Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool & Promise (FEPP) Levy 5/29/2025

Good morning, everyone.

The May 29th meeting of the Select Committee on Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy will come to order.

It's 9.32 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Saka?

Here.

Councilmember Solomon?

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Present.

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Vice Chair Rank.

Present.

Chair Rivera.

Present.

And we can reflect that Council Member Solomon just joined us.

So nine Council Members are present.

Thank you.

All right.

If there's no objection, the agenda for today 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 potential amendments to the family's education.

Thank our central staffer, Jasmine Marwaha.

for coming to council chambers today to present.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have four in-person speakers and two remote speakers.

Thank you.

Can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 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.

And the first in-person speaker is Mark Jacobson.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm Mark Jacobson, father of a senior at Garfield, in addition to a recent graduate.

In the two years leading up to the removal of the SROs from the SPS schools, there was not a single violent incident of any kind at Garfield High.

Since the officers were removed, the incidents have exploded.

Six incidents of gun violence last school year alone at Garfield.

It is highly likely that if an SRO was at the school last June 6, Amar Murphy Payne would be alive today.

Undoubtedly, his killer would have been apprehended at or near the scene.

Why is it more important that his killer not be caught and thereby not be part of the school-to-prison pipeline than it is that Amar be alive?

Amar's family still does not know who killed their son and brother.

Where's the justice for Amar and his family, or the girl who a few months earlier had her leg in her hopes for an athletic career shattered by gunshot a few yards from where Amar was later killed?

We need both SROs back in the school and all of the community-based efforts and mental health services and all the rest designed to get at the root causes of violence.

It's not one or the other.

It's both that are needed.

Rather than putting in writing city government's insistence that something finally be done about the horrific problem of weapon-based violence in our schools, Amendment 1 to this levy aims to prohibit the one effective thing missing from the solution.

The community passageways and SPS security and mental health services that have been the mainstay of preventive measures have to date failed to stop the violence.

In fact, it's increased.

We need uniformed SROs and non-uniformed people to cover all the bases.

The presence of uniformed officers absolutely is a deterrent, which alone is prevention.

Their presence means that perpetrators of serious violence, life-threatening and life-taking violence are apprehended at the scene or while running away.

And what is never mentioned is that the presence of specially trained and motivated SROs...

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry, your time is up.

Sorry, your time is up, but you please feel free to leave your comments and we can leave them for or distribute them if you would like.

And if the next couple of speakers could please sign up.

It'll be David Jacobson followed by Oliver Miska and then followed by Jeremy Masner.

David Jacobson.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My daughter attends Garfield High School, which CBS reports is the site of more school shootings in the last 20 years than any other school in the United States.

when the school district issued a moratorium on police at Seattle schools.

In my daughter's class alone, one student was killed and another severely wounded.

We all know the tragic legacy of racism that continues to haunt policing.

But we can't allow more children to die.

We need to bring the police back.

but they should receive specialized training, and their roles should be clearly defined.

We need a thoughtful, respectful police presence, not none at all.

Like Officer Benny Radford, who used to patrol Garfield until 2020. Hearing about Amar Murphy Payne's death last year, he told the Seattle Times, I should never have left.

Those are my kids.

That was my school.

An officer patrolling the perimeter of Garfield could have deterred a Mars shooter, de-escalated the fight that caused the shooting, or captured the killer.

That's why we need the levy to support both bringing back police and community-based efforts to end gun violence at our schools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Oliver Miska, followed by Jeremy Massner.

Oliver, go ahead.

Hi, good morning, members of the Select FEP committee.

My name is Oliver Miska.

I'm a Seattle Public School educator, an LGBTQ small business owner who substitutes at Garfield High School.

I'm concerned.

After a coalition made up over a dozen student, educator, and parent organizations, speak up, reached out to your offices to discuss amendments on the FEP levy, only one of your offices reached out to collaborate.

We also received notice that the deadline to submit amendments to the chair's package was moved to the Tuesday before this briefing here today.

How do you expect students, educators, and parents to authentically engage in this process when, at best, there's a lack of transparency, and at worst, there's a bad faith effort to limit public input on a $1.3 billion levy to increase our property taxes?

Don't get me wrong, we're in support of this levy, and we know that we need more resources for our schools.

But y'all make it really hard to walk into the classroom and say to students that democracy is alive and well in this country.

We're asking for you to keep your promise to students, to end the school-to-prison pipeline, to keep our students safe, and act in good faith to fully invest in these black-led community solutions that clearly have a lot of work to do, but they need your support.

We do not want punitive practices in our schools.

They don't make students feel safe.

We need restorative justice practices.

And we need systematic change in our police department, especially after this weekend's attacks on our queer community.

We long talked about community policing in this city, but right now there's a state law that is a ban on restricting residency for our Seattle police officers.

Over 80% of our officers live outside of Seattle.

We need to have your support in putting pressure on our state legislators to repeal that ban.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeremy Masner.

Good morning.

I support this levy, but I oppose and I urge you to vote no on Amendment 1, clarifying principles for spending.

The language of prioritizing addressing root cause and not contributing to school to prison pipeline makes it easier to object and hinder closer school police partnership.

I'm a supporter of restorative practices and community building.

Those things are great.

Police are part of that community building.

And when you put this in the amendment, it's going to make it easy for other people to say, Nope, we can't involve the police.

The city council said that that's not allowed.

Don't listen to the people who are privileged enough to come here and make time to testify.

Listen to the people in the community.

Listen to Principal Hart at Garfield High School.

I assure you, he does not want a school-to-prison pipeline, but he has said in multiple public forums he wants closer partnership with the police and presence on campus.

The Garfield High School PTSA does not want a school-to-prison pipeline, but their 2024 action plan calls for police partnership and presence on campus.

The Latinx parents of Garfield High School do not want a school-to-prison pipeline, but in their 2020 testimony to the Seattle School Board, their representative said, the consensus is to keep officers on campus.

I'm a parent of a recent graduate of Garfield High School.

This was my experience last year.

You've heard about all the gunshots, all the violence on campus, students injured.

This is what my family lived.

I am a supporter of progressive policies.

I'm a supporter of restorative practices.

But we do need police presence and engagement in keeping our kids safe.

And the amendment that's currently written is going to deter people and give people a reason to object to police on campus.

I just want to close by saying what the Garfield community needs is real solutions and not slogans.

The way the amendment is. giving the school the ability they need to work with the police.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

That was the last in-person speaker.

The first remote speaker will be Bill Farmer.

Bill, please press star six.

Whenever you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Bill, please press star six.

Go ahead, Bill.

Hello, Bill Farmer.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I'm commenting to encourage council members to support Councilmember Strauss's Amendment 6, which will fully fund Seattle Parks and Rec's Environmental Education Program.

The approved budget will end funding for the program in 2026. But the mayor has realized the importance of this program, and in working with Deputy Mayor Farrell, the mayor has proposed funding four out of the nine historical staff positions in the FEP levy.

Amendment 6 will fully fund the EE program, which if this does not go through, having only less than half of the positions, it'll be very hard to provide the level of service.

So the Environmental Education Program provides learning opportunities for youth and families, including many Title I schools in underserved communities.

This provides outdoor learning in our local parks and has many mental health and physical health benefits, which the mayor David Haynes, And I think city council are touting so it's a very important program and.

David Haynes, We really appreciate Council Member strausses amendment and that will restore this program which is very valuable to many Seattle citizens, thank you.

Thank you nexus David Haynes David please press star six.

All right.

One of the biggest concerns on this levy is, hold on, give me a second, please.

One of the biggest concerns other than the racist world skin color priority to help only certain kids is the concerns that there's no real 21st century first world quality proper interpretation of floor space for the grace of childcare within all the disincentivized restrictions on the comp plan development.

that have purposely been sabotaged by city hall conflicts of interest and self-dealing.

And the concern is that there isn't a legitimate vetting of childcare technicians who know how to stimulate the child's intellect instead of having a deregulated childcare acting more like a neglectful babysitter in flawed floor plans where suspect small businesses look to finance their ill suited home or piece of real estate slum ill suited for childcare that shortchanged the childcare.

While parents are at work realizing Democrats, Democrats cannot be trusted to educate their kids, bringing us back to the reality.

We need a 21st century first world quality housing and commercial building build out without conflict of interest and self-dealing by council working behind the scenes to lobby the ethics director to further undermine the integrity of the comprehensive plan.

So council chair can get away with selling out and backstabbing future and present generations with bad faith efforts to restrict the comprehensive plan to further oppressed with the supply and demand squeeze, cheating multitudes of younger generations while virtue signaling how you only care for certain skin color, gender, and orientation kids in the future.

Y'all need to like sober up and disperse and purge all of the racist woke agenda that originated from bad policies from the previous council that you all were hired to get rid of that you are just furthering to conveniently button push voting blocks While the whole time undermining the integrity of the future with your self-dealing, you all should be investigated by the Department of Justice for your corrupt white-collar criminalities.

Shame on you all.

Last remote speaker is going to be Louise Kolzer.

Louise, please press star six.

Louise, please press star six.

Louise, if you're here, please press star six.

Louise, I see you but we can't hear you.

Please press star six.

Louise, if you can hear us, there seems to be some technical difficulties.

Oh, there you are.

Go ahead.

Hello, this is Louise Coulter.

I'm a citizen of the city of Seattle.

I live in Ballard and I would like to support the amendment number six that Councilman Strauss proposed to allow for the addition of funding, well not funding, but the ability to add the environmental education program complement of staff back into the budget should funding be found.

I really appreciate that move.

I think it is a really good move for the youth and all the people of Seattle.

Thank you.

Chair, that was the last registered speaker.

Great.

There are no additional registered speakers.

The public comment period is now closed.

We'll now proceed to our item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, council bill 120981, an ordinance relating to regular property taxes, requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 4th, 2025 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the city.

A proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 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 through 12 students.

and college and career pathways for Seattle students applying the exemption for low-income seniors, disabled veterans, and others authorized by RCW 84.36.381.

Authorizing a creation of a designated fund, directing the application of levy proceeds, establishing eligibility requirements for partners, establishing accountability and reporting structures, requiring a forthcoming implementation and evaluation plan, proposing a ballot title, authorizing the implementation of agreements for this levy-lid lift, which will be commonly known as the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing and discussion.

Thank you, Clerk.

All right, colleagues.

We're almost there with the process of getting this levy on the ballot.

I wanna thank you for your engagement during this time.

Today is our opportunity to get a briefing and ask questions about the 12 amendments that have been submitted.

Central Stafford Jasmine Marwaha and I are here to answer any questions, and of course, the amendment sponsors will speak to each of the amendments.

We won't be taking any votes today, and here's what you and the public can expect for today's meeting.

Jasmine will take us through the amendments one by one.

She will introduce it and read its effects summary, and then she'll hand it off to the sponsor to speak more in depth.

Then you can ask questions about that amendment.

I know colleagues that each of you have priorities and programs that are important to you.

I have reviewed these amendments and I have done my due diligence by consulting with law.

It is clear these would be best included as part of the implementation and evaluation plan rather than than at this stage.

The development of an implementation and evaluation plan is a separate public process that takes place after the levy has passed, and we will be able to make amendments such as these and approve them.

The Department of Education and Early Learning, which manages the FEPP investments, has not even begun the stakeholding process that is critical to the implementation plan.

I encourage you colleagues to let that process play out so that it is equitable for all interested groups and organizations that support kids.

This ordinance was designed to be broad, but with the four main buckets that past FEP levies have contained, as I explained at our last meeting.

When you call out specific group or investments now, it appears as though other groups or investments have been left out.

That is simply not the case.

We're not at that stage yet.

And actually I will take a moment to say that we saw this in public comment today.

People are feeling like somehow this isn't a transparent process when in fact the department has not had, has not started the stakeholding that they will be doing when they send us the recommendations for the implementation of these funds.

So stakeholdering will happen.

It will be a public process, and that is what the department always does.

And I know that the executive and myself are very interested in making sure that that stakeholdering process does happen.

At this point, we would essentially be starting to allocate funds within the buckets before the department has even had the chance to do that stakeholdering and issue, as I said a minute ago, their recommendations.

What we're putting forth for this levy at this stage are the four main and broad areas of investment, the details of which will always come at the implementation stage.

Let's not put the cart before the horse.

As I looked over the amendments, one important thing stood out.

For 35 years, the Families Education, Preschool, and Promise levy has been a levy to benefit kids and directly support their educational achievement.

I want to preserve the integrity of this levy that Seattle voters value, trust, and have come to expect when they cast their vote.

If we deviate from that, we would be changing the scope beyond the historical purpose of this levy.

which would that might necessitate changing the ballot language, which would complicate the levy late in the process in this process.

I want to make one final note before we get started.

As I have said, this levy is already more than double the current levy.

I will therefore not be voting for any amendments that adds to its total.

There's plenty of opportunity to express your policy and investment priorities in the implementation plan.

Now I'll hand it over to Jasmine to take us through your amendments.

Jasmine, can you please state your name for the record and we can get started reviewing these 12 amendments.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Jasmine Marwaha.

I'm on council central staff and I'll be walking through the amendments this morning.

So first up, we have amendment number one.

And colleagues, we'll have Jasmine review it, then give that sponsor the opportunity to talk about it, and then I'll take your questions.

for that amendment, and we'll do that for each one.

Thanks, Jasmine.

Go ahead.

No problem.

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

The list of implementation principles is intended to provide high-level guidance to the FEP levy investments.

It does not bind the council to funding any specific services.

This amendment would not impact the proposed property tax rate, nor would it change the expected revenues that the proposition is expected to receive.

If the proposition is approved by voters, funding for specific items would be appropriated by council through the adoption of the implementation and evaluation plan, and during council budget deliberations.

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

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

Jasmine, it's appreciated.

As Jasmine stated, this amendment adds in the implementation principles of ensuring that we want to advance educational equity and increase access to services for historically underserved communities.

We understand that safety is top of mind for so many students and parents, and this amendment ensures that we are addressing root causes of violence through non-punitive approaches.

The school to prison pipeline is one that has enforced a history of systemic racism in this country, and we need to ensure that this levy is meant to increase equity and access for all students and not repeat mistakes of the past.

And as we've received some information from the executive on this bucket, I think there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point still.

Certainly appreciate that we wanna set forward and put forward a levy that is high level enough that allows for flexibility and for our ability to work alongside partners as we're developing that implementation plan.

But also we wanna communicate clearly to voters what is it that they're gonna be paying for and clarify some of those components.

I think there's still some unanswered questions related to if there were SRO-style positions, where those FTEs would live, and also further details around SPD's current budget and being able to put forward and do this kind of work.

I think it's a matter of what's the appropriate fund source, and historically this levy has not funded these kinds of positions, so this would be a new policy move.

So certainly our office had been seeking further clarification, but as we've worked alongside partners in this, I think offering this clarification about what this levy is intended to spend on is particularly critical.

So that's a little bit about the formation and why we're putting forward this amendment today.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, I wanna say actually for context, the levy has funded programs of this nature in the history of the levy.

That's something the department works with when they're doing the work around the K through 12 investments.

I will say that I asked the mayor, the executive, Deputy Mayor Washington about, cause I know that the language was not in here on the equity and the historical underserved communities.

And of course I noted that as not just a Latina, but this was coming from a black mayor, a black deputy mayor and a black department director.

So I too asked this question and I do wanna provide the opportunity to read the deputy mayor's statement and response because I think it's important in light of this particular amendment and just so that we know what what their response is.

The executive, so this from Deputy Mayor Washington, Deal's overall goal in the drafting of the legislation was to reduce length and increase flexibility to achieve the stated goal in consultation with the city attorney's office, Deal removed references to existing Seattle municipal code or city legislation that the department is required to follow.

Resolution 31164, Executive Order 2017-13, and SMC 20.50.

These are requirements for the city to follow RSJ principles.

This resulted in the removal of several references related to RSJ inequity, particularly in the recitals and section agreements with public policy.

And in bold, this no way reduces mine or the mayor's commitment to racial equity.

The executive's proposal for the FEP 2025 levy legislation continues the city's commitment to address opportunity gaps and equity to ensure that every child is ready to start school, learn, and launch into the career of their choosing.

The fiscal note attached to the ordinance indicates deals intent to follow the racial equity toolkit process for new or expanded investments.

The ordinance positions the implementation and evaluation plan as the policy document that will allocate resources based on need.

This is where DEAL will further detail RSJ priorities and practices for each investment area.

and report back to Council regarding racial equity toolkit analysis.

Further, implementation of the current Feb 2018 levy has demonstrated DEAL's commitment to and participation in the City's Race and Social Justice Initiative.

Annual reports and DEAL data presentations consistently disaggregate data to explore any gaps in access related to racial and ethnic, gender, geographic, or other demographic trends.

This proposed approach continues Deal's current practice.

And for those of us that are on the Education Committee, we have seen the department come and delineate their RSJ commitment in the investments that this FEPP levy makes.

So I thought it was important to ensure, because this is something that we all care about, the reasoning why the language may not have been contained in this levy, but very much will be part of the implementation plan and it's just part of the overall levy, the work that we're doing and the work that the department is always doing.

All right, I see there are questions.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I just wanted to note two things.

I just wanted to echo what you just said regarding the statement from Deputy Mayor Washington and Mayor Harrell, because to be straight up, I look at the FEPP levy as an equity levy in itself.

So saying this is fine in one respect, but we should all know the Seattle Promise Program is an equity program.

And that's how I view the entire levy, the pre-K parts.

I'm not as aware of on the K-12 pieces, but the levy in my mind in itself is a equity levy.

What I wanted to say more related to the public safety aspects of this, the school safety aspects of this, there's a lot of things that can be done.

Obviously there's a history on the school district side related to this, but I just wanted to say, that there's various measures that could be done kind of from a SEPTED kind of perspective that can be done to improve school safety.

And I would add and be straight up, school resource officers can also promote school safety.

Like any program, the program done well, further safety in our schools.

And so we should not be tying the school resource officer program to the idea of a school to prison pipeline.

So I just want to be clear on that.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

I will say that As I said earlier, this is definitely putting...

The department has not had the opportunity to do the stakeholdering on this investment.

So we don't know what they would be recommending.

So to tell them at this juncture without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in here is, in my mind, of concern.

So thank you for stating that.

I agree on there is a place for all of it in the schools, particularly the schools and the student body that is in support.

I understand there's others that are not, and that's why we need to do the stakeholdering so that we hear very clearly from community on what it is that they would like to see in terms of that investment, which I know is what the department is planning.

Council Member Strauss, I see you have your hand up.

Thank you, Chair.

I had raised my hand when Jasmine started her.

Council Member Strauss, I think we've lost you.

I see you on there, but we don't hear you, Council Member.

I'm sorry if I got cut off there.

I have a sound transit meeting that starts in 10 minutes.

I was wondering if the chair would be amenable to going out of order with the amendment so I can speak to mine today.

Unless there's any objection, I'm fine with that.

Okay, great.

We'll do yours next, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you.

But I see there are more hands on this one.

Can you wait till we finish all the questions on this particular amendment we're on now?

Of course.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

And I know that we had public comment from some Garfield parents here.

I just want to thank them for coming.

Garfield is in my district, District 3, and I know I've spent a lot of time with the parents and the kids and Dr. Hart and the principals and the THE TEACHERS AND THE FAMILY SUPPORT WORKERS AND SOCIAL WORKERS AND EVERYONE TO HEAR ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE SAFETY STUFF THAT'S GOING ON AT GARFIELD, BUT ALSO OUR SCHOOLS.

AND SO THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINK, FOR BRINGING THIS.

I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT I DO BELIEVE IN THE initiative and the work that they're doing.

I also believe that we should have, and I've heard from a number of people that community resource officers as well in the schools and the relationship that they provide for the kids.

I think it's an all-in-one approach.

And I know that we've heard from a lot of the initiatives from RSJ folks.

We just received an email from Community Passages and other folks that they do want, they do support officers in community resource officers in schools, and I've talked to a ton of parents, and I do think that's a key piece to this as well, to have the communication directly from if something happens at the school, directly to our Seattle Police Department.

A lot of times...

there has just been a lot of miscommunication regarding, you know, understanding, hey, is something going to go down?

Is there an incident that's going to happen?

And a lot of times those community resource officers prevent a lot of that from happening, staying on top of certain things, making sure that those kids don't get into the prison pipeline by addressing certain actions that happen.

So I know that I don't want to view this amendment as one or the other.

I know the spirit of this council member rank is, hey, I want to make sure, wanting to make sure that we are prioritizing all types of public safety things.

So I don't, you know, know if that gets, you know, pitting things before, but I just wanted to say for the record that I have heard from a ton of parents and a ton of people that community resource officers are needed in our schools and also from kids themselves as well.

So just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

And full disclosure, you all know I am a parent of two kids who were involved in a school shooting where a child got shot and killed in the school.

I believe that Ingram High School used to have a public safety officer.

And I wonder if we had an SRO, would that have been a different outcome?

And I have heard from grownups who have said, oh, there was a school safety officer in my school and I had a relationship with that person and that was very meaningful to me.

So thank you for saying those words.

And yes, it's not or.

I'm not really sure why the conversation always veers to or.

It's and.

We need resource officers and we need prevention organizations.

Um, it's not either or kids need all of it and mental health for that matter.

Um, so anyway, um, council member rink.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I wanted to offer some closing thoughts on this, at least for today, as we continue the discussion and then pass it to Council Member Strauss to talk about his amendment.

Sorry, Council Member, we have a couple more questions before we take those questions and then we'll get to your closing statement.

Okay.

Great.

Council Member Nelson.

First, I have a question for our central staff analyst here.

I think I remember reading an article in The Times, or I believe it was, recently on school resource officers.

And I believe the article noted that it's the school board that makes that decision.

Do you know who makes that decision?

My understanding is that it would ultimately accuse allowed in schools and the policies around school resource officers would probably be a school board decision and that if there were to be, if during the course of the implementation and evaluation plan, Some of these safety investments go towards school resource officers that it would involve a partnership with the school district.

However, the way that that bucket is framed, it says school safety in and around schools.

So the around schools piece of it may be something that wouldn't necessarily need the school board approval, if that makes sense.

That is definitely something over the next few days as we get into the final vote on the amendments, I can look into and have some conversations and get back to you.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So basically you're saying that the...

The property of the school, the boundary of the school is not something, is the decision of the school board in the right of way and the public space around the school.

And remember, these are SPD officers, I imagine, so therefore it's more a question of the, a decision of the city.

So anyway, we might not be able to have a lot of say in this, decision of what happens on school grounds, I'm leaning.

I think it's, I don't know if it's as clear cut as that, but that is something I can, I can look into.

Council president also, um, deal has not determined what this investment is going to look like.

So school resource officers in the past, um, have been SPD officers, but it doesn't mean that it has to be an SPD officer.

There could be a civilian SRO.

So the point being, this hasn't been baked yet.

to use layman's terms.

And so there's a lot of opportunity to, you know, have engagement around this, which is why we need to let the department do that stakeholdering and get to what will this look like.

They need to have those conversations to fashion what this will look like for our consideration.

Thank you for that clarification.

That is a good reminder.

You made some of those comments when you opened, and I really appreciate that, that some of these decisions will happen in the implementation plan.

I do want to thank the public commenters that came today to speak, to provide their thoughts as parents of students that go to Garfield High.

For the record, we did receive an email yesterday at 2.38 from a parent of a Garfield High School student and it reads, hello, please support the proposed funding measure that would bring back school engagement officers.

After a bus stop shooting last year outside of Garfield, I interviewed a number of students from diverse backgrounds.

My main question, If you could ask for something, what would it be?

I was amazed to hear how many students wanted an SRO in the school.

Students said it's only a matter of time before the next shooting and before someone comes into the school.

And so she signed a parent of a Garfield student.

So I think that what you said about the implementation plan and when these decisions will be made is really, really important.

I wanted to find out who actually ultimately makes this decision.

So that is why I wanted that clarification.

And I can provide, I can try and provide sort of what the department's intent in terms of how to get to that, to some of those decisions and how they're gonna do their stakeholdering and get back to you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink, I mean, Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

I strongly support the spirit and intent behind this in terms of advancing principles of equity, fairness, education, and social justice, addressing root causes, all the things that are expressly and explicitly called out in this amendment.

I also want to thank the public commenters for taking the time to show up and testify today, parents of Garfield students and educators at Garfield.

We heard some countervailing viewpoints, but I do appreciate you carving out the time and sharing your feedback directly with us.

While I support the spirit and intent of the amendment, I do have a concern around its potential impact in terms of being limiting.

I generally agree with the proposition that we should endeavor to have this to be generally broad with some exceptions.

My amendments are making sure that it's sufficiently broad and flexible.

To the extent we modify it, I think it should unlock additional opportunities, additional possibilities, add more flexibility.

And my concern with this amendment right now is I'm not sure if it would do that.

If anything, it strikes me as being a little more restrictive, a little more limiting.

And I wanna make sure we have full flexibility to make the best decision that includes community resource officers.

I'm an unapologetic fan of yes and approach to insert your issue, especially public safety.

And I agree with, like I said, everything here contained herein, supporting principles of equity.

But I would posit that it is not at all equitable to the family of Amar Payne Murphy that His killers are still roaming around free somewhere, and his parents can't sleep at night knowing that.

I would argue it's not at all fair or equitable.

The parents of Mubarak Adam in my district, Seattle's first homicide victim in 2024, Chief Sealth International High School student, gunned down, still don't know what happened.

It's not equitable.

or fair to aggrieved families and families who deserve to be able to send their kids to school knowing in their minds and in their hearts that they're gonna return home safely, untraumatized by shots fired and gunfire incidents.

So I've heard loud and clear, I do think the decision to allow community resource officers is a highly localized, highly fact-specific decision at the individual school level.

They would need to be properly trained, resourced, and have a clear sort of mandate instead of engagement parameters or non-engagement.

But a blanket prohibition I don't think makes sense either.

I've visited schools in my district, Chief Self International High School, West Seattle High School, Denny International Middle School.

I've had teachers themselves pull me aside and say there's a lot of, There's a lot of noise, there's a lot of feedback about, we don't want police here.

Let me tell you, I want police.

I want the CROs back.

I've heard from enough families, and as a public school dad of three, counting my own, that they do need to be a part of a balanced approach to public safety.

And my only potential concern with this amendment is it would limit future possibilities.

But I do support the principles of equity and kind of root causes contained therein.

So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Vice Chair Rink.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Jasmine, could you speak to just the matter?

This amendment does not directly preclude SROs, is that correct?

That's my understanding that it doesn't preclude them.

Right, thank you.

It's setting a goal post and kind of setting a signal of kind of where we want to direct our investments ideally towards non-putative.

So I think just clarifying that for the record and for this discussion.

Colleagues, even in this discussion, I think it's important to note that this is a heavy topic and one that warrants a lot broader of a discussion as we embark on the implementation plan in this process.

And certainly want to bring in a number of the experts as we engage in the implementation plan process.

I know our office has been in conversation with the Alliance for Gun Responsibility at Woblock, a number of organizations that do work trying to keep young people safe, especially as it relates to gun violence.

And I think it's important to note that in addition to this amendment not directly precluding SROs, this amendment does not keep SPD from doing their jobs of keeping schools safe.

There is a need for a presence of officers outside of schools.

And looking at how we can move forward in trying to direct our investments towards supporting student safety is certainly something we support.

And so as we continue this discussion, hoping to bring forward some of the continued data points that we've learned and can bring forward from the organizations we've been working with.

But thank you for your engagement today on this topic, and I look forward to further discussing this with you all as we go through this process.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

I understand while it doesn't preclude, it is setting a very strong signal that it is preferred not to be by having this language.

So I look forward to working with you.

on these topics.

And again, I'm going to, I've said it again many times, but this is why it's so critical to let the department do that stakeholder during that implementation phase.

Because I feel like we're having a conversation without the folks in the room who are the folks most impacted and the folks who have most of the expertise around this.

And that is what the department would do in their stakeholding process.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council member Strauss, we'll get to your two, you have two amendments.

Jasmine?

Yes, so we'll jump to amendment six.

This amendment would add $679,000 annually or $4.1 million total to the expected revenues generated by the FEP levy.

This additional revenue would allow for further investments to support environmental learning programs for youth and families.

As a little bit of background to this, the 2026 endorsed budget proposes to cut $1.09 million in 2026 for Seattle Parks and Recreation's Environmental Learning Program, which would abrogate nine positions or 7.35 FTE.

The proposal transmitted by the mayor includes funding that would allow for $411,000 annually to be restored to create a new environmental learning program focused on youth, and an additional $679,000 annual investment would fully restore all nine positions with an intention of focusing on youth and family programs.

The estimated additional tax rate needed to allow for this investment would be two-tenths of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value, with an estimated average additional tax burden of $2.13 per year to the median value property owner, which I believe would be $1.1 million in property value, assessed value.

To allow for, even though it's two tenths of a cent additional increase in the tax rate, just to reflect that there is some addition, this amendment includes a one cent change to the tax rate per $1,000 of assessed value.

The final version of the bill for full council consideration will reconcile.

If there are more amendments that add to the tax burden, we'll reconcile all of that and come up with a final number.

But you can see in this amendment that it's reflected as a one cent increase, even though the burden is two tenths of a cent.

And you'll see this in the other amendments that also have a proposed increase in the tax rate.

Additionally, the amendment would add environmental learning programs to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the K-12 student supports category.

The list of educational support services is a non-exhaustive list, and it doesn't bind the council to funding those services.

It's intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported by the FEP levy.

If this event passes, however, and additional revenue is raised, Council's intent would be to use that additional revenue towards supporting environmental learning programs.

But as has been mentioned in this meeting, nothing is finalized until the I&E plan is finalized.

So funding for specific items would be appropriated by Council through that I&E plan and, of course, during Council budget deliberations.

So we're trying to kind of walk a little bit of a line here in terms of allowing for additional revenue

and not programming it but signaling the intent thank you jasmine councilmember strauss you're recognized to address your amendment thank you i'm gonna get your camera off because i've got bad service here just while i'm speaking i noticed that earlier i dropped off Thank you, Chair, for giving me a moment to speak here.

Seattle's access to our natural environment is one of the things that sets us apart from other cities.

In fact, a recent poll by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce found that 48% of people said our connection to the environment and natural beauty was the single best thing about living in our city.

The outdoors are for everyone and everyone deserves an opportunity to experience and learn in the outdoors.

That's why I'm so passionate about Seattle Parks environmental education program.

They offer opportunity for kids, families, community members, oftentimes from underserved populations to experience and learn about our natural environment.

With just a modest investment, these incredible, in these incredible.

Councilmember Strauss, you dropped off.

I'm back with you.

You're back.

Great.

As I was saying, in 2024 alone, they hosted 5,383 students from 65 different schools for field trips, with large portions of those students coming from underserved schools.

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

They managed a team of around 100 dedicated volunteers who spent more than 4,000 hours for free guided nature walks and educating people about our outdoors, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Unfortunately, because of Seattle's current budget situation, without this levy, or without this additional funding, funding for this popular program is set to expire in 2025. I'm thankful for the mayor for including increased funding in

We lost you again, Councilmember Strauss.

I am back, but I don't know where I cut off there.

I'm not sure either.

I'll just say, I'm thankful for the mayor for including half of the funding.

This amendment would restore the program entirely.

It's a strong return on investment.

And I know, Chair, you mentioned you won't be supporting any amendments that increase the cost of this levy.

But I would ask you to evaluate this one and see if it is an exception to that rule because it is an incredible return on investment and ensures that this program is with us for years to come.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, I actually reached out to the department on this to get some additional information.

What is included related to the budgeting for this is what the executive and the department did was they pulled out the youth, since this is a levy for kids, they pulled out the youth components of that learning program.

So what is being funded with the levy would be the citywide environmental learning programming serving preschoolers, K through five and teens.

It's funding positions to do that work.

What they didn't include were positions outside of of the youth programs, which was basically operating the visitor center, which is not directly youth related.

So I think the executive was very thoughtful to make sure that what they included was something that was really going to benefit kids in order to preserve the integrity of the levy, as I spoke to in my opening comments.

So I think that is information that is important for us to have.

because this is one of those areas where if this body decided to move forward, you are expanding the scope of this levy beyond its original and historical intent.

All right, colleagues, questions?

Let me see, let me get to my, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, um, chair Rivera.

Um, I was going to start in a different way, but I'm going to start this way.

Now I have to respectfully disagree with deal with the department on what you had just said, because they're not taking an account of what, yes, the individuals are direct, but what allows that to happen is that organ is the manager.

is the person who allows that to happen.

And further, that person also is the person who coordinates the volunteers.

If you want to turn on investment, RSOI, you support this because that enables 100 plus volunteers to support the kids.

So with all due respect to the department, I disagree.

And I support Councilmember Strauss on this, and this also highlights an equity piece.

As you know, I was a stay-at-home dad before I took on this role as Councilmember, and in itself, quite privileged to be able to do that.

And I was quite privileged to easily go to the Environmental Learning Center over at Discovery Park.

It was easy for me to go over to take advantage of what Discovery Park offers generally, but also the Learning Center.

But it shouldn't be restricted to people like me are in a privileged position right now.

And this goes back to the point about this entire FEP levy being an equity levy.

And this amendment and the intent behind it furthers that.

And so I will definitely be supporting Council Member Strauss on this.

And in terms of increasing it, the department should have had this included in the first place.

So I just wanted to note those points.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

I will say that, again, I want to be careful to characterize the department.

They're in the business of supporting kids, and so they included the pieces that were very youth-focused because, again, this is what this levy does.

So I don't want to leave it on the table that somehow they weren't doing their due diligence.

I understand if you feel differently about that.

We can agree to disagree.

But I also want to say that the department and the executive was very thoughtful to make sure that what they included in this levy was definitely directly in support of kids.

These are hard decisions.

And so, you know, they wanted to make sure that that historical piece was there.

Just to follow up on that.

So if we just support those four positions, not doing the direct management allows them to do their job, and those positions went away, then these positions would be orphaned.

They wouldn't be able to do their job because the unit in its entirety is not there.

So for the unit to do its mission, for these people that we are supporting already, they need the other piece.

To break out a group, a unit that way, would end up having the remnants of it, if the rest of it went away, orphaned.

And then they wouldn't be able to do their job.

And then they would be in a position where, oh, those four have to go too.

So again, I understand.

By the way, I fully respect the deal and all the work that they've done.

So I'm not being anything like, you know, I know I'm criticizing in a sense, but I 110% support the department.

I support their work here.

I'm just being specific to this point only.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council member Strauss, if you're doing closing remarks, we have another question from council member Moore that I'd like to take first.

Chair, if yeah, go for it.

I'm just very late for this next meeting.

Council member Moore.

Yeah.

I'll just say quickly, I think that we have to be, I mean, there are so many wonderful additional things that we could be putting into this levy.

And the main thing that we want to do is make sure that the levy gets passed.

And I think so we have to be careful in what we bring forth for additional funding.

And in terms of this, this is obviously a very important piece.

I don't think anybody could argue that.

The one thing that I would say in response, though, is that the executive made a decision to eliminate those nine positions.

The executive has the ability to add those nine positions back in in our budget.

So I don't believe that this has to be funded through the levy.

And there are so many critically important services that have to be funded through the levy.

This is an important one, but it's an additional one.

And I really think that the pressure should be back on the executive to add those positions back into the budget.

There are many other ways in which we can find other savings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Moore.

Councilmember Nelson?

To your point, Council Member Moore, I appreciate what you're saying, that the executive can add them back in.

But remember, we are the legislative department, and we carry the power of the purse.

And so we could have restored those positions last budget, I believe, last fall.

And there will be a mid-year supplemental budget coming down the pike soon, and we will have an opportunity to mess with it at that point as well.

My question, Jasmine, is how many environmental learning centers are there in the city that were closed?

So that's under the purview of my colleagues who staff parks.

No, no, no.

This is an interesting question, and it brings up an interesting point in the sense that the FEP levy primarily is administered by DEAL.

There are certain programs that will be administered by different departments.

So while this funding is going through the levy, the department that would actually administer this is parks.

And I do have access to that information, but without not wanting to risk being wrong, I can definitely look that up and get back to this committee around the nature of the program and kind of what was intended to be funded, what was cut, and give a more thorough analysis and detail and writing around that.

Thank you.

I was mostly thinking about geographical fairness when I was wondering what can be restored.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

I will say that I appreciate the comments.

This is what I'm trying to get to is this isn't the FEP levy, Families Education Preschool Promise levy.

And it is true that the executive and this body could look toward the budget process to restore any positions that were cut.

What I was saying earlier about, I think the executive found a point of compromise that it was defensible to add the youth pieces to this levy and not so much the things that were not youth related, if you will.

Council member Strauss.

Thank you, chair.

I will say just in closing, it is hard to split hairs between is a dollar funding the child's education or is the chaperone there also receiving education i don't think it's for us to say that the chaperones or the adults who might tag on or escort the children shouldn't we shouldn't be funding this position these positions because of that just also clarifying that this is not intended to pay for office space or the visitors center or the the buildings this is the personnel who operate the volunteer program that works across the entire city and so that's you know there's not 20 parks in any one district there are 20 parks in our city so i'll just close by saying this is an important investment because this is environmental education primarily for youth, and yes, some chaperones attend as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I don't believe that the youth will be impacted by what didn't get included, but we will follow up with the department on that and get back to you all.

All right, Jasmine.

Council Member Strauss, I believe you have one more amendment.

Yes, we will jump to Amendment 9, which is on page 26 of the packet.

So Amendment 9 would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the college and career supports category.

And that would be public sector careers such as those with a Seattle Fire Department or Seattle Police Department.

And as mentioned earlier, the list of educational support services is a non-exhaustive list that's intended to illustrate the types of investment that could be supported by the levy.

It does not bind the council to funding those services.

It would not impact the proposed tax rate or the expected revenues.

And if the proposition is approved by voters, of course, you will determine the specific appropriations through the IME plan and council budget deliberations.

so i'm just going to scroll down so you can see the exact changes and additions here on the screen thank you jasmine uh council member strauss do you want to address your amendment yes thank you chair it speaks for itself i'll also just note that at the end there it also says opportunities in the trades

The idea here is to set the goal of a middle school to career pipeline, middle school, high school through the Promise Program for opportunities to work with the Seattle Fire Department, Police Department and in the trades.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Colleagues, I must admit that I'm a little and Councilmember Strauss, perhaps you could address this confused by this amendment.

The Promise program already does this, particularly FIRE.

I think you've heard me say Chief Scoggins developed a curriculum for the colleges for a certificate program for FIRE.

That's already available at the colleges.

And I think you've heard me say that I've been working with Deal and I actually had a discussion with the chancellor at the colleges.

to talk about possibility of doing something similar with the police department.

It's a little trickier because this police department academy is statewide versus local.

And so there's a lot to explore there, but that is already happening.

And then of course, trades was already in here.

So I'm not really sure what we're intending to do with this council member Strauss.

um as it's already happening is there something separate thank you chair my intention here is to codify it in the in the legislation uh thank you thank you councilmember strauss um any councilmember kettle uh thank you chair rivera um

I understand your point.

At the same time, it is helpful to, as Councilmember Strauss, to codify it, to put it in there, to highlight it and to essentially promote it because we are looking to diversify our police department and our fire department.

And the Seattle Promise Program is fantastic.

And they don't have to have a dedicated program in order to join the fire or police department.

Just an associate's degree or certificate programs can be very helpful in terms of drawing people to the fire department, for example, and the police department.

And so I understand your point 110%.

At the same time, there's also value of really highlighting to people that this is a possibility when they may not have thought of it before.

And of course, the trades are so important to you.

Definitely support that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

As you know, the path to trades was my thing that I really cared about the most.

So trades was already in there.

I will say you should also know that there are, and we should feel great about this, the Promise Program has, it pays for retention specialists at the colleges that they work with the kids directly to identify things of interest and help them figure out a path.

whether it's within the associate's degree or the trades.

And so it's really a great benefit to the kids that are going through Promise to have that one-on-one counseling help in determining what it is of interest to them.

And those retention specialists work with the kids to explore all the possibilities, including the trades.

So I didn't know if you all knew that, so I wanted to make sure you did know that because the levy does include that investment already.

So thank you.

Any other questions about this?

All right, let's move on to the next.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss for joining.

Maybe he dropped off.

Jasmine.

Okay, we're gonna go back to amendment number two.

All right.

The numbers are sort of in order of where it would fall in the ordinance.

So we're gonna go back to number two.

This is sponsored by Council Member Saka.

This amendment would add the following to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy.

specifically under the early childhood category.

And the items include a feasibility study to explore universal citywide preschool and subsidized preschool costs for families where Seattle preschool program slots are unavailable.

As mentioned before, this list is a non-exhaustive list intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported and does not bind the council to funding those services.

It would not impact the tax rate or the expected revenues.

And if the proposition is approved by voters, funding for these items would be appropriated by council through the adoption of the implementation and evaluation plan or during council budget deliberations.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Councilmember Saka, would you like to address your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Jasmine, for explaining the technical aspects of my amendment.

And also, thank you, Jasmine, for working so closely with me in my office over the past few weeks, months, actually.

And I appreciate all your hard work and collaboration to help bring some of my policy goals and ideas to life from just...

glimmer in my eye to full-fledged amendment, here we are today.

So in any event, colleagues, I'll try and be brief in the interest of time, but the research is clear.

We've heard over and over and over and over again.

The research is clear that kids that have access to early childhood education programs and preschool that they're in these programs rather than being babysat by a daytime soap opera or who knows what, any number of things.

But kids who have access to preschool programs, they do better in life than those that do not.

We all talk about the importance of prevention, crime prevention and this and that.

Again, research is clear.

Students who have been in these programs, their high school graduation and completion rates are higher, their college graduation and completion rates are higher, their earned income potential is higher.

So that's what this does, is it clarifies.

Ideally, You know, I think Seattle should be looking to adopt a universal preschool for all program, similar to New York City.

That's my moonshot.

That's my space needle thinking for education.

The sad and unfortunate and somewhat uncomfortable reality is that even if we had a levy that was double the size of the current amount, we couldn't do that.

But we can take initial steps to lay the groundwork to build the next futuristic space needle, so to speak, in the education context.

And this would unlock and clarify that a feasibility study for universal preschool would be authorized.

And with respect to subsidized preschool costs for families where the Seattle preschool slots are not available, this is all about choice for parents and families.

Not everyone lives close to an SPP provider.

Not everyone is comfortable with those choices.

Sometimes at home providers make more sense to a family for any number of reasons.

We know that certain providers have satellite campuses that are at home in at home facilities, which might be a better choice.

anything we can do to support kids, get them more enrolled in preschool programs, lay the groundwork for universal preschool for all and subsidize and support and ultimately make sure they are thriving working families.

That's what this is about.

And thank you.

Thank you, council member Saka.

And you and I have had many conversations.

We share a passion for early learning.

So thank you for your comments.

Colleagues, any questions?

All right, Jasmine, next.

Okay, let's go to amendment three.

This is also sponsored by council member Saka.

This amendment would add the following to the list of educational support services under the K through 12 health and safety category.

That would be after school programming for at-risk youth.

As I've said before, this list is non-exhaustive, intended to illustrate the types of investments that could be supported by the levy, does not find the council to funding those services, it would not impact the property tax rate or the expected revenues, and specific finding for items would be appropriated by council on the I&E plan or during council budget deliberations.

That's it for me.

All right, thank you, Jasmine.

You are recognized, Council Member Saka, to address your amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And another amendment that expands possibilities and also another amendment that is cost neutral.

This helps us address root causes, focus more on prevention.

And we know that we need more after school programs for kids.

We need more constructive, productive places for kids to engage in positive activities.

And I wouldn't say we currently have a dearth of programming today, but we need more.

And in my district, for example, colleagues, you all know, there's been, it's always been that case, unfortunately.

But it seems like right now, in particular, there's a rise in gun violence in the North Delridge, High Point, and Snake Hill neighborhoods.

It's for a variety of factors, and one of them is the environment.

You know, I'm told by SPD, Greenbelt area makes it more susceptible to people taking pop shots and targets of opportunities and not shooting at anyone, just shooting into green belts and green spaces.

But the other is gang violence and youth-led gang violence.

And SPD, I'm told, has made at least one arrest to address one of the shooters earlier this year in High Point.

Teen shooter.

And so this is about intervention.

and making sure that we provide more opportunities, again, for people to, for our youth who are our future.

And we want our youth to be the best that they can be in life and thrive.

And we don't want them to be shooters.

We don't want them to be subject of SPD investigations and arrests.

This just clarifies the importance of after-school programs for youth who need it most.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

You'll be happy to know that so many of these investments in the current levy support programming for at-risk youth.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

Before I ask my question, I just wanted to say, I didn't get a chance to raise my hand in time to say thank you, Council Member Sokka, for your amendment too.

I too would love to see universal citywide preschool, so.

Thank you for bringing forth a feasibility study amendment.

As to this, Jasmine, if I may have a question for you, and this actually is a question that came up about my amendment, which is the next one we'll be discussing, which is just the placement.

Does it matter?

I see that this is in K-12 health and safety, and I'm wondering whether it's more appropriately in K-12 student supports, because it does seem to fall under, including year-round out-of-school time activities, academic tutoring, mentoring, sort of all these things that I think would certainly be after-school programming for at-risk youth.

It doesn't matter which bucket it goes in.

I'm being hyper-technical.

I think for the purposes of signaling council interest and priorities, it probably doesn't matter.

I say it could go in either one.

The after-school programming for at-risk youth in health and safety may be more of a signal towards the specific safety investments, making that direct connection around after-school programming and safety.

And I believe that might, and the council member can speak to that in terms of the intent.

It could also be in the other, in the other bucket as well.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Moore.

Any other questions?

I'm going to try to move us along here.

Great.

Thank you.

Jasmine, next one.

All right, the next one is sponsored, Amendment 4, sponsored by Council Member Moore.

This would add food assistance to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the K through 12 student supports category.

And you've heard my spiel about that this is a non-exhaustive list, it doesn't affect the rate or the revenues, and everything will be further decided in the I-NE plan and the budget deliberations.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council Member Moore, you were recognized to speak about your amendment.

Great, thank you very much, Chair, and also Jasmine, thank you so much for your help with this amendment and some of the others that didn't go forward at the last minute.

Before I speak to the substance, same question I had about the last one.

Is this more appropriately under the K through 12 student supports, or sorry, is it more appropriate under the health and safety?

I think that it could go under the health bucket.

I think it could be both, both and.

As has been mentioned, there is still an implementation and valuation plan process to determine how much is going under each of those buckets.

There is, though, an initial kind of proposal around the high-level buckets, around these different sections.

That's in attachment one, I believe, to the ordinance, which I don't know if I can, I don't think it's on my, I can't pull it up on the screen.

And so if you call it out under K through 12 student supports, you're signaling potentially an intent that it falls under that bucket, which has a certain amount that is assumed, which of course could change during the I&E plan.

Everything's subject to change.

And so, yeah, so it could be both or you could signal that it really should be under the K through 12 student supports bucket.

If you really want to make that connection to health, you could put it in the health bucket.

But either way, it just signals that you want to support this type of investment.

And it's not necessary either.

It could still happen without it being signaled.

But it would just provide that extra signal from you all.

And it can go kind of wherever you think is most appropriate.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I might choose a different bucket.

But the point of this amendment, and it's a small amendment, is simply to clarify that food assistance is a type of support that can be funded under this levy.

As we all know, you know, You cannot have educational achievement and equity if you're hungry, and so I think it's incredibly important.

I had initially looked at trying to make this a universal free lunch, but that would have added millions of dollars to the levy, so I'm not going to be doing that, but I do want to be sure that we make it very clear that we are signaling that we believe that money should be spent on food assistance, as that's best determined, through the INE plan and also individually at the schools themselves.

So that's why I'm bringing this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

And just by way of information, the department already funds after school and summer meals.

So does OSPI and actually some of the Seattle, and then of course there's free and reduced lunch for the kids in the schools.

and some of the schools actually have universal free lunch.

There was an article recently in the Seattle Times about this actually, so they're moving more toward that direction.

Not sure if you all knew, so I'm just giving you information I know, so we all have the same information.

Any other, oh, Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanna thank Council Member Moore for bringing this forward.

Couldn't agree more on everything you just said.

And just appreciate your leadership and see another champion of addressing food insecurity in our youth.

Agree, you can't learn if you're hungry.

And thank you for being thoughtful about what to include and not to include.

I look forward to partnering with you and my colleagues at this dais that are interested.

Next legislative session on getting the state to act and adopt a universal free lunch for all kind of program.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Any other questions?

All right, moving on to the next amendment.

Jasmine.

All right, Amendment 5. This is sponsored by Council Member Rink.

It would add $2 million annually or $12 million total to the expected revenues generated by the levy and would allow for further investments to support the Fresh Bucks program for families.

By way of background, Fresh Bucks is a voucher program for healthy food.

Distributes $40 a month to individuals with a household income of less than or equal to 80% of AMI in order to purchase fruits and vegetables at farmers markets or grocery stores.

The 2025 adopted budget includes $6.9 million for the program, and it has an enrollment of 12,000 households currently and a wait list of over 4,000.

In addition, the Human Services Department reports that 18,000 youth in Seattle qualify for free and reduced lunch at Seattle Public Schools.

The estimated tax rate needed to allow for this additional investment would be six-tenths of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value with an estimated average tax burden of $6.26 per year to a median value property owner.

And so even though this is less than a cent to allow for the amendment to reflect the additional revenues needed, the amendment contains one cent addition to the tax rate per $1,000 of assessed value, the maximum tax rate, I should say.

And the final version of the bill, after all the amendments are voted on, will reconcile all the tax rate, all the amendments and calculate the additional tax revenue needed accordingly.

The amendment also would add after school and summer food assistance to the list of support services that may be in the FEP levy ordinance under the K through 12 student supports category.

And you all know this is a non-exhaustive list.

It doesn't bind the council to actually funding this.

However, if the amendment passes and the additional revenue is raised, it would signal council's intent to at about two million, on average, $2 million a year towards supporting the expansion of Fresh Bucks program for families.

And of course, the actual appropriation would happen in both the I&E plan and council budget deliberations.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Vice Chair Rank, you're recognized to address your amendment.

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

Colleagues, this amendment adds to the Fresh Bucks program, emphasizes the need for students to receive after-school and summer food assistance.

We know that students who are fed will perform better in school, and having increased access to fresh foods is vital to ensure long-term success for our students.

A few weeks ago, we received a brief sustainability city light and arts and culture committee.

It's important to note that food prices rose 23.6% from 2020 to 2024 with healthy food costing double that of unhealthy foods according to the USDA.

This has increased the need for food assistance and participation in SNAP across King County rose 18% between 2022 and 2024. And we are anticipating cuts to SNAP and other federal food and nutrition programs.

As was stated, 12,000 households are currently served by the Fresh Bucks program, which offers a $40 monthly benefit to households that are at 80% AMI or below.

And currently there are over 4,000 households on the wait list.

Fresh Bucks is currently funded through the Sweet and Beverage Tax and general fund dollars.

It does not rely on federal funding.

And only six city staff support this program.

So serving 12,000 households with the power of just six staff members, it is an incredibly lean program that the city operates.

Fresh Bucks has a presence in every single district across the city.

It is a program that is supporting poor kids, families, and adults across our city.

It also invests in our local food economy, with customers spending Fresh Bucks benefits at over 40 local retailers, including eight locally owned and independent grocers, 17 farmers markets and farm stands, and 16 Safeways.

The program, an amendment, has a $7.71 million impact on the local economy and a $535,000 impact that is spent at farmers markets and independent grocers.

Last week, I was visiting with Family Works in District 4, and one of the things that came up in our discussions with this critical service provider that serves many families across the region is just how many of the families that they're serving that are on the Fresh Bucks wait list.

And we've learned, not just in the Sustainability Committee, but also in the Housing and Human Services Committee, as we brought in some of our food justice partners serving the region and the Meals Coalition, as well as in the Federal Administration and Policy Changes Committee, how much our food systems are being affected right now.

Again, there is a proposal on the table with federal cuts to SNAP being proposed to be cut by a third.

And so in this moment, when federal food assistance is becoming less reliable, we have an opportunity to step up here as a local government and community to make sure families can keep food on the table and kids don't go hungry.

And with that, I would love to hear any questions you have about this proposed amendment.

Colleagues, do you have any questions about this proposal?

All right.

My comment about this proposal is Fresh Bucks is a program for individuals and families.

It is not a program that is just for kids and their families.

So this is a similar concern about adding something to the levy that is not kid related necessarily in the way that it is crafted.

And because Fresh Bucks is not, it is actually out of the Office of Sustainability and Environment and has not been paid for with levy dollars.

So this is where we might have to consider then changing the ballot language to make sure voters understand what the investment is.

And so I just want to flag this because this is the concern about this particular Fresh Bucks program.

So, Council Member Nelson.

I was going to ask a question or make a comment, but can you please, what did you just say about the ballot language?

Because this is not consistent with what?

We're adding programs to the levy that are outside of the scope of the levy.

We might have to change the ballot language, because voters need to know what we're paying for.

So if we're going to do a program that, for instance, funds individuals, like adults, for instance, then we need to make it clear that that is our intent, that these dollars are going to go toward that purpose.

So it is possible we would have to update the levy language because now we are broadening the scope beyond education.

It's families, education, preschool promise, kids-focused levy.

Does that make sense?

Thank you for clarifying that.

Well, I don't know what the mechanics are of changing the ballot language and when the deadlines are, et cetera, but...

Law does, and we'd have to work with law on that.

All right.

Well, before I ask that, for clarification on that, what I have heard, I had a kind of a restatement of what I think we're supposed to be doing here.

It was my understanding that the exercise today was to hear amendments to the levy proposal, and that the levy proposal is basically, it's The more meta question is, how much are we adding to the four buckets that are this levy for the most part?

And from what I understand, it's preschool, child care, K-12 investments, and then promise.

And our job is to approve the relative size of those budgets against each other.

And what I've heard you say at the beginning of this meeting and at prior meetings, I think it was at the last one, was that the K-12 investments are where the particular, the more, the specific investments of that pot of money are, correct?

I mean, there are four buckets.

This levy language was written to be high level because the stakeholding and all that work needs to be done.

In any of those buckets, the implementation plan will detail what the investment is under each of those four buckets.

It's just that child care is child care.

Everyone knows what that is.

Preschool is preschool.

Everyone knows what that is.

And the universal promise, everybody knows what that is.

So K through 12 is where there's more, I think, there's more opportunity.

I'm not even sure if that's the right word.

But this is where there's a lot of different types of things that happen in that space.

But in any event all of those buckets will still have to go through the implementation plan.

Stakeholding will have to happen.

The department will proffer a very thick.

Well last time it was 140 pages but they will proffer a recommendation for what to include under those four buckets and then we would ultimately decide we can amend whatever they proffer, because at the end of the day, we approve the implementation plan.

Does that answer your question?

It does.

So I came into this meeting, or, you know, the past week, I've been thinking that we will have an opportunity to state our specific policy preferences that we really want included in the K-12 investments, which is where really specific allocations are made for different programs.

And it seems as though some of these amendments that are adding to the the overall levy would be specifically K-12 investment kinds of items.

And I'll just say right off the bat that everybody heard me say when we were first presented with this, when the executive was sitting at the table, I said that I am concerned about the fact that there isn't really, or there hasn't been, or there should be an emphasis on, or not an emphasis, at least an acknowledgement of and some funding for addiction prevention and perhaps also youth-centered detox programs, et cetera.

And I did not produce an amendment specifically because I believed that there would be an opportunity for us to all weigh in on our policy priorities when we approved the K-12 investments.

And so that is what I keep coming back to, is that what we're trying to do right now is approve, well, sort of hear about changes to the overall package and its overall size and the size of the buckets relative to each other.

And so I'm just wanting to make sure that people understand that there will be an opportunity later when the specific investments have been stakeholdered with families, with educators, with the people that will be interacting directly with those investments at a later date.

And we will have an opportunity to prove that.

So I haven't missed the boat, correct?

Correct, correct.

And actually, I mean, I tried to, and I, I tried to articulate this in the past.

It is really important, and actually we all got an email which I replied all to so you all could see the response I gave the stakeholders.

You know, people are feeling like somehow there isn't a transparency and they've missed the boat, but they have not.

because Deal is the one that does that stakeholdering work with the executive, and I intend to get involved as well, and I know you all will too, at the point of which we have to put together or DEAL puts together the implementation plan for our review.

And so I just caution putting individual programs or groups at this juncture because people are going to feel left out.

People are going to feel like it wasn't transparent when in fact none of that stakeholdering was done.

We basically put together, the executive put together a package that was high level broad with those four buckets that were in the last levy and that really we've been funding for 35 years.

And then the implementation part is the part where we're going to be really getting into the weeds, if you will, of those investments.

And I don't want the public, any group, a particular group to feel like somehow they have missed out because they haven't.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you council member or council president, council member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to say thank you very much, Council Member Rink, for your commitment to food security and increasing the Fresh Bucks program.

It's certainly an incredibly important program.

Again, I don't feel comfortable increasing the size of this levy, even though we have incredible needs.

But I just want to...

But a plug in there again, that last year when I brought my capital gains proposal, it was to put money for rent assistance, for home ownership, and for food.

I've mentioned that I'd like to bring forth the capital gains proposal again this year.

I've approached Chair Strauss about bringing that through his committee and have yet to hear a commitment from him to hear that bill, but just want to continue to emphasize that there are other options in which we can raise revenue for food and directly address food insecurity across the spectrum and target money to that particular issue.

I would love to work with my colleagues on that and that's where I continue to remain focused.

But thank you nonetheless for continuing to highlight the need for this program and for food funding.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

And colleagues, let me just say I'm not trying to discourage these These are all important investments that I think across the board we all agree on.

It's whether or not they should be included in this levy, given its historical focus over the 35 years and what people have come to expect.

And it does not fund adults, for instance.

And so if that's what we're intending to do, then the budget process, to your point, Council Member Moore, is a better place to consider these investments and not this levy, because this is where we don't want to be getting in a space where we might have to ask law about tweaking ballot language to then make it clear that this is not just for kids, but it could be for, you know, adults, for instance, or some of these other things that we fund that are not really focused on youth that are important investments.

but are not necessarily focused on youth.

So thank you, council member Moore.

Council member Ring.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Understanding that our task at this stage of the levy process is really discerning what is the levy size that we want to put before voters.

Yes, this amendment does seek to grow the levy investments a little bit to allow for more investments into food access and providing some specificity around that specific to the Fresh Bucks program.

is a policy decision.

And it's one that I'd like to put before this body.

I do want to note, to clarify for the record, it is our office's working understanding that the program can distribute fresh bucks to kids paid for by this levy.

It's a program design matter that can be figured out.

So I think from an implementation level, we can really focus the investments again on kids and families to address the issue that you've raised, Chair Rivera, about spending towards adults.

We can address that.

on the staff level by directing those funds to just serving families.

So that has been our office's working understanding.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Sorry, so just to clarify, you're saying you were looking to ensure that the money's going to the kids and families with kids?

Sorry, I don't want to misstate what you just said.

No, certainly.

It is our office's working understanding that we would be able to work with the Department to ensure families who may be on the FreshBooks wait list right now.

Thank you for that clarification.

Colleagues, any other questions?

All right, Jasmine.

Colleagues, thank you for sticking with us.

Yes, okay, we can skip number six because we already did that one.

Amendment number seven, this is also sponsored by Councilmember Rink.

It would allow for additional investments in restorative practices, specifically $1 million annually or $6 million total to the expected revenues generated by the levy.

And this revenue would allow for investments in restorative practices.

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

Currently, this programming is funded through the 25-26 school year using $800,000 of families education levy fund reserves.

That's from the 2011 levy.

which we still have reserves for.

And then restorative practices are also currently supported at five schools from BEP levy school-based investments, and those school-based investments are determined by individual levy-funded schools.

The additional tax rate needed to allow for this would be, oh, there's a typo there, three-tenths of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value.

and would be an additional burden of about $3.13 per year for a median value property owner.

And then similar to the other amendments that added potential revenue, This includes changing the maximum allowable tax rate from $0.71 to $0.72, and the final version of the bill for full counsel consideration will reconcile all the amendments if needed.

The amendment also adds restorative practices to the list of educational support services that may be supported by the levy under the K-12 health and safety category, and like you all, No, by now.

This is a non-exhaustive list.

It does not bind the council.

However, if additional resume is raised, this amendment would signal intent to use the additional revenue, a million dollars a year, towards supporting restorative practices.

Of course, the appropriations would happen during the council budget deliberations and the I&E plan.

Thank you, Jasmine council member council.

Excuse me vice cheering.

You're recognized to address your amendment

Thank you, Chair Rivera, and I'll be brief here in the interest of time.

This amendment adds to ensure that restorative practices continue to receive funding.

It's important to note that the current levy does fund restorative justice practices.

The program's results speak for itself.

With a 27% decrease in exclusionary incidents over three years across the district and a 60% decrease in exclusionary days.

This program allows for healing conflict resolution and provides crisis support and processing for students and staff in need.

We've seen these programs work and heard firsthand from students and staff, the impacts of this program.

And a quote from the CDC does note that protective factors such as feeling connected to adults at school can help with substance use and mental health issues and help protect students from experiences of violence.

So this is community building and school safety at work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rink.

Colleagues, questions?

Oh, Vice Chair Rink, is that an old hand?

It is.

Okay, okay.

Council Member Nelson.

Could you, Council Member, my question is, could you speak more slowly when describing that some of the, when you said we know that these work, what was, can you just say that again?

Because you spoke fairly quickly.

Sorry, I had a little bit too much caffeine this morning.

Apologies.

The matter of the program results.

So some of the program results that have been shared with us include a 27% decrease in exclusionary incidents over three years across the school district and a 60% decrease in exclusionary days.

Is that suspension?

Exclusionary?

Includes expansion.

Suspension, correct.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I don't know how the performance metrics are for these programs, but I just wanted to be clear what you were saying, what the expected outcome of that was, and so that's why I wanted some clarification.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Sorry.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

My apologies.

Thank you, Council Member Rink, for bringing this.

Incredibly important.

I actually know some of the people that work in the school district funded by this particular earmark And basically what it is, is they are a trusted adult in those schools.

And I think that's incredibly important, especially for kids outside a household to have a trusted adult in the school.

And I know we all agree with that.

One of the questions I had is the additional funding to this, because they already receive, this program already receives funding from and correct me if I'm wrong, through some of the City of Seattle funding, and I don't know if the Seattle Public Schools adds to that, what would this additional funding go towards?

Is it going towards more staffing, more schools, expanding?

What is the additional money needed for?

And I don't know if that's a question for you, Council Member Rank, or whoever can answer it.

Thank you.

Right now, not every school has, within the school district, has restorative justice practices.

So seeking to be able to expand a bit on that work and have more restorative justice staff who are doing this work present in more schools to be able to offer these kinds of services.

Again, seeing the benefits that they've provided, and this work is provided for a number of schools, being able to grow and expand that work.

It was only a question I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, council member Hollingsworth colleagues, any other questions?

Um, all right, then I'll just say, um, you know, this goes along the, what I was speaking earlier about and kids need all of these kinds of investments.

Um, when we're talking about violence prevention in the schools, So all of these are important investments.

I will say again as I said with other programs we would be earmarking for a specific purpose and we haven't done that in this levy.

So it just again makes people feel like their thing is excluded when this particular amendment can just be added to the implementation plan at that stage.

rather than adding it here and just earmarking one thing when all these other programs also want to be recognized in the levy.

So I will just say that about this.

All right.

Council President Nelson.

This is one last question.

So my understanding is that there is 800,000 that is going toward this and that was left over and so it's being used for this purpose, correct?

It's a little more complicated.

Initially, I believe in 2021, there was $550,000 added for restorative practices by council.

It was then re-upped at $800,000 and then eventually became ongoing funds.

And then in this last budget process, it changed from ongoing general fund to a one-time families and education levy reserve at $800,000.

So essentially for the past few years, this has been funded in some way, mostly by the general fund, and this year from the families and education levy reserves.

So that's the $800,000.

Okay, and I was only asking because a couple weeks ago when we were hearing from public comment, I did look up these restorative practices on the SPS website, and I'm looking at Community Connections, Collective Justice, Connect the Dots, who I are, oh, I'm sorry for mispronouncing that, Northwest, Root for a Solutions by Cadence, Cadenas, I'm sorry.

Anyway, there are about 20 or so or 12 organizations already, and so I was trying to understand how these could be supported by that amount.

So that has helped me understand a little bit that these organizations have received general fund in the past.

In addition, you know, I believe Seattle Public Schools also supports restorative practices with some funding.

And as I mentioned, school-based investments, the funding that individual schools choose from the FEP levy, levy-funded schools have chosen to also fund some restorative practices in their schools.

And I also believe there might be some of the funding for the mental health investments.

There's one position or one person funded at Garfield High School from the mental health funding.

So it's cobbled together, so the 800K is not the totality of the investments in restorative practices, but it does represent kind of what council has added in the past.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't want to make work for you, but to Councilmember Hollingsworth's point, asking precisely what would this go for or pay for, given that there are already these investments, that would be important information to have because this is a total of $6 million additional funding.

So that would be helpful to have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

And I also want to say in terms of the levy, DEAL has funded other things with underspend, for instance, when the levy was passed in 2018, if, you know, it could have been that there's something that was identified post that implementation plan, and then the funding wasn't available.

And so they found underspend to fund something.

But there's been outside of the levy funding to fund these things as well, including from Seattle Public Schools.

So it is something that has been receiving funding and prioritized in that way.

It might have missed the, you know, the levy funding at the time.

Okay.

Because it had this other funding from the state and general fund.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Otherwise, moving on.

Jasmine.

I'm going to go to Amendment 8, which is also sponsored by Councilmember Rink.

This amendment would add $600,000 annually or $3.6 million total to the expected revenues generated by the FEP levy.

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

The additional tax rate needed to allow for this investment would be two-tenths of a cent per $1,000 of assessed value with an estimated annual tax burden of $1.88 per year to the median value property owner.

Again, to allow for this, we've amended the maximum rate to $0.72 instead of $0.71, although the final version of the bill for full council consideration will reconcile all proposed amendments that have additional tax rates proposed.

The amendment would also add the following to the list of educational support services under the K-12 health and safety category.

That would be support for families from vulnerable communities.

Again, this is a non-exhaustive list that does not impact the tax rate or the revenues.

However, if it passes, the amendment would signal intent for council to use the revenues averaging $600,000 per year to supporting families from vulnerable communities.

If this is approved by voters, if the proposition is approved by voters, though, of course, the final appropriation would happen during council budget deliberations and the I&E plan.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Vice Chair Rinke, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Colleagues, this amendment adds support for vulnerable communities and particularly what our office had in mind is being able to step up and address the needs of our immigrant and refugee communities in the FEP levy.

We've seen in the first couple of months of the Trump administration attacks on our immigrant neighbors with also many families even fearful to send their kids to school in fear of being separated and with worries of immigration retaliation and those same families afraid to pick up their kids.

And so we want to ensure that students and families feel supported during this time and that we will have their backs.

I know in committee we've talked extensively now hearing directly from the organization Kids of Need of Defense about the issue of unaccompanied minors needing to appear in court by themselves without an attorney and the opportunities for the city to be able to address that.

And so this investment is one that says we will stand by our vulnerable communities and that we are here for them.

We will stand by them and being able to step up in this moment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rink.

Colleagues, questions?

Okay, colleagues, this one I have the most concern in terms of going out of bounds from what this levy is historically meant to support.

The levy, as I've said earlier, is to support educational achievement for our kids.

This is definitely outside of that scope, and this one is one that would necessitate a conversation with CAO to determine if this is something that then we would need to change the ballot language to expand the scope of this levy.

And that's what I'll say about that.

It would need a robust conversation with law.

All right.

Moving on to the next one, number nine.

Council Member Rivera, could I, pardon me, Chair Rivera, if I could just quickly respond to that point.

We've already consulted law on this amendment to ensure that it's within the bounds of this levy.

I think there's a case to be made here about this being a supportive investment for the well-being of young people.

If kids aren't feeling safe going to school, whether it's for fear of gun violence or for fear of being detained, I think there's a justification there to ensure that this is supporting the educational advancement of students to make sure that they're feeling safe.

And in the implementation plan, we can also ensure that it's not spent towards adults.

So I just wanted to make clear for the record that we have already consulted law on this amendment and make sure that the committee was aware of that.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank.

I too have consulted with law and so we should have a conversation offline about this particular one because legal defense is not what has been funded with this levy, for instance, so if that is what is contemplated as you just described, then it is outside of the bounds, so then it would necessitate perhaps a broadening, as I said, of the levy language, which is a little more complicated.

So we can talk about further what you had intended and definitely follow up with law, but thank you.

Jasmine, number nine.

I believe we did number 10. Number 10. We're almost there colleagues.

Two more.

So amendment 10.

Three more.

Three more.

Sorry, Jasmine, go ahead.

Amendment 10 would add the following to the list of education support services that may be supported by the levy, support for foster care youth transitioning to adulthood, and support for career pathways in the IT sector that utilize coding languages.

This list of educational support services, of course, is not exhaustive.

It doesn't bind the council to funding the services, does not impact the tax rate or the expected revenues, and specific appropriations would be decided through the adoption of the I-Need plan and during council budget deliberations.

And I'm gonna scroll down to where you can see the changes.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council member Saka, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again, Jasmine, for all your help and hard work on this amendment.

Colleagues, this is about supporting some of our most vulnerable And foster youth, a few weeks ago, as you'll know, we did a proclamation to support foster youth and the people that work in the foster care ecosystem of providers.

So this makes sure that those words, important words, and statement of values on paper are actually backed by tangible investments in dollars.

That's the first part of this.

The second part is making sure that more of our youth, from the Central District, South Seattle, High Point, end up working at places like Amazon and Microsoft and Expedia and these tech employers that we have around our region.

And You know, digital skilling is important.

I've had the pleasure of working at Microsoft, working with companies like Amazon, working at Meta, and as a lawyer.

And I didn't have the technical skills to write code, but still worked with a bunch of smart engineers.

I want to make sure that more people from Seattle are able to work at places like this as well.

Starts with coding, digital skills, literacy.

And so this expands what's possible for that.

And in the absence of staying silent, it's maybe true that similar programs might emerge.

I intentionally put some parameters around what some of those coding languages could look like, as an example, as a non-exhaustive list, as Jasmine noted, and of skills, coding skills that are in high demand today from top tech employers, called up folks at Amazon, Microsoft asked them, what are the top programming languages that software engineers at your companies right now are utilizing?

And the three listed there are Python, for example, are some of the top.

It's about making sure, again, more people can achieve their true potential in life, whatever that may be, especially including contributing to our local economy and the vibrant local tech economy that we have here locally, but has truly a worldwide impact.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Any questions, colleagues?

Okay, Jasmine, we can move on to the next one.

All right.

Amendment 11 is sponsored by Council Member Kennell.

This amendment would require a written explanation when a deal determines that an exception to a competitive process is warranted when entering into agreements with non-public entities.

So the bill authorizes DEAL to enter into agreements with non-public entities using a competitive process with a couple of exceptions.

One is in the case of emergency as determined by the executive or when the director of DEAL determines that the process is not feasible because the services are only available from one source or are impracticable to solicit.

Exemptions to competitive solicitation do exist elsewhere in the code, and so this amendment would propose to require written explanations as is found in other places in the code.

And yeah, and if the proposition is proposed, if the proposition proposed by the bill is approved by voters, further contracting expectations may be adopted by council during the consideration of the FEP levy I&E plan.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council member Kettle, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I just wanted to start by saying I was channeling The approach that you take to the budget with this amendment and the idea that we We should not just be granting exceptions to the competitive process.

This is something that we're looking in terms of budget reform through the budget committee.

And so this amendment is in keeping with both of those approaches.

And I think it's important that we do have a competitive process, that we do have requests for proposals that are transparent.

And this is something that we're transitioning to with community safety, for example.

And I think this is something that we should maintain here.

for it in itself in terms of budget, but also in terms of as part of the levy process to show that we're gonna be doing this from a good governance perspective as well.

So that's simply it.

Again, just channeling a little Chair Rivera with this amendment.

I'm flattered, Council Member Kettle.

Colleagues, any questions?

All right, Jasmine, let's go on to our final amendment.

Yes, and this one, I actually may need some help queuing this up because I need to get it.

Sorry, Nicole.

It's okay.

Oh, that was easy.

Okay, I didn't see it there before.

So this amendment is sponsored by Councilmember Moore, Amendment 12. It would clarify that the Director of Deal is authorized to enter into agreements for education support services with public entities generally, not just the list of agencies in the Council Bill.

It does not bind the Council to contracting with any of the agencies listed.

And of course, if the proposition is approved, funding for specific items and different contracts would be appropriated by council through the adoption of the I&E plan and during council budget deliberations.

And you can see here in red where the clarification is.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Council member Moore, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Yeah, thank you very much.

I think Jasmine has more than accidentally summarized what this does.

It's a simple technical amendment.

Thank you.

Council members, any questions?

All right.

Oh, Council Member Hollingsworth.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I just had a quick comment and it's not really regarding Council Member Moore's amendment.

It's going back to Council Member Rink's amendment and Council Member Saka's amendment, just to put it out there, understanding that There's a lot of vulnerable folks in our community.

And one, I just wanted to highlight, in my district, we have Lowell Elementary, which is a big international school, a lot of immigrant families, a lot of first-gen families.

There's a ton of turnover in that school because a lot of those kids belong to the McKinney-Vento program.

And they also, McKinney-Vento program, And so when they get housing, and they get housed because they are unsheltered and their housing instability program, they then go to a different school wherever they get housed within the district.

And unfortunately, I do have some families that are camping at that are homeless that are currently camping at Cal Anderson Park because their kids need to go to school and it's the only place that they can have some type of shelter in our district.

And so we're trying to work with the school and the social workers and the family support workers on finding, you know, long-term solutions and housing stability.

But I just wanted to highlight that because I know that there are different amendments that highlight vulnerable populations and it's very vague and I know that for this levy to go on and we're going to have an implementation plan.

But just highlighting that there is a need and wanting to be, and I know that we want to get very specific on stuff, but I would like to see some of, a McKinney-Vento program is a federally funded program.

I would like to see some protections for our families at the city level and also at our school level to make sure that those services continue to operate and we continue to have funding for those, and we prioritize the families that are housing insecure.

to make sure that they have the services no matter what happens at the federal level.

I can't begin to, I know we all agree with that and how important that is.

And I don't know if that is in this levy or it's earmarked or we prioritize it.

I know that might be in the implementation plan, but I just wanted to highlight that because that is a big concern of mine and that program as well.

So I just wanted to highlight that.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Again, colleagues, in general, I think we can all agree on all of these investments for our kids and our families and our vulnerable residents here in Seattle.

And yes, Council Member Hollingsworth, you have my commitment that we'll work together and with DEAL and with the executive on this.

I know that DEAL currently funds many of these families with these investments because all of the levy investments are prioritized for our low-income kids and their families in Seattle.

That is the focus that the department has given and they have lived true to their word on that.

And obviously, as we identify more things, we'll be able to work with the department on that.

So definitely, this is a conversation to be had.

as part of the implementation plan, and even more importantly, that the department is doing stakeholdering with some of these groups that support these families so that they are aware of what the needs are as they're putting that implementation plan together, Council Member Hollingsworth.

So I'll look to you to identify some of those either individuals or groups that help these families in our communities.

So thank you, thank you for saying that.

Colleagues, we've reached the end of our meeting.

I do wanna, oh, sorry, there's a hand.

Oh, Council Member Moore.

I'm sorry.

I'll be quick.

No worries.

I just wanted to clarify.

I know you and I had this conversation.

I had wanted to bring an amendment to add vision to the list of services that are covered in K-12 through health and safety.

I just wanted to be on the record that vision care is considered part of the comprehensive primary medical care.

And they do it at the school-based health centers.

We confirmed.

Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to get back to you on that.

I just went on the record here so when we get to the implementation, we can make sure that vision is covered.

Thank you, Chair.

They do it.

Thank you.

But thank you.

Really important.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I wanted to express my appreciation for what Council Member Hollingsworth just raised with an eye towards some of the ways in which federal programs are going away in our community and the very real impact that will have on our residents.

And I understand right now at this process in the levy, we're talking about size of levy.

And I think we want to be cognizant of size of levy and making sure that we are able to put something before voters that will pass.

Property taxes are not the most progressive revenue source.

We don't middle income folks in our community.

And we should have an eye towards the fact that there is a tremendous need across the city right now.

that is growing.

And it's something that we have an opportunity to try and address a little bit of it here in this levy by growing some of our investments.

And so that's something just for everyone's awareness as we're at this stage in the levy, something I'll be pushing for.

There's a real opportunity to look at being able to backfill and take some steps forward and still providing some of these services that keep families whole and well.

So thank you for allowing me to comment on that chair.

And thank you again, Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rink.

Any other comments before I make my final comments?

All right.

I wanted to say really importantly that, look, I, I speak for myself, very much support all of the investments that we highlighted today.

And it really goes to our collective interest in helping our kids and families and our communities across the city.

And I think this is an area, you know, there are areas of agreement and area of disagreement.

So we all agree and we agree that we need to support our kids in Seattle.

We may disagree about how to move forward in the levy.

I think it is really important to keep in mind that why I want to say my comments earlier have nothing to do with whether or not I support families and these investments that have identified.

It's more to Council Member Moore's point that Is the levy the place to do it or is it our fall budget conversation?

Chair of budget is not here.

I'm the vice chair of budget so I will say we've already started our budget conversations it sounds like.

So it's gonna be fun this fall to talk about these things.

I do think that this is again a levy that's been around for 35 years.

People have come to expect that it very much directly supports children, and I'm gonna urge us to resist the urge to add things that are not what historically this funds because it goes to a couple things.

One I mentioned about the ballot initiative language needing to be changed at this 11th hour.

And then it also goes to, while the need is great, these levies have to be voted on by voters.

This isn't something that we unilaterally can do as much as we'd like to do.

And so we want to make sure that this levy is something that continues to have the strong support it has had over the years.

So the last thing I'll say is thank you colleagues for sticking with us for with me today.

I appreciate you know our collective care about kids.

I'm looking forward to continuing our investments in Seattle's kids by voting to get this on the ballot in November.

As a mom of two public school daughters and a product of public school myself, this is especially meaningful to me.

Next steps are we're gonna vote on amendments and the overall levy on June 12th and then it will go on to the full council on June 17th.

You have my commitment to work with you all on the implementation plan stage.

When we get to that stage, And also please, I am here to talk about any of these amendments between now and the time that they are passed, so you have my commitment to work with you on that.

My door is always open for this or any other conversation.

So thank you all.

If there is no other business coming before this committee, Okay, seeing no questions or comments, this concludes the May 29th, 2025 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy.

Our next committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 12th, 2025 at 9.30 a.m.

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

Hearing no further business, it's 11.51 and this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.