families, and schools.

My name is Wesley St. Clair.

I work with a community-based organization called Y-Rule, providing restorative practices to public schools.

I want to speak in support of the levy's inclusion of restorative practices.

The plan correctly describes restorative practices as relationship-centered strategies that build community, strengthen trust, and repair harm when conflicts occur.

That's the right frame.

Restored practice is not simply a response to discipline, however.

It is a way to build the conditions of safety, belonging, accountability, and connection that allow young people to learn.

I also appreciate that the plan includes community programming, circle processes, conferencing, reentry support, skills building, training, coaching, and professional development.

That broader continuum is important because restorative practices works best when it becomes part of a culture of a school and community, not just something that is used after harm has occurred.

I do want to offer one caution.

Restorative practice should be used as a system change strategy, not simply as a training requirement or compliance checkbox.

The goal is not merely to document that staff receives a certain number of training hours.

The goal is to change the culture and conditions of schools, how relationships are built, how conflict is addressed, how harm is repaired, how students re-interactive exclusion, and how families and communities are engaged.

The implementation standards reference IIRP training or equivalent training.

I encourage the council to and Bill to emphasize the or equivalent, IIRP has made important contributions to the flow, but restorative practices is larger than any one curriculum, organization, or training model.

The goal should be a broad restorative ecosystem across safety, mental health, mentoring, re-entering,

Thank you, Wesley.

And if you have additional comments, please do feel free to email those to us.

Thank you so much for being here.

Jasmine Habib is next.

Jasmine, press star six and you may begin.

Good morning, council members and members of the oversight committee.

My name is Yasmin Habib and I'm here today on behalf of Celebrating Roots.

I wanna begin by saying we are truly grateful to be funded through the Seattle Human Services Department Youth and Family Empowerment Division and to be a partner in the SEP Levy.

This investment has allowed us to show up for families in a way that is consistent, rooted and responsive to what they actually need.

Our goals are deeply aligned with the intention of this work, helping children and families thrive through education, belonging and opportunity.

At Celebrating Roots, we meet families at different points in their journey.

Some are new to the school system, some are navigating language barriers, and some are simply trying to understand how to best support their child in a system that wasn't always designed with them in mind.

I think of one parent who came to us feeling unsure and disconnected from their child's school experience.

They cared deeply but didn't always feel confident in how to engage or advocate.

Over time, through culturally grounded programming and consistent support, that changed.

They started attending school meetings with more confidence.

They began asking more questions they once felt hesitant to ask.

And most importantly, their child started to feel that shift too.

More confident, more visible, and more willing to participate in the community and in the classroom.

This is what we mean when we talk about educational attainment.

It's not just about grades or benchmarks.

It's about whether a child feels like they belong in the learning spaces.

It's about whether a parent feels empowered to show up and be heard and to advocate for their child.

And it's about whether a family feels connected to the systems that are shaping their child's future.

We see every day that when families are supported in their identity and connection to community, children show up differently in school.

They engage more, they take more risks in learning and they begin to see new possibilities for themselves.

This is why the FEP levy matters.

It recognizes that education is not only what happens inside the classroom walls, it's also what happens at home, in community spaces, and in the relationships that surround a child.

We are grateful to be a part of this ecosystem along the Human Services Department and the Department of Education and Early Learning.

We don't take this partnership lightly and we remain committed to ensuring that families are not just served, but truly supported.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jasmine.

And I want to state for the record that council president has joined us and has been here through most of the online comment.

And we are joined in chambers by council member Saka, who was remote before.

All right, next is Janet Boyette.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Janet, please press star six to unmute.

Looks like Janet is no longer present.

Okay, and we'll go to Efden Hagi Mohamed.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good afternoon, Councilmember.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Iskenhaj Muhammad.

I'm with Voice of Tomorrow, a community-based organization that supports family child care and community-based early learning providers serving immigrant refugee families in Seattle, Washington, and beyond.

We're currently one of the hub administrators of STP, for the past decade.

And through our ZACE initiative, we also provide behavioral health, mental health, clinical services integrated into the early learning settings.

I want to raise two concerns about the implementation and evaluation plan.

First is the STP waitlist voucher pilot.

This pilot creates a new delivery mechanism that bypasses the administrative hub model entirely.

Families would purchase service directly from any provider holding an active CCAP agreement with the bill alone setting the quality standards of how to meet the STC requirements.

There is no hub serving as a fiscal agent, no hub support, and no oversight built into this design, and we're worried this creates a full burden on providers to meet STC requirements.

I would also like to address that the mental health, behavioral health funding, the largest dollars are going to the institutions and we ask that CBOs are considered as part of the clinical service model that's available to the community.

Without clear pathway, organizations with deep trust culture connection are available to support families.

We ask councils to direct deals to expand the hub model rather than create new pilots.

We ask for future competitor process for any behavioral health, mental health investment to include a CV or an organization that are able to meet the requirements of the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Iftin.

We'll go back and see if Janet Boyette is here.

Janet, if you're here, will you press star six and you can begin?

Janet, I see you online.

Are you able to press star six?

All right, Janet, if you can hear us, you're welcome to submit your comments online to council through our council email.

All right.

I think that is the last of our registered speakers.

The public comment period is now closed.

We'll now proceed to our items of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

agenda item one overview of 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 and discussion

Thank you, Clerk.

Alright, colleagues, this is the second meeting of the Select Committee on the Families Education Preschool and Promise Six-Year Implementation and Evaluation Plan.

Is there a prize for the longest committee name ever or item?

In our last meeting, we heard from the mayor's office and the department of early learning and education about the plan they submitted.

And today we're going to hear from central staff on policy considerations.

We'll run through those and then we'll take your questions afterwards.

Sorry.

today.

So we're going to run through the policy considerations today on the July 8th meeting.

We'll have briefing discussion and possible vote on any amendments that come forward and maybe even hopefully we can vote on the plan.

We'll have a meeting on July 22nd if we don't get through those items on the 8th.

That's kind of next steps on this.

I'll remind you at the end again.

As I said in yesterday's briefing, it's great to tell central staff about your amendments and it's also great if you're able to share those with my office so we can be prepared and plan accordingly.

So I'm gonna keep encouraging you to please do that or at least tell central staff that you release confidentiality so we can continue to work together.

We're joined by Jasmine and Tracy, our trustee, essential staffers who's been working with, who have been working with my office on the I&E.

So please state your name for the record and then you can begin with your presentation.

Great.

Good morning, Jasmine Marawaha, Council Central Staff.

And Tracy Ratzliff, Council Central Staff.

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started.

So the presentation today will largely follow the outline of our policy considerations memo.

We'll start with a brief background, then proceed with a summary of the implementation and evaluation plan, which we'll refer to as the INE plan or the plan from now on in our presentation, and that will be followed by a very high-level overview of changes from the transmitted version to the introduced version, as well as a review of policy considerations, and then we will conclude with next steps and, of course, questions.

And before I jump in, a reminder that Washington State and Seattle Public Schools are mandated by the state constitution to provide basic education to K-12 students, but local governments may provide supplemental funding to support those students.

Moving on to the background.

So the 2025 levy was approved by about 80% of voters this past November.

It is expected to generate $1.3 billion over a six-year period.

And as noted on the slide, proceeds from this levy must be spent in accordance with an implementation and evaluation plan approved by ordinance, which is required to include priority criteria for funding, including type of educational support, methodology and process by which levy-funded strategies will be selected, the procedure for regularly monitoring and evaluating overall impacts and outcomes of each of the individual investments, and a summary of stakeholders consulted.

Council Bill 121240 and its attached plan include all these elements, plus the responses to two slides adopted by Council in last fall's budget process.

The first slide requested how council priorities listed in the slide would be incorporated into the plan, and the second requested deal to provide quarterly reports regarding specific measurable data and outcomes to council.

So, as was mentioned by the Chair, on June 10th the Select Committee was briefed on the plans for proposed investments, so we're not going to rehash the summary of those investments, and you can obviously go back to the video on the slides from the June 10th meeting.

We'll be focusing here instead on items that represent changes to the plan from prior council deliberations.

Because during last fall's budget process, because the 2026 adopted budget essentially included the first half of year one of the FEP levy, DEAL also provided council cost estimates for the entire six-year spending plan that served as a starting point for development.

and with those cost estimates, the plan maintains the investment areas approved in the levy and adopted in the 2026 budget.

They've renamed the investment areas as domains and the spending over the six years has shifted only slightly from the cost estimates provided earlier, primarily due to risk reserve changes to accommodate the universal school meals proposal, which is a new proposal.

shifting certain HSD programs from the K-12 investment area to the college and career investment area, shifting some labor costs from the specific domains into operations, and a very slight reduction in total spending projections due to adjustments in labor costs.

So the I&E plan also reflects some changes within each domain regarding specific programs that were outlined in the fall 2025 budget process.

These changes include, but are not limited to, the addition of the Seattle Preschool Program waitlist voucher pilot and the opportunity-based mentoring program.

The expanded learning opportunities, splitting into school-based investments and community-based investments with specific requirements regarding the type of support provided.

Some mental health staffing supports shifted to the school-based health center program instead of being bucketed within an overall deal youth mental health bucket.

And then there was a reallocation of proposed additional spending for the Seattle Youth Employment Program that is now going to fund the additions to the police and fire career programs, as well as the Path to Tech program.

So the introduced version will include significant changes to address clarity, funding details, and council's role.

These changes include additional clarification and added details.

And a little bit more context here is that each of the plan's investment areas are broken up by strategies, and each strategy includes a description of the funded services, participant eligibility, implementation standards that have things like the reporting indicators and service targets and the timelines for implementation.

In the transmitted version, there were a lot of details regarding funded services that were kind of buried in the implementation standards tables, and these details have now been lifted up into a narrative description under the funded services section and a little bit more fleshed out.

So that is sort of what we mean by clarification edits and added detail for the most part.

Additionally, in consultation with DEAL, the plan has additional reporting indicators and added clarity on implementation and evaluation timelines.

The introduced version also adds more detail to the spending plan, providing a line item breakdown for every funded program and more details on spending for council priorities, such as youth mental health.

The introduced plan also limits Deal's authority to modify the plan as compared to what was transmitted.

In the transmitted plan, Council oversight of the plan was functionally delegated to the Executive with any changes to be reported in the Levy Annual Report, but without advance notice to Council.

The introduced version will allow some flexibility for the Executive to modify policies relating to participant eligibility, enrollment prioritization, and implementation standards.

but all other policy and funding modifications will require Council approval.

Similarly, in the transmitted plan, allocation of underspend would also have been left to DEAL's discretion with arguably vague priorities.

The introduced version requires Council approval of underspend allocation and prioritizes funding for evidence-based services supporting levy goals and may only be used to fund new or expanded programming if it can be sustained for the remaining life of the levy.

Overall, the changes made to add clarity, transparency, and council oversight did not alter the spending plan that Deal presented on June 10th.

And now I'll be turning it over to Tracy.

So council members, there are six policy issues and one contextual issue that have been identified by central staff and or council members.

These can be found on page six of the policy consideration memo, which I believe is attached to the agenda.

So issue number one, there are two new programs included in the I&E plan that are currently being designed.

The Seattle Preschool Program Waitlist Voucher Pilot, which is intended to be piloted in the 26-27 school year, and the Opportunity-Based Mentoring Program.

which is intended to be implemented in the 27-28 school year.

Because these programs are in the process of being designed, there are not full details regarding implementation included in the plan, including such things as how recipients for services will be selected, how they would be prioritized.

So if Council wishes to have more oversight of final design of these new programs, Council could require review or approval of one or both of these programs before actual implementation.

Issue number two, the I&E plan includes a new universal school meals program that would provide free meals at 53 schools for students not otherwise supported by federal free and reduced price meal program.

This program will be implemented in the 26-27 school year and is funded for two years.

The program is funded by reducing the levy cost and risk reserve funds by $3.6 million in 2027 and $4.1 million in 2028. If council would like to provide greater protection against the risk of unexpected cost increases, or in the event that the millionaire's tax, which is actually how the executive is planning to fund the program after the first two years, is that the state millionaire tax does include a provision that talks about funding free meals.

Council might want to consider retaining some funding and maybe not fully funding this program in the first couple of years.

or if council priorities regarding food assistance were not addressed by the executive's proposal, they could consider reprioritizing that funding for other food assistance programs.

Issue number three, there are HSD programs that were previously funded with other fund sources that are now levy supported.

As a result, these programs that are shown in the table in the policy consideration memo on pages five and six were not developed in alignment with FEP levy goals.

However, the programs will be rebid at the end of their funding cycles, some as soon as 2027. That would provide an opportunity to better align these programs with FEP goals and outcomes.

If Council would like to provide greater oversight in this area, Council may wish to request a report from DEAL and HSD on any proposed goals and outcomes and program designs before their competitive funding processes are released.

Issue number four, the FEP levy ordinance states a key implementation principle is to achieve levy outcomes that advance educational equity.

Goals and desired outcomes in each domain in the I&E plan as transmitted did not reference closing opportunity gaps for populations furthest from educational milestones as a measure of success for the levy.

If the Council wished to provide further direction about these goals and outcomes, specifically related to closing opportunity gaps, they could include some language in the IONI plan to reflect this desire.

Issue number five, the I&E plan includes funding for Path to Trades programs.

These programs create career awareness and provide exploration and preparation support for Seattle youth interested in careers such as the trades and public service, including city jobs for which there is demand for workers and available apprenticeship programs.

Ideally, these programs will provide information, encouragement, and support to students who might be interested in city careers, such as City Light line workers, SPU water pipe workers, and SPU drainage and wastewater collection workers.

If Council would like to provide further direction to deal regarding strengthening partnerships between the Path to Trades program, and in particular city departments and existing city programs, Council could amend the I&E plan to provide more clarity for deal regarding such partnerships.

Issue number six, the I&E plan includes funding for several programs that will serve students involved in or at elevated risk of criminal justice involvement.

It also includes funding for existing HSD investments in school-based safety that have historically been supported by general fund dollars.

These programs and other levy-funded school safety interventions, including restorative practices, gender-based violence, are likely to have some overlap in terms of services offered, individuals served, and desired outcomes.

The I&E plan does not include an articulation of the desire for coordination of these services or for an overarching framework to guide these investments.

If council would like to provide direction for such a framework or for better coordination, council could amend the plan to require or request a report on system level coordination for the totality of these school safety investments.

And the final issue is a contextual policy issue.

And this relates to the K through scale school-based investments and community-based investments.

So as you heard on June, June 3rd, we heard from Deal.

They are moving to a new model, the community schools model.

And this model will in fact result in a new RFP process that will be led in 2026. There is no guarantee that programs and services that are currently receiving funding under the current model will be awarded funding under this new model.

So that's just for awareness that because we're switching to the new model and the new RFP will go out that some folks, some organizations, some programs will maybe funded and some may not.

We don't know, but just so people understand that.

And happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Jasmine and Tracy.

Colleagues, actually, I have some comments to make on central staff's policy considerations.

So just to give you more information, on page two where it says certain HSD programs shifted from K through 12 from the ready to learn bucket to the ready to launch, the college and career, that's because the demographic is aligned with the ready to launch demographic versus the ready to learn.

So that's, it doesn't change the investment, it just switches it to a line with the bucket that it actually should have probably been included under to begin with because of who it's serving.

Page three, I would say, there is information on the voucher, SPP voucher pilot.

On the opportunity-based mentoring program, I've spoken with Director Chappell.

They're gonna be doing design of this in the 26-27 school year and then implementation would be in the 27-28 school year, but it would come back through council because the levy says any new programs have to be approved by council.

So this is something that regardless of whether we make any changes to the INE, new things need to come back to to council as per the levy and in general implementation of the levy goes through the budget process which is under council's control so in actuality all of the work would have to go come back through council anyway, regardless of whether we decided to make any additional changes to this INE plan.

So I just, that is important to state because that was in the levy.

It was a piece already in the levy.

On the expanded learning opportunities, splitting into school-based investments and community-based investments, that was mainly required because as you all know, HSD and parks were not included in, any prior levy iteration but they are here and the most of the HSD and the SPR the parks investments are community-based and so that's why that was split off if you will but just wanted to give more transparency as to the why that was set up that way.

On the mental health supports shifting to the school-based health center this one I was a little confused by so let me just say that school-based health centers are already implementing the mental health.

Most of the providers like the counselors are already out of the school-based health centers.

What this levy would do is increase more counseling support, more counselors, but that was something that already the school-based health centers were doing.

And then of course there's some, supports for CBOs that are doing this particular type of work, like the Asian Counseling Referral Center, for instance, was part of this investment last time.

Obviously, all of these investments via the levy and for legal reasons have to be a competitively bid.

The department already does RFPs for these investments, and the renewal has to look at all the investments and see whether they're working or not.

and then shift if they have to shift.

That was always true in the last levy and continues to be true in this levy.

And then I would say I need to dig into the reallocation of the SYAP because my understanding is the SYAP was actually expanded to include the Promise students in particular.

In terms of the police and fire career programs and path to tech, both of those were in the levy, the actual levy language.

and so that's why they need to be funded in this iteration of the levy.

And then on page four, I would say that the modifications to the plan and the underspend coming through council, again, because council has to approve the budget through the budget process, we're already having to approve what the departments do.

via that council process.

So this just really aligns to what was in the levy about the investments being approved through the budget process, which is actually us council.

And so I made sure that that was clear in the I&E because it wasn't as clear before and it is in the levy.

And then in terms of, let's see, on page five, I talked about the opportunity-based mentoring.

That's going to be designed in the 26-27 school year.

The deal will have to come back.

I've already spoken with Director Chappelle about that.

And then in terms of HSD programs, the levy requires the director of the Department of Education and Early Learning to work with the other city departments as they're building the investments with these levy dollars.

So that was already supposed to be happening.

So I'll just preview that I'll be working on an amendment to make sure that that actually happens in a way that's more robust than it is indicated here.

But just to say that in the levy language itself, that was a requirement.

So we want to make sure that obviously, as I said earlier, HSD and the parks investments are newer to this levy.

And so we want to make sure that all the departments are working together to make sure that the HSD and the parks investments align with the levy goals, because that's what we said.

We told voters we would do.

And then on the page six, I would say that in terms of the achieve levy outcomes that advance educational equity, I will say that in various parts of the implementation and evaluation plan, this is addressed both on page two and page 13 that basically states that the majority of the goal of this levy is to close those opportunity gaps.

so didn't want to leave it on the table that that was not contemplated by the INE because that's the majority of why we're making the investments that we're making via this INE.

And then in terms of the path to trades, demand for workers, the INE on page 46 talks about this including, this includes working with departments on career support, and also Washington State for the high demand trade program.

So as they're working with the kids in the Promise and Path to Trades program, they'll be working with them to talk to them about career opportunities at the city departments and the ones that are being identified as high demand by Washington State.

And then on the...

Okay, I addressed the school safety investments because the plan does require a deal to work with the city departments on their particular investments.

The last thing I'll say on the contextual on page seven, the four pillars.

This is the community schools model.

There is no actual community school.

It is a model.

I thought it was a bit confusing.

I learned more about it.

It is something that's on the NEA's website if you want to learn about it, but basically what Deal did was took the four pillars from that model and included it as part of this school-based investments mainly because in all honesty the last levy we didn't get the results in the K through 12 space and a lot of that had to do with there were very many offerings and not narrowed offerings that would really meet what it is that kids would need to meet their academic goals, which is what the levy talks about, helping kids meet their academic goals.

So the four pillars, it's my understanding from the department, and if you read them it makes sense, it was to focus on the investments that really go toward that academic achievement.

So that's what this particular number seven talks about and what the four pillars are.

And I will say they're pretty, even though it's more targeted, there's still a lot of, if you read the four pillars, it sounds like there's a lot of flexibility still between those four pillars.

So I wanted to point that out as well.

So, okay, those are the things I just wanted to flag as I was working through this INE with the department and with central staff that were not necessarily highlighted during this presentation, but I thought it was important to share with you all.

And now, colleagues, let me turn to you all for questions you might have of our trustee central staff on their issue ID.

Any questions?

All right, no questions.

Well, I do know that you all worked with, oh, is there one?

I don't see that on here.

Hang on.

Okay, sorry.

Oh, here it is.

It just came up.

House member Foster, go ahead.

You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And as always, thank you so much to central staff for your work on putting together the memo and the issue ID for us.

I have a couple of questions that I want to go through here.

So I know I asked some of these when Deal was at the table as well.

I'll start off first with the free school lunches and I'll start off with the same disclaimer that I gave when I asked this difficult question when Deal was here, which is I think that this is a really important and an exciting opportunity to make sure that we have access in our schools.

We know that too many kids and families are going hungry in our city.

And simultaneously, I will share just from a policy perspective, I'm really curious to make sure this is gonna be an investment that is balanced.

And we know that this is funded, this is intended to be a gap fill until the state millionaire's tax comes into effect in several years and that is currently going through legal and I believe ballot challenges.

and personally I'm a believer that it will prevail and I believe that it should prevail.

However, I do want to make sure that both this council as well as the public understands what would happen if that does not prevail.

So can you speak to that right now and how that is accounted for in this plan?

Well, it's not.

It really, the spending plan after the first two years shows no money going to the school meals program.

So you would have to be, if you wanted to continue that program after those two years and say that the millionaire tax was invalidated and wasn't available to fund, you would have to look down that six year spending plan and those programs and make a decision about what you would cut.

Obviously you could go to the cost, risk and reserve fund, which is funding the program now.

That would be one potential, but there would be the other programs that you could look at to try to come up with the funding needed to continue the program.

Thank you.

I just think it's important that we understand that potential trade-off, albeit one that I hope we do not need to face, but I think it's really important.

And then I also want to ask you to speak a little bit more to the source of the two-year coverage.

So this is from the Risk and Reserve Fund, and so can you just share with us what this shifts the Risk and Reserve Fund to, so how much we would have in that Risk and Reserve Fund?

compared to what we had in the risk and reserve fund in the previous levy.

So I can't speak to what we had in the previous levy.

What I can tell you is by the reallocation in year one, you would take the cost and risk and reserve fund down to $642,000 from the 3.6, actually, no, 3.8, 3.6, sorry.

No, 4.2.

And the second year would be you would have cost in risk reserve funds of $884,000.

So a significant drop in the risk reserve funds in terms of what would be available in terms of the balance.

So, and I know you checked your notes.

Can you say that one more time?

You said down from 4.2 million to 850,000.

Was that correct, Tracy?

In the first year, you would go from, I think it's 4.2 million because you'd add the 642 plus the 3.6.

Sorry, I'm trying to do math on the fly.

I don't always do so well at this.

But anyway, I think it would be a total of 4.2 if you didn't allocate those cost risk and reserve to the school meals program.

So it would go from 4.2 to $642,000 in year one.

in year two, it would go from 4.9 or almost $5 million down to $884,000.

Thank you.

Another way of thinking about it in terms of the percentages, so they had proposed the plan during the fall budget deliberations, the cost estimates included a 2.5% risk reserve for the entire levy each year throughout the six years.

So this reduces the risk reserve from 2.5% of spending to 0.35%.

So that also gives you a relative scale as well.

From 2.5% to 0.3%?

0.35, yeah.

0.35, thank you.

The first two years.

For the first two years alone, yeah.

And then it goes back to 2.5 after that.

Right, and I think it's, thank you for that.

And I think it's, given the sort of first part of this question, which was, do we have a plan for year three for this funding?

Again, if we are in a scenario that we don't want to be in, and given that we don't, I think we would either be talking about cuts to other programs, or we would be talking about, I assume this council would be talking about carrying this sort of low 0.35% risk reserve over the life of the levy.

Those seem to be the faces that, or excuse me, the choices we would be faced with at that point in time.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And then one further question, I have actually several questions, but one more question on this one is, do we know just based on the previous levy, and I apologize to ask previous levy questions without prepping you, but do we know based on the previous levy, did we use 1%, 0.35%, like how much did we dip into it over the life of the previous levy?

And obviously I know that covered COVID years, so there may be some complexity, but if you can speak to that.

Sure, yeah, so they calculated or held in reserves through a process that was a little bit different.

They sort of did it program by program, so they embedded it within the program, so certain higher risk programs had up to a 3% cost and risk reserve.

Other programs that seemed to be more dialed in had less, so it was just done a little bit different way, so it's hard to compare apples to apples, but they did have a consideration where some programs had a higher risk reserve and some less.

Okay, thank you, and I can follow up with you to get what those percentages were.

Okay, that was one question.

So, oh, Tracy, did you have it?

No, I don't have it.

I know what you're asking for, but we'll get the information to you.

Okay, thank you so much.

And then I want to turn to SYEP, and I didn't catch the slide number that this one was on, so apologies, central staff team.

I wrote this as a, let's see, Yep, so okay, thank you.

So this has the reallocation of proposed additional SYEP going into the police and fire career programs and the path to tech programs.

And let me be clear, I think we need to continue to make progress on hiring in our police department.

I think that there's a bright future for many people, many of our young people in the tech field.

I just want to make sure that we understand if this is listed as a reallocation, what the impact is to SYEP and whether or not the new programs or the pivot rather is going to fund this, is going to reach the same population of young people that SYEP reaches.

So if you can just speak to that, that would be great.

Sure, so in the, again, this comparison is based on cost estimates that were provided last fall.

And so at that time, this was sort of a bucket of money for internships that were sort of put into SYEP.

It was not, there was no program, there's no programmatic plan for that funding at that time.

So essentially we're not cutting services to SYEP, it's more that the proposed additions to SYEP are now being shifted to the police and fire career programs.

Got it, that's helpful.

So it's not a cut in who is currently in the program, but it is a shift and it will mean that we're not growing the SYEP program and that that's correct.

Yeah, I believe there still is a small allocation for SYEP in the promise bucket.

So I think the growth represents that amount.

I think it's like 100 or 200K.

You're correct.

It's about $100,000 a year for SYEP.

Good job.

So about $100,000 a year over the life of the levy, so not 101 year one, 100 per year, thank you.

Okay, and then the second part of my question was, can you speak to whether or not the programs, the police and fire programs and the Path to Tech programs will be designed to reach the same population of young people that SYEP is designed to reach.

And maybe actually to back up a second, I can ask you to say, who is SYEP designed to reach and serve?

And then to answer that question.

Sure.

So this could be a question as well that we have the departments follow up with you on.

My understanding is SYEP is designed to reach those most in need, most in need of employment, internships, and designed to help populations such as black and brown individuals and those lower income.

and the police and fire, I don't have information about how specifically they're targeting the recipients of those services.

I do know that they are proposing, that the plan proposes to provide stipends to youth with the intention of of making those programs more accessible for those who wouldn't otherwise be able to participate.

But we can get back to you more on the specific comparison of populations targeted.

Yeah, I think that would be really helpful.

I know that we've gotten a lot of questions about SYEP and the number of young people that are served, at least in my office, and I know that's been just a popular program with a lot of families across the city.

Okay, thank you for that.

And then I'd like to turn now to the waitlist voucher program.

And again, I apologize for not writing down the slides here to set you guys up for success.

And this was one that I asked about when this was in front of us last time with the departments.

And in particular, I believe what I heard was a plan to launch this program based on council districts in terms of how they were gonna be prioritizing the enrollment into this new expanded program.

And that seemed like a detail that was up for consideration.

And I wonder if we've heard any additional response or information around the rollout and the prioritization of the waitlist program.

We have.

We can actually get you that information, council member.

I think the sense is that it might be targeted to council districts where there are more than 10 SPP providers with deal-managed enrollment that have a wait list.

But I can get you.

There's more detail I can provide to you about that.

I think the general concept is the same.

Yes, and we did hear, after the questions from the last committee meeting, we did hear from Deal that they considered sort of smaller geographic boundaries, you know, but that, you know, it was more administratively feasible to use a bigger geographic boundary like council districts and they were able to to analyze the sort of number of folks on a wait list per council district and in a way that was easy to administer.

So part of it was that.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

And I look forward to learning more.

And obviously as a citywide council member, I want all around the city to receive love and the families waiting and trying to get their kids into the program.

I also want to make sure that we, you know, we may have one provider who's got a long wait list and one part of the city that just doesn't reach the top.

But if we were taking a sort of more citywide look, that it may come out differently.

So I just want to make sure that we are being thoughtful about that.

And again, that sort of comes back from my perspective to how we're thinking about the goals of the levy to to serve the families who are really in most need.

And certainly geography is part of that, but I just wanna make sure that we are being thoughtful and that that's not playing too big of a role against other factors.

So I look forward to getting more information there.

I have one more question, but I'm gonna form it a little bit more.

I may raise my hand again at the end.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Of course, Councilmember Foster, thank you.

And I did, if I may, want to add a little more information on the school meals program.

As you know, the state has taken this on, so the levy's not meant to supplant, but to supplement.

And so at the point of which that would kick in, and if we're adding, then we might be in the supplantation phase.

but of course if the millionaire's tax is reversed then we wouldn't be in a supplantation phase and so I understand your question but for the record wanted to talk about the supplantation part because it's important as part of this conversation.

And then on the SYEP reallocation it was my understanding that there are no cuts to the SYEP program there is expansion and expansion to the Promise students for instance and and like I said earlier, the police and fire and Path to Tech were all included in, well the police and fire included in the levee language itself, so that's why this is being prioritized here and then Path to Tech was something Council added as part of our ads to the levy.

So now that's there too.

Just again for the record saying where these things came from.

And on the SPP voucher program, the department will also come back and let us know how they're planned to implement this because they have to let us know it's part of the levy language that they have to come through.

the budget process to tell us how these things are.

And also the INE now contains that language very clearly.

If there's a new program, you all have to come back and tell us how with more detail how to implement it.

So letting you know that's happening too.

Council Member Lynn, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Just kind of a big picture question in terms of our relationship with Seattle Public Schools, especially for both the school-based investments, but as well as our community-based investments, which oftentimes work very closely with Seattle Public Schools.

Just wondering if you could talk at all about how we align our investments with their strategies, especially as we have a new superintendent who may be shifting some of their strategies.

What sort of Could you just talk about sort of how, and I suspect this is mostly sort of, you know, at the deal level where they work closely with SPS, but so just wondering where, you know, how much should council be involved, or do we just leave it up to deal, and what sort of flexibility is there in the I&E plan to pivot if, if there are changes in SPS's sort of strategies.

It's kind of a big picture.

And we're happy to take this offline, but if you have any thoughts that you can share.

I can just affirm that in the prior levy, arguably there was less coordination with the district as a whole that individual schools applied for funding.

And my understanding is that the intention for this new round is to have more alignment and coordination with the district.

And that is something that the new superintendent has expressed a desire for as well.

and in terms of the flexibility in the plan, the plan states that there's going to be a competitive process to select the schools.

It doesn't really go into much more detail than that, so we could ask Deal for more details about their intention around the competitive process and their alignment with the district.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn for that.

And I will say that definitely there was interest in making sure we were aligning with the Seattle Public Schools because the students are the recipients of this investment.

And in the last go round, as I stated earlier, we didn't have the outcomes we had wanted in the K through 12. and unclear whether some of that was because we didn't coordinate as well with Seattle Public Schools.

There is a new superintendent who, super grateful, he has a lot of energy and he really wants to, he's very focused on the students' academic achievement, which is the basis for this levy.

So there are already a lot of points of alignment.

However, at the end of the day, this is the city's investment, but I think it behooves us to stay aligned with Seattle Public Schools because they are the ones who are in charge of the kids who, you know, this investment is funding.

So I think, you know, we all wanna work together, obviously, but there is flexibility for this council since ultimately we get to dictate how the money spent via every single budget process every year.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions, Council Member Lynn?

Thank you.

Council Member Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera and Jasmine, Tracy.

Thank you so much for preparing these materials and these considerations for us today.

Colleagues, I wanted to start just with a couple of comments before going into my questions.

Just starting us off with a point related to one of the key policy considerations, HSD programs in alignment with FEP, and I wanted to just share, pardon me, just share as a chair over human services that I think it makes a great deal of sense to have these programs be a part of FEP.

These programs address real barriers to educational success, including behavioral health needs, violence exposure, unsafe routes to schools, and disconnections from school and work.

And we want to ensure that we are not disrupting services youth depend on, but rather strengthen alignment, accountability, and coordination with levy goals.

and we know that educational success depends on a range of factors, including safety, trusted adults, behavioral health support, family engagement, and connection to opportunity.

And even when connected to traditional institutions, community-based agencies may reach students in different ways.

meeting them where they are and serving as trusted community resources.

So school safety, gender-based violence prevention, behavioral health supports, and youth development all support attendance, engagement, graduation, and post-secondary readiness.

And I understand it's also noted here that we would be looking at programs being rebid at the end of the funding cycle.

I think this offers a great opportunity to better align FEP Levy goals and outcomes to that point.

So I just wanted to open up with some of those positions there before going into my questions.

I'm wondering if we could go to slide four.

I had a quick question about point number three on this slide about modifications to the plan.

I just wanted to understand a little bit practically what the impact of this change means.

So could you walk me through an example of what it might look like in practice, say if the executive chose to add more funding or want to was seeking to add more funding to that school-based mental health centers or restorative practices, and what would it look like in terms of a timeline for council approval to the potential release of an RFP?

So, something like adding or changing the spending plan, any kind of change in the spend plan would require prior council approval, and that would essentially be a legislative process, so an ordinance to change the I&E plan.

in addition to depending on whether the proposed funding impacts the budget at the BSL level, that would require budget legislation as well.

But if it's within the same BSL or the same bucket, then it would just be amending the I&E plan, which was done a few times in the 2018 process as well.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that point, Jasmine.

And taking us to slide six, I believe, just number four on program outcomes, it was you all daylit that right now the goals and desired outcomes don't directly reference closing the opportunity gaps for populations furthest from educational milestones.

And understanding I know this sentiment is, as the chair noted, built into some of the processes and thought behind the work of the department, I have to say I think it's important to articulate that as a point.

articulate closing the opportunity gap is particularly important for me and I'm wondering if you could unpack the value of adding this language indirectly and how that might support with broader evaluation or direction for deal.

Thank you.

I do want to emphasize, just as the chair mentioned, that the plan does contemplate looking at who is most impacted, potentially prioritizing services for those furthest from those educational goals.

So the activities, what we see in the plan is the activities do represent the intention to look at equitable outcomes.

It's just within the outcomes themselves, those are neutral when it comes to how we're measuring success.

So it's not that the plan without an amendment to the outcomes that the department wouldn't potentially achieve those goals.

It's just that it's not articulated as a measurement of success in the levy.

And Council may choose to add it at that point as well.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Thank you, Chair.

Those are my questions for today.

Of course, Council Member Ring.

Thank you so much.

And yes, just to say also that the levy itself identified this as a goal.

The educational equity piece is very outlined in the levy language itself, which is really important because again, it's what we told voters we were going to do when we were going to make this investment.

So we have made that commitment.

I know the department is very committed to this particular piece.

didn't want to leave that on the table that somehow this was not contemplated and very much what the department will be doing and then of course we're all going to have our eye on this as we move forward because every year the department will have to submit their budget for budget approval and all of these programs will be contained therein.

So there will be opportunity also to have an influence.

And the one thing we didn't talk about that is also very much a part of this plan and is important and it's actually important in the context of closing opportunity gaps is the fact that there will be evaluation of these programs yearly, every year.

or however often the department is doing it, because they need to be able to pivot if we're not meeting the goals, which is that kids are achieving their educational, their academic, meeting academic goals, and that's very much aligned with ensuring that the kids that are furthest from their attaining their educational academic goals are being prioritized for this.

So, you know, we will have, and this requires again, back to Council Member Lynn's point earlier about the school district, partnership with the school district, because that's how we will know whether the kids are meeting their academic goals or not.

And that is really important.

So there is opportunity to tweak the investment, if you will, if we're not meeting those goals and closing those gaps.

And that evaluation process is contemplated by this plan.

And it is articulated in that way in the plan itself.

And that was intentional.

to make sure that we were meeting that goal of closing the opportunity gaps.

So just wanna let you know that as well.

All right, colleagues, any other questions?

I don't see any other questions.

All right, okay.

So council members, just to let you know, should you desire to do proposed amendments, council central staff would need to have those by noon on the 2nd of July.

Sorry about the turnaround here on that with the holiday and so forth.

We just would need to hear from you pretty quickly on any desired amendments so that we can prepare for the July 8th committee meeting.

You stole my next line.

No, I'm glad.

I'm glad.

Hearing it more often is better than less often.

So next steps are July 2nd at noon.

The amendments or proposals are due to central staff.

On July 8th, we will have discussion and possible vote on those amendments.

And if we're ready, take a final vote on the levy.

which would be really helpful to have that done sooner rather than later as well.

But if not, we have reserved July 22nd as that next, you know, we'd have to have this sewn up by the 22nd at the latest.

So that is what the next steps are.

And then, all right, closing us out here.

Okay, before we adjourn, I did wanna thank, again, central staffers Jasmine Marwaha and Tracy Ratzklip for all their hard work on this I&E plan and the policy considerations.

I also want to thank my amazing staff, Wendy Sykes, Jacob Evinger, and Sarah Barker Baker Bailey.

Putting this I&E together was an important next step, as you know, in our levy process.

I appreciate their hard work and long hours.

I also want to thank Director Dwayne Chappelle.

He's been a great partner.

I've worked with Director Chappelle for almost a decade, and I really value his commitment to kids and families.

And we didn't talk about it here, and I know we talked about it last time, but the department did a substantial amount of work.

and reaching out to community.

They had a lot of sessions so they can hear from community.

I am grateful for everyone who came to chambers today to give your feedback as well.

More feedback is better than less feedback.

So I appreciate you taking all the time for being here today.

All right, seeing no further questions, this can- Chair.

point of order here.

Point of, or personal privilege.

Personal privilege.

Given the fact that you've given a shout out to everybody who's here in chambers for public comment, to give a little extra, given the fact that Mexico's playing today in the World Cup, that we give, and separately, we also, given our city's history, we also have Norway and Sweden playing today.

But since she's shown up with Mexico to give a, you know, a FIFA shout out, and good luck to Mexico.

Alright and you know this is like I have the privilege of shepherding this levy INE and prior levy through council and this is one that we all are aligned on how much we care about our kids in the city particularly those with greatest need and so this levy is so something to be proud of and I said yesterday this at council briefing but I was able to attend the Promise first generation a reception for the first generation graduates and this is what is the culmination of this type of investment that is so important and such a source of pride for me, myself a first generation college student and grad.

So I just can't say enough about the levy and I know that we're all aligned on this.

So really appreciate all of you being here, colleagues for this select committee.

Thank you again to central staff and my team, everyone who showed up to give public comment.

in person and online.

All right, seeing no further question, this concludes the June 30th Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy six-year implementation and evaluation plan.

Our next Select Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 8th at 9.30 a.m.

If there's no further business, this meeting will adjourn.

Hearing no further business, it's 11.05 a.m., and this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.