All right.

Good morning, everyone.

The July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy six-year implementation and evaluation plan will come to order.

It's 9 33 a.m.

I'm Maritza Rivera, Chair of the Committee.

Will the clerk please call the role?

Councilmember Juarez.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Lynn.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Here.

Councilmember Saka.

Morning here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Present.

Chair Rivera.

Present.

Chair, there are nine council members present.

Thank you, Clerk.

Good morning, colleagues and members of the public and folks watching on the Seattle channel.

And shout out to our partners at the Department of Education and Early Learning, who I know are watching on online.

Welcome to our last meeting, select meeting on the FEP Levy INE plan.

Today we will be voting on the chair's package, which contains most of the amendments we reviewed last select committee meeting.

We'll also be voting on two amendments not included in the chair's package that we also reviewed at the last meeting, as well as taking our final vote on the INE plan before sending it to full council next week.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

As a reminder, the council cannot accept comments on campaign-related matters.

So please keep your topics to city business.

Currently we have 31 in-person speakers and 20 remote speakers, giving us a total of 51.

Thank you, Clerk.

Given that, each speaker will have one minute.

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Each speaker will have one minute.

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

All power to the people.

Thank you, Elmer.

State rep, John Mason.

Thanks for being here.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam President, and the rest of the Steam Council.

My name is Don Mason.

I'm a former state representative.

And um, yeah, I've spent my life fighting to feed black children in this city.

That's exactly why I oppose this plan.

Um it dresses up a handout to the wealthy as justice for the poor.

And that has happened before.

It's almost become a tick in this city.

Universal males were never on the 1.3 billion dollar ballot.

Seattle voters passed it 80%.

Seattle, that we passed it 80%.

Seattle's 104 schools are already 50% covered by federally funded free meals.

In Rainier Valley, 80% of students qualify, more than two times the district average.

They're the ones who qualify.

They're the ones who need it.

The rest do not.

And they should not, it shouldn't be taking away.

So 18,000 Seattle children already qualify and are served.

The plan feeds no doesn't feed hungry children.

Just saying it feeds all children means that it can take away from children who are really hungry.

Anyway, um so while the city drowns in a 488 million dollar deficit, the children who actually go hungry go hungry on weekends and breaks in Southeast Seattle.

And so the um Hollingsworth foster amendment does feed our children that need to be fed.

So thank you for hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

All right, Jim Buchanan.

I'd like to say good morning, madam chair, and to the council.

It's great to see everybody.

Good morning.

You know, I just want to kind of stick to the facts and statistics.

I'm I'm Jim Buchanan, president of the Washington State descendants of the enslaved, and I'm here to ask you to vote no, because this plan taxes the working poor to feed the wealthy, and it calls it compassion.

The numbers are devastating.

Universal Mills were never on the 1.3 billion dollar ballot.

Seattle voters passed at 80%.

Seattle's 104 schools are already 50% covered by federally funded free meals.

In Raynor Valley, 80% of students qualify more than two times the district's average.

18,000 Seattle children already qualify and are served.

This plan feeds no hungry child.

It funnels 1,200 per child to families in Queen Anne, Magnolia, and that area who can already afford lunch, draining a levy reserve while the city drowns in the $588 million deficit.

Vote no.

Three things when you vote no, three things happen.

You protect the reserve, you honor the voters, and you feed the children who actually serve on the weekends and breaks in Seattle and Southeast Seattle, where food and security hits at 26.5%.

Hollyworth Foster does it for less than 50% at cost, reaching 5,000 families.

Stop the handout.

Feed the hungry.

Vote yes on the amendments.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you.

All right.

We're gonna go next.

So colleagues, we have a number of folks speaking this morning.

We have three mics, and they're all they all work.

So when you um hear your name, please step up to a mic, and it'll make everything go a little uh faster, if you would.

Thank you so much.

And then also we have a lot of folks in chambers and a lot of work to get through.

So if you could do snaps or hand waves, um, if you're if you like something rather than clapping, it also respects the person who's gonna speak next and also helps the process.

So I'm gonna thank you in advance for doing that.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so we have Neilu Jenks, Oliver Misca, and then Rachel Shell.

Hi, Neil, welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

I'm Neelou Jenks, running for Seattle City Council District 5.

I'm a Lake City resident and a mom.

I'm also a former PTA advocacy chair at a Title I Northeast School where I had a child told me they don't eat dinner in their family.

It was also a school that nearly lost its Title I status because of the situation under Trump by three kids.

That means an entire school could lose lunch under what we're discussing right now.

There are two high schools in my district that would not be served.

30% of the kids at Ingram are going to their closet asking for things like toothpaste.

I understand that there's a lot of need, but I do know that children don't learn when they're hungry.

I was a stay-at-home parent for 14 years.

I can tell you how much I worked in schools and how many hungry kids there are, and how much invisible poverty there is.

We need to find a way to feed our children, and this is a great way.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oliver Misca, followed by Rachel Shell, followed by Linda O'Sodio.

Hi, Oliver.

Hi, good morning, members of the council.

My name is Oliver Miska.

I'm here testifying as a retired teacher and 35-year-old Seattleite against amendment six.

First of all, thank you for seeing through what is an arduous process of passing this 1.3 billion dollar levy, helping support uh really fulfill what the state doesn't uh funding our schools and the program.

So it's a lot of work.

Thank you.

Public service is grueling and nobody deserves uh personal attacks.

With that said, politics is always personal, regardless of how hard we tried to uh put up walls and labels.

Thinking back before we had a socialist mayor, I heard the talking points over and over again that we needed our schools to have universal appeal to our families and have their services and their reputation spread amongst all.

The talking points a year ago were different.

Um in your defense of amendment six, I hear a both and, not an either or argument.

Targeted universalism is just that, both and not either or.

Eligibility criteria, after all, are just white liberals' way of deciding what basic needs services like food and housing.

Who gets that?

Thank you.

Uh we can't think of a better way.

Thank you, Oliver.

And you can also leave comments in the box.

If folks run out of time, when you hear that ding, it means you have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Welcome, Rachel.

Nice to see you.

Yeah.

Good uh good morning, um, Chair Rivera and members of the Seattle City Council.

My name is Rick Major Snell, and I'm an executive board member for the 37th LD.

Um, I'm here to vote again.

I'm here to say no to Amendment Six.

Um, in a time where people already and and children in in school already don't have uh the ability to afford food at their house at their homes.

School is usually the only time that they can actually get a free meal and uh uh or have decent meal.

So to starve them and to like say to cut cut this would be ridiculous.

And I'm one of the other things I always say at every council member uh at every um public testimony I give is I'm sick and tired of sitting through another meeting uh with legislatures and policymakers saying we need to cut spending, we need to cut spending.

Meanwhile, wealthy corporations receive handouts year after year.

It's enough.

Thank you, Rachel.

We have next Linda Osorio.

Noah Williams, followed by Bailey Met Medito or Medilo, Megillo.

So sorry.

Linda, welcome.

Hello.

Um, good morning.

My name is Linda Osorio, and I'm a junior in high school, and I'm in testifying against amendment six.

For many families, this amendment would be difficult for them to file paperwork due to fear if their families are immigrants, embarrassment, or may not even qualify, which could be due to their families' income, and this would restrict them from receiving nutritious meals due to grocery cost.

Free school meals have shown to reduce food insecurity for families and improve students' overall health starting in kindergarten.

That's disappointing 6,800 SPS students and their families, causing a financial burden to them and limiting them from accessing free school meals and their success in school.

In addition, this would halt from this would halt students' focus in class and not receiving free school meals.

And I hope that as you make the decision that you think about these students.

Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Noah Williams, followed by Bailey, followed by Sydney Locke.

Noah, welcome.

Thank you, Council members.

Uh, my name is Noah Williams, and as a taxpayer who does not have kids, there is no better use of my taxes than feeding those that are hungry.

No questions asked, because it is morally right.

It is also fiscally responsible because you know that we end up with better test scores and more federal funding when kids have reliable access to food.

Imagine means testing other core essentials in schools, textbooks, paper, pencils.

You must be this poor, and your parents must fill out a form with a pencil for for you to get one.

It'd be humiliating for kids and a waste of administrative time and effort that could go to simply feeding them.

The children aren't going hungry because we feed too many of their peers.

It's a tiny amount of money.

They're going hungry because overall our council's budget previously reflects an enormous amount of money for the cops.

Let's keep it real.

Last session, I was really glad you passed an expansion to the fresh box program so that more families can feed their shelter and with fresh food from Washington families, farmers, rather.

Farmers, rather.

Keep going in this direction and feed all the kids.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noah Bailey, followed by Sydney, followed by Irene Sow.

Hey, everyone, can you hear me?

Yes.

Awesome.

Before I testify, I just want to give a huge shout out to the young people here today.

Your bravery in showing up as students as youth is commendable and I appreciate it so much.

My name is Bailey Modillo, and I am glad to be here today.

Good morning, uh Madam Chair and members of the FEP Levy Committee.

I am the communications manager for the Washington Bus, which is the largest statewide political organization for young people in Washington State.

And today I'm here because my organization is urging this committee to fully fund free school meals for K-12 youth and remove barriers for young people to access these meals.

And we appreciate the thoughtful approach of amendment six, but we asked this council to not adopt it and pass the FEP levy in its most present and impactful form.

We the real thing we need to say here is that we are not the experts as council members as adults.

We need to be listening to the students and the teachers and the conditions that they are living through in their classrooms.

The young people are saying that we need to fund universal free school meals, and I believe them and I stand with them, and I'm proud to uplift them today as an ally and as a former recipient of free school meals.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Sydney.

Irene, followed by Andrew Park, followed by Carrie Brown Wooster.

Irene, welcome.

Are you Irene?

Sydney.

Oh, oh, sorry, Sydney.

Go ahead, sorry.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

My name is Sydney Locke, and I am also with Bailey from the Washington Bus.

I'm here to urge you to vote against Amendment Six and say no to leaving young school students hungry.

As the daughter of a father that grew up here in Seattle locally, I've heard of his experience in the projects of Yesler Terrace, and through that, also heard of his struggles with food insecurity.

Now, here in 2025, I am here to continue our message of support for young people facing the same exact issues.

To see the parallels between then and now is deeply saddening, and because of this, I strongly believe that our youth just can't wait, and they just don't deserve to wait any longer.

Now more than ever, we're seeing aggressive rollbacks, and poor to middle class families are struggling the most in mid in the midst of one of the worst economic crises of our generation.

I urge you to vote no to amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sydney.

Irene, followed by Andrew, followed by Carrie.

Irene.

Good morning, Seattle City Council.

My name is Irene, and I'm a senior at Nathan Hale High School.

At my school, not every student has access to free meals, even though many families are still struggling to afford them.

There are students whose parents either make just enough to not qualify for free or reduced price lunch, but not enough to pay be paying for school meals or have trouble with the application process and paperwork.

Every day I see students hovering by the lunch line, debating if they're hungry enough to eat at school or if they should find food elsewhere.

Food shouldn't have to be something that someone has to search for, especially at school.

Lunch can be the difference between being able to focus in the class or spending the day distracted by hunger.

While some schools already provide free meals for every student, Nathan Hale is not one of them.

This proposal would make a real difference for schools like mine and for the thousands of students who currently don't qualify but still need support.

Please prioritize students' well-being and reject and reject things that create more barriers.

Hunger shouldn't come with paperwork.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Irene.

Andrew, followed by Kerry, followed by Alex Kramer.

Andrew.

Welcome.

Hi, I'm Andrew Park.

I'm a math teacher at Aki Corose Middle School.

Shout outs to any peace cranes out there and a member of the Seattle Education Association.

Please vote no on amendment six that would delay the universal school meals program.

Our students need regular meals that are both free and readily available.

Amendment six proposes a voucher program for families, but distributing meals through vouchers and means tested qualifications treats the root cause of hunger as an administrative inefficiency rather than than a structural inevitability when food is sold and distributed by pro for-profit entities like Kroger, Albertson's, Walmart, Amazon, et cetera.

Additionally, these vouchers force our students and their families into navigating a system where they must prove they are perfect victims that deserve the resources at stake, and it omits the many students who fluctuate above and below the demarcation line who are still in need.

Again, vote no on amendment six.

Alternatively, you can expand the program to include free and available meals on weekends and breaks without the delays to the original program.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew Carey, followed by Alex Kramer, followed by Ari Sh uh C.

Shamsky.

Carrie, welcome.

Good morning.

Thank you for having me here.

I am against amendment six.

My name is Carrie Brahmusta, and I'm an SPS teacher in North Seattle who buys food for her students to eat.

I know of families that are undocumented that will not apply for for the free and reduced lunch program.

Students need food to learn.

Feed all hungry kids.

Stop blocking universal food access for all.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good morning.

I'm Alex Kramer, a paraprofessional Salmon Bay K8, the paraprofessional vice president of Seattle Education Association, and a graduate of Seattle Public Schools.

I'm here today urging you to vote no on amendment six to the FEP Levy implementation plan.

As a parent, my job is to help students access learning by providing targeted academic support and teaching emotional regulation skills.

But no amount of intervention can overcome the basic fact that hungry students struggle to learn.

They're tired of the struggle to focus and fall behind.

Educators and community community members already buy snacks and provide food support to our students.

It isn't enough.

Universal meals allow students to learn, educators to educate, and lift a burden off of working families.

There's enough money in Seattle for universal meals and food support over breaks and weekends.

Let's do both instead of choosing one and leaving students hungry.

I love my job, care deeply for our students, and that's why I'm here today.

You can ensure that all students get breakfast and lunch.

Please vote no on amendment six.

Sorry.

Thank you, Alex.

Ari um Suchomsky, followed by Elena McCullum, followed by Sierra Leone.

Ari.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Ari Chihomski.

I am a high school teacher with Seattle Public Schools, and I am here to urge you to vote no on amendment six.

Um we tend to buy food for our students to make sure that nobody goes hungry because as it stands right now, means testing does not factor in every kid who needs food.

Um, even in West Seattle, um, there's kids who need food who aren't getting that support with the means testing currently in place.

And so the the means testing just isn't robust enough.

It was mentioned it hurts our undocumented students.

I will continue to buy food for my students because I will feed these kids, and I know many of my other educators have to, but I would really like not to have to drop five to six hundred dollars a school year.

Please fund universal meals.

Feed our kids.

Thank you, Ari.

Alina, followed by Sierra, followed by Caitlin Skilton.

Alina.

Good morning.

I'm Elaine McCallum.

I'm a district three resident, Seattle Public Schools teacher, and I am here in support of Mayor Wilson's levy plan and against amendment six.

Um, the purpose of universal free meals is to establish a safety net for all families.

As already noted, that there's this inconsistency.

Students and families um status is constantly changing, and by not providing that, we can see the consistent impacts that I witness as an educator of when students are hungry, they're not able to focus, and we need to ensure that we have that before we are adding additional supports.

I think we do need additional supports as amendment six, but it should not be something, a decision that's based out of austerity that we can't have both.

We do have the means in this city to do it.

If we are putting our money where our budget should be vote, no on amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alina Sierra, followed by Caitlin, followed by Victor Sierra.

Welcome.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Sierra and I'm in support of Amendment Six.

When I was in high school, I watched friends run out of grocery stores with carts of food over spring break because they had no food at home and the school was closed.

And we're about to hand every child in Seattle an umbrella that only opens Monday through Friday, 9 to 3.

And while some kids get to close it and walk home into a dry house, there are plenty of kids that close it and stand in the rain for the next 48 hours and two weeks over break.

And so buying more umbrellas doesn't help the kids that are already standing in the rain.

School meals work, and that's exactly where the gap opens when they stop.

Research shows that food and um insufficiency for these families holds steady throughout the school year and then climb during this the summer.

And so while we know what closes the gap, the USDA tested this exact same model and it cut the most severe form of child hunger by 33%.

And so your own RSJI data shows that black and Latinx uh household food insecurity is twice the rate of white households.

So, regardless of opinion, council has an obligation under RSJI to actively dismantle institutional racism, not just document it.

Nobody's against universal meals.

We just need to close this, close the deepest gap first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sierra Caitlin, followed by Victor, followed by Aaron Tullock.

Caitlin.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Caitlin Skelton.

I am a former child care provider.

And I'm here today to stress the importance of adequate nutrition and the impact that it has on our children's ability to learn, grow, and succeed.

I understand that Seattle is facing significant budget challenges, and that difficult decisions must be made.

However, eliminating or reducing funding for universal school meals would shift those challenges onto our children and teachers.

Research shows the impact of adequate nutrition leads to better behavioral and academic outcomes.

I urge and plead with you to fund our children and their meals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caitlin.

Victor, followed by Erin, followed by Lauren Tracy.

Victor, welcome.

Good morning, President Hollingsworth and members of the Select Committee.

I'm Victor Jagu with FMS Global Strategies, testifying with the We Build Back Better Alliance in support of Amendment 6 version 2.

Seattle data shows black and Latino households experience food insecurity at roughly twice the rate of white households, especially in Southeast Seattle.

In Rainier Beach, nearly 80% of students qualify for free or reduce the price meals compared with one third district wide.

When the cafeteria closes on Friday, that gap widens.

Treating every household the same is not neutral.

It produces unequal outcomes.

Version two creates a distinct food assistance program beginning support next school year, preserving 4.7 million for universal school meals, and requires measurable reporting.

Vote yes on amendment six, version two.

Do not let race neutral processes produce another racially unequal result.

Direct these dollars to the families carrying the heaviest burden now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Victor.

Aaron, followed by Lauren, followed by Marta Johnson.

Aaron, welcome.

Good morning, Chair Rivera, Council President Hollower, and members of the Select Committee.

My name is Aaron Tullett, testifying on behalf of FMS Global Strategies and We Build Back Better Alliance, a coalition of more than 900 community-based organizations.

We urge you to adopt Amendment 6, version 2.

Hunger in this city is not evenly shared.

Public health, Seattle and King County's own data tells that story.

For every 100 adults, roughly 40 black adults are food insecure, compared to just nine white adults.

Black and Latino households go hungry at twice the rate of white households.

And countrywide, nearly 77% of black students qualify for free or reduced price meals against about 70% of white students.

That is a system producing predictable, radicalized harm.

Amendment six meets our reality where it lives on weekends and over school breaks when the cafeteria closes and when the hunger gap opens widest.

It delivers targeted food assistance to up to 5,000 families a year and still launches the universal school meals the very next year.

Equity is about measurement who we reach.

Please adopt version or amendment six, version two.

Thank you.

Thank you, Aaron.

Lauren, followed by Marta, followed by Albert Shiver.

Lauren, welcome.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Lauren Tracy, pronounced she her AI, and I serve as the executive director of College Possible Washington.

I know a lot of folks are talking about amendment six today.

I'm also the mom of a three-year-old who is with me this summer.

So this is the one day I had to do public comment.

College Possible Washington is a college success and access organization.

We support students furthest from educational justice.

We work with them sophomore year for six plus years until they get their college degree.

And we've been working in Seattle public schools for 20 years.

I've told many of you that we were one of the organizations that lost our federal funding.

And that happened overnight.

That was a third of our funding.

I know a lot of community-based organizations lost both state and federal funding and is completely remade the landscape of community-based organizations that are still currently operating, are hoping to operate into Seattle Public Schools.

We've been lucky enough to receive funding through the previous FEF levy, and I've appreciated the consistent investment.

I'm hoping to echo a lot of similar sentiments from the executive director of CSEC in the sense that I see an opportunity for continued collaboration, an opportunity to bring CBOs and the accountability in the data, and an opportunity to bring us into the continuous feedback loop with this new levy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Lauren.

Uh Mart, I'm sorry, I might be mispronouncing your name.

Or you Mr.

John.

Oh, you are.

Yeah, that's me.

Okay.

Is it Marta?

Yes, it is.

Oh, great.

Okay.

Hi, Marta.

Welcome.

Hi, my name's Marta.

I'm a resident of Fremont and also a member of for Seattle.

I'm here speaking today in favor and support of amendment six.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingworth, Hollingsworth and Foster, for allowing us to have an opportunity to discuss food access in the city.

When our organization was digging into the details, we found that the highest poverty schools in Seattle already serve free meals to every student.

About half of SPS schools do it today, paid for by federal government, the federal government, and they're concentrated in South and Southeast Seattle as well as the central district.

The city's universal add-on does not mostly reach the neediest kids.

They are already covered on school days, and this really has us thinking what about the kids during breaks and weekends.

This amendment allows for a slight shift in funds to ensure these kids receive weekend and break meals for six years.

And I think that's a trade-off really worth considering.

My support comes with two call-outs.

One, Universal is absolutely a program we should build to, and two, is there a way to look into how we can create an auto-enrollment feature using data that already?

Sorry.

Thank you, Marta.

But you can you can email your your the rest of your comments.

Okay.

Sorry, thank you so much.

Albert Shiver Sh Shiver?

Shiver, great.

Thank you.

Welcome, Albert.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Albert Shiver speaking uh behalf of the city council on behalf of community passageways.

I want to voice our strong support for this amendment at community passageways.

We see firsthand the realities facing the families we serve.

While we recognize the attention behind universal meal programs, we must be honest about where the gap remains.

The current model leaves our most vulnerable students behind during the weekends and throughout winter and spring breaks.

Hunger does not take a break just because the school cafeteria is closed for the families we work with.

Those gaps are not just inconveniences, they are crisis.

The amendment is necessary to pivot toward true equity by prioritizing our finite, excuse me, our finite resources for families facing the deepest financial hardships.

We ensure that support reaches those who need it most rather than spreading funds then across households that do not require assistance.

Furthermore, this fiscal strategy proposed here is responsible and forward thinking.

By delaying the full universal rollout for year, we can maximize our budget to establish a targeted prepaid grocery car program.

This provides families with the dignity dignity and flexibility to secure consistent nutrition throughout the entire school year, not just during the school week.

Thank you, Albert.

Caleb Twaldi, followed by Sabrina Burr, followed by CJ.

Welcome.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Caleb Tolde.

I'm an educator at Rainer Scholars.

And I'd like to share a great example of what happens when we don't means test and provide access to meals for all.

A friend shared her experience working at emergency feeding program in 2019 and how she witnessed the glaring food access needs in our city.

She shared that what broke her was seeing an exhausted nurse who worked a full day and would wait in line for two hours for food because she didn't have enough money to feed her kids.

She goes on to explain that mother and the many folks that needed the food didn't have to show ID or any proof of income.

All they needed was their zip code and how many people lived in their households so they could get enough food for everyone.

And even the middle class nurse needed that support.

Just like with universal school meals, by removing barriers, we can increase access to food for everyone in our district.

Vote no on amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caleb.

Sabrina, followed by CJ, followed by Leo Philippe Bayamonte.

Sabrina, welcome.

Good morning.

My name is Sabrina Burr.

Um, I wear a lot of hats, but I'm a part of the Seattle school meals and food education program.

I have been for a couple years.

I'm the parent who used to pack extra food in my child's lunch so that she could share with her friends.

Um I work with student leaders last month.

We had about a hundred um from all over.

And what I know is across our district, we have hungry kids.

We have families that left Southeast Seattle for a better education who are in North Seattle, who still have the same concerns.

And so I am 100% for universal uh meals from what I have seen in this district talking to students throughout the district.

I live in Southeast Seattle.

I've been there since 1974.

I understand, but I am against amendment six because we have too many kids that are hungry in our schools, and hungry kids can't learn.

Thank you, Sabrina.

CJ, followed by Leo, followed by uh Y King.

Garrett.

Um CJ.

Okay, we literally have law enforcement executing fathers in the streets from ICE's execution of Johan Gorrero in front of his three-year-old daughter to SPD's execution of Christian Nelson last year by six SPD cops who shot over two dozen bullets into him and the adjacent residential buildings.

Yet just a week after his murder, President Hollingsworth, you found the political will and budget to raise Seattle police pay by 42%, giving SPD an estimated budget increase of 57 million dollars a year.

You can also find the political will and funds for the expansion of cameras in my neighborhood and other areas of the city at the taxpayers' expense of over 1,025,000 with operational costs of between 70,000 to 90,000 annually per site.

But somehow you can't find the political will to budget to fund universal meals for our kids at Seattle public schools.

This is not a race for neighborhood issue.

This is one of political will.

Thank you, CJ.

Leo, followed by Y King Garrett, followed by Ramon Basha.

Leo, welcome.

Yeah, what's up?

Um hello, Council.

I'm Leo.

I'm an incoming senior at Nathan Hale High School, and I'm president of the Seattle Student Union.

I'm sad to see these being pit against each other, but I'm still here to urge you to vote no on amendment six and fun universal school lunch without delay for all students.

Universal lunches addresses many of the issues across our city.

It helps address attacks from Trump.

Immigration communities do not apply for free and reduced lunch out of fear.

It also helps with affordability, since even for people who make too much to qualify for free lunch, it is still a burden to pay for school lunch.

Finally, it just generally helps with education related issues, and students do better academically and behave better when they are not hungry.

Thank you, Council, and I urge you to vote no on amendment six.

Thank you, Leo.

Waiking, welcome.

Uh good morning.

I just have to say that I think it's a real shame the way that this issue is being framed up as if one side is striving to feed people children and another side is not uh seeking to feed children.

I think it's a matter of implementation and execution.

Um I think it would be a great tragedy, another great tragedy to have resources that have been dedicated to address, particularly in 1990 when the levy was established, the the impacts of anti-black racism in this city in this society on the wealth and the income and the resources that our families have.

And to see those resources time and time again that are a dish uh uh focused on our community, then be sent out to Laura Hearst and Magnolia and everywhere else, and all of the improvements that are always said in the investments that are said to be on our behalf don't actually reach our homes, our families that deserve the repair.

So we need to be focused on making sure the equity analysis is strong, right, so that we can avoid the unintended consequences that's seen that time and time again.

That means our families still uh hurting.

So I do I'm here to say yes for amendment six and get together and come up with a better plan to make sure that all of the family, all of the children.

Thank you, Waiking.

Thank you, thank you so much.

Remon Basha, followed by Tatiana Brown, followed by Liz Huser.

Remon.

Welcome.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Reman Basha, and I am the food access coordinator at Feast.

It is good to see you all again.

This is my third time speaking on this issue.

And today I would like to formally submit a letter for public record.

Over the past week, we have spoken to community members about what they need.

We have heard from over 100 community members, parents, teachers, and most importantly, students.

And they are asking for universal school meals with no delay.

Your community is speaking, and we ask you to listen.

Vote no on amendment six.

Thank you, Raymond.

Tatiana, followed by Liz, followed by Crystal Lee.

Tatiana, welcome.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Tatiana Brown, and I am a food justice advocate.

Um, I'm here really today just to plead that we don't fall into this trap of conversations of deservedness.

I think we can go down that for a very long way, and we can talk about a mother who gives birth to a daughter, and that daughter whose mom makes 40,000 does not make enough to qualify for free meals in schools.

We can talk about the 6800 students that we're we're leaving out of this if we do not expand the meals.

And I think for me, it's really the core of when we talk about this conversation of deservedness.

Yes, it has deep roots in racism.

It has deep roots in the fact that at one point many of us and all of you that I'm looking at were not considered deserved of education of a bank account, of the right to marry, of the right for our basic human rights.

And I think that we have an incredible opportunity ahead of us, which is to create a system that promotes universal free meals for all school for all students in the school system.

This is the opportunity to take it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tatiana Liz, followed by Crystal, followed by Donna, maybe.

Sorry.

Liz, welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council members.

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

The Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy was created to close the opportunity gap by addressing the systemic inequities that shape educational outcomes.

You know this, we know this.

As stewards of the public investment, we have a responsibility to ensure that policies we adopt achieve that purpose through thoughtful implementation, not simply through well-intentioned ideas.

CSEC believes every child deserves nutritious meals.

However, it will take time to implement a thoughtful universal schools meal program for the long term.

Time will give the district the opportunity to ensure meals are high quality, culturally responsive, and delivered in a way that truly serves students and families.

I also recognize this has been a difficult conversation.

Even within our coalition, there are different perspectives, but we're united by one goal.

Ensuring this levy delivers educational equity for Seattle children.

I urge you to make the thoughtful choice, not the popular one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Liz Crystal, followed by I think it's Donna Singha, and then we'll go online.

Crystal, welcome.

Um, good afternoon, Council members.

Uh, my name is Crystal Lee, and I work for Community Passagewise where I support youth and families every day.

One of our biggest needs we hear from families is simple groceries.

Parents are working hard, but many are barely making it enough to get by.

They can't afford to send their children to school with lunch money.

And when school is out on the weekends and breaks, many families struggles to put um enough food on the table.

I've seen students go back for seconds at school because they know it may be their last full meal they have for the day.

No child should have to worry about whether they have enough to eat.

This isn't just something I see at work, it's something I understand personally.

Even with the full-time job, I can barely afford groceries myself.

It's hard for working families to imagine what it's like for those aren't even less.

Um this amendment will help meet a basic human need with dignity.

Make sure children have food on the weekends and school breaks, means they can come back to school healthier and ready to learn and with one less burden on their family.

I urge you to support this.

Thank you, Crystal.

Um, maybe it's, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading this name, but I think it's Donna Singha.

Anyone by that name or close to that name?

Um, okay, then um I'm gonna go online, take 10 folks online because they've been waiting a long time as well, and then I'll come back to some uh additional ads that came later in person.

So we we've got Lois Martin.

Lois, press star six, and you may begin.

Was it me?

I don't think she called you.

Did you call Donita?

Oh, Donna Donita, is that who that sorry, Lois?

We'll come back to you in one minute.

Uh Donna, I'm so sorry, I mispronounced your name.

So my name is Donna Sinclair.

Thank you.

And I am a community leader as well as a gun violence prevention.

You guys always see me.

I vote yes on this amendment with the Ms.

Holland Worve.

As a community leader with the crisis intervention, um, food insecurities is the number one top priority that our kids is facing.

Um, on the weekends, we understand that everybody do deserve to eat.

We understand that, but when we're talking about the poverty, we're talking about low income.

We're talking about families that have not been able to reach that capacity.

We ask that you vote yes and support, I mean President Hollisworth.

Thank you, Donna.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll go online next.

Lois Martin.

Or if you're there, please parse press star six and you may begin.

Hi, good morning, council members.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm the executive director of Community Day Center for Children, an early learning center here in Seattle, and one of more than 50 organizations that are part of a coalition that sign a letter in support of amendment six.

We all agree that no child should go hungry.

The question before you is how to meet that need while honoring the purpose of the FEP levy approved by Seattle voters.

Amendment six keeps the levy focused on its core mission of closing opportunity gap to provide targeted food assistance to students and families during periods when access to school meals is unavailable.

Direct resources where the need is greatest and protects the PEP risk and reserve fund while the city evaluates long-term funding options.

This amendment is a thoughtful compromise.

It meets children's immediate needs today while protecting the long-term commitments folders approved through the PET levy.

I urge you to vote yes on amendment six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lois.

Diane Tao, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, my name is Diane Tao.

I teach at Winglook Elementary and I live in Rainier Beach, mom to three young boys to an SPS.

While I think it's necessary to address food insecurity for families with the greatest need beyond the school day, I don't support amendment six.

I think since universal school meals is on the table, we should by all means make it happen in Seattle.

Wing Luke is fortunate enough to already have universal school meals, and I've seen it make a huge impact on students and families first hand over the years.

We talk about equity.

I know that not every school, not every neighborhood needs the same thing, but I do think that there are kids at every school in the district, regardless of neighborhood that will benefit from universal school meals.

I hear costs is a concern, especially given the uncertainty with the millionaire tax and its future, but I don't think that uncertainty should dissuade us from good policy.

If levy funds can provide free meals to any and all SPS students for two years, I have to say yes to that, and I don't think people would blame the city in the event the millionaires' tax didn't go through it.

We would bring the fight to the state.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up how oftentimes when it comes to programs for families of students and the community, there's always this idea that we don't have enough money.

We need to pick and choose, and because of budget deficits or we get into reserves and that worries us.

But at the same time, the Seattle Police Department's annual budget is 489 million dollars.

So I just say that to say we should take a chance on universal meals now and spend levy reserves, but also find the funds to address food insecurity for families with the greatest need.

Thank you.

Thank you, Diane.

Marsha Wright Soyka.

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

Thank you.

Hi, Marcia Wright Sloika, Executive Director of Family Works, here to speak in favor of the mayor's critical proposal on universal free lunch as part of the FEP levy without the delay in amendment six.

We have been on the front lines of fighting food insecurity and hunger for 30 years in North Seattle with a deep connection to Seattle public schools that include on campus resource centers, backpacks to fight weekend hunger, and mobile food pantries bringing food directly to schools.

Already this year, there has been more than 2,250 visits from SPS students and families to our mobile food pantry at North Seattle schools.

A 68% increase than the whole of last year.

We need to address food insecurity broadly for every child that wants or needs a meal.

This is a layered issue.

We need layered solutions, including public-private partnerships, but they do not have to come at the expense of universal school lunch now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marcia.

Jen Geomi, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

Thank you for hosting public comment this morning.

My name is Jen Giomi.

I'm the faculty coordinator and parent educator for the South Seattle College Parent Cooperative Preschool Program.

And I realize not amendment six, but we're jumping in here this morning because we have an emergency ask of the FEP committee.

We submitted a packet of information via email last night with lots of information.

But we're here to ask for one-time emergency funding from the FET levy for Seattle Colleges Parent Education and Cooperative Preschools to cover the cost of our program for winter and spring quarters 2027.

It's a long and complicated saga, but despite frantic efforts from January through June of this year, the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges no longer recognizes parenting as a vocation.

And as such, on July 1st, stop allocating any money to our community and technical colleges for our program.

North and South don't have extra funds to cover the costs.

We've fundraised and scraped together enough for fall quarter.

But we really need some support for winter and spring.

And thank you, Jen.

You can also send in your comments.

Addie Canadi, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

My name is Adi Kennedy.

I'm a parent educator and instructor at North Seattle College Cooperative Preschool Program.

It's an affordable multi-generational program that's been quietly working in our community for over 70 years.

As you know, the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges defunded parent education.

And over 2,000 parents and their children in Seattle will lose access to this program in January of 2027.

How this unfolded and what it's been done to save the program to date has been shared with you in an email.

Despite the news media and reporting and widespread community support, we were not successful in restoring funding through the state board.

We're asking for your help in a short-term solution while we plan and ensure this program is available to Seattle families for generations to come.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, AB.

Um, Sandy Shetler, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

Hi, this is Sandy Shetler, D6 resident in support of amendment six.

You're used to hearing me talk about treats, but I was previously the volunteer coordinator at Seattle Public Schools tops KH.

Many of our students faced food insecurity.

Our community organized food backpacks over winter break because we knew some students wouldn't have enough to eat when school was closed.

I remember chaperoning a fourth grade field trip on a Monday when one student quietly asked if she could have one of the snacks before the scheduled snack break.

She told me the only thing she'd eaten all day Sunday was a pop tart.

The district helps during summer break, but weekends and shorter school breaks are a gap.

School counselors know which children are going hungry.

Public dollars are limited, as Joaquin just said.

We can't do everything, so let's help the children who need it most rather than providing the same benefit to families who can already afford it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

We have a Parna Bard.

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

Hi, good morning, council members.

My name is Aparna, and I'm the early education strategy manager at Goy Stuff Tomorrow.

Every day, our teams of Somali and East African families and home-based child care providers across King County.

So home visiting, early literacy, and provider support.

We focus on the critical both to five years.

But 90% of the brain development occurs.

Thank you to the council for commitment to equity, transparency, and early learning, and to chair of amendment 14.

But it's like we ask you to strengthen it by requiring open competitive grant processes beginning in 2027 for homeless child care program, family child care mentorship program, and developmental bridge training program.

This small change will give trusted Coltira V Dispensive Community Organization the opportunity to compete and better serve Seattle children and families.

Thank you for your leadership and concentration.

Thank you, Aparna.

We have Anita Adams, please press star six and you may begin.

Anita, if you're there, please press star six and you can oh, I think you're on.

Yes, I'm here.

Welcome.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Anita Adams, and I urge you to support amendment number six.

As a retired social service professional and former Garfield High School PTSA board member, I have seen what firsthand what one size fits all support can do.

It can spread limited resources too broadly, create waste, and fail to close the gaps SEP was created to address.

I recently heard a radio discussion about universal food access, in which one child receiving support at a park was accompanied by her nanny.

I did not question this child's right to eat, of course, but coming from a large family, I immediately remembered my own hunger during school breaks.

What this difference, what is the difference between equality and equity.

We've all seen the images of the fence where the person is trying to look over.

Equality gives everyone the same support.

Equity examines who is carrying the greatest burden.

Thank you, Anita.

Please do send in the remainder of your comments.

Sorry, we were not able to fit in your full testimony.

Suzanne Cabrera, if you're there, please press star six and you may begin.

Good morning.

My name is Suzanne Cabrera.

I am a grandmother, mother that lives in Seattle area, and I ask that you vote no to amendment six.

We're all seeing the rising cost in food.

Um children are suffering today.

Um let's not black block the access to food for our kids.

Please vote no.

We all know that children do better when not hungry, both behaviorally and academically.

Again, I ask that you vote no on this amendment.

All children is a thank you, Suzanne.

Cynthia Green.

If you're there, press star six and then we'll come back in person.

Cynthia.

Cynthia, please press star six to unmute.

Cynthia, we'll come back to you.

We'll go to Cade Ni Ray Tippon.

Tipton.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Cade.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Kate N.

Ray Tipton, and I'm a co-chair and parent at Pollitos Cooperative Preschool in Espanol at North Seattle College, the monolingual Spanish Immersion Co-op.

I'm here today to ask you to consider the amendment put forward to provide bridge funding for the parent education program through the winter and spring quarters of 2027.

It's about much more than keeping preschool classrooms open.

Bridge funding would preserve experienced educators' jobs, provide stability for cooperative preschools that families rely on, and ensure parents and caregivers can continue receiving evidence-based parent education during some of the most important years of a child development.

Without the bridge, uh programs that have served Seattle families for decades, face unnecessary disruption, even as long-term funding solutions continue to be explored by the state.

Parent education strengths children, support caregivers, and build connected communities.

A relatively small investment today can preserve a model that benefits families across Seattle for years to come.

Take for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Kate.

All right, we'll go back in person and then I'll come back to the online, the remainder of the online folks.

We have Sueila followed by Menziba Hassetti, followed by Maiteo Dahlstrom.

Welcome, you may begin.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Sueda Abdi, and I'm a health coordinator with Voices of Tomorrow.

Two weeks ago, I spoke in support of amending the developmental bridge language to allow qualified community-based hubs to participate in service delivery.

Today I want to thank the council for listening to the concerns raised by families, providers, and community partners.

Since my last testimony, I was encouraged to see Chair Rivera introduce amendment 14, and I'm happy to see that takes important steps towards promoting equity in the language.

Trusted community organizations are often the first place families turn because they provide culturally responsive trauma-informed support, speak the families' languages, and have established relationships within the communities they serve.

Thank you, Suela Menziba Hassetti, followed by Maite Dalstrom, followed by Ken Negwi.

Menziba.

Okay.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Good morning.

How's everyone?

It's a lot today.

Thank you.

I just want to say thank you.

Thank you for your leadership and for the thoughtful work that has gone into this levy.

I know it's not easy to have competing priorities and just go through this process, but I commend your courage.

Back home, when we say a child is gifted, it means that no one gave that one to them.

Yeah, they were born that way.

Those gifts become a part of that their identity, and that's the thing that makes them them and nobody else.

We're all born differently, and each of us is unique in our own way.

The same is true of our community organizations.

Each has its own expertise and each shines differently.

The communities that chose them recognize and value that expertise.

Recognizing this, I'm asking for your support in strengthening the language for amendment 14 by ensuring the developmental bridge, homeless uh homeless child care and family child care mentorship programs move to an open competitive procurement process beginning in 2027.

When we create space for those differences to be recognized, everyone benefits.

Children and families gain access to organizations that reflect their languages, cultures, and lived experiences and approaches to service.

Our nonprofit network is stronger when organizations are able to contribute the unique.

Thank you, Menziba.

Thank you so much.

Uh Mateo Dolstrom, followed by Kin, followed by C.

Lee Sanchez.

Mateo.

Hello.

Uh I'm an elementary teacher with Seattle Public Schools.

Uh I understand that this amendment comes from a sincere effort to help children while making difficult budget decisions.

I don't dispute that.

However, I want to share what I've experienced firsthand.

I've taught at schools with universal free meals, and I've taught at schools without them.

There is a real difference.

That's why I feel such urgency.

I'm going to ask that you please do not approve the amendment.

Thank you.

Mateo Ken, welcome.

Sorry.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Kin, and I serve as a family sports specialist as Voices of Tomorrow.

I'm here today on behalf of the parents, children, and child care providers I work with every day.

I walk alongside families of three and four-year-olds as they prepare to enroll their child in our ECAP program, which provides high-quality early learning, child care, and kindergarten readiness support.

Through our home-based uh family childcare network, I often have the privilege of supporting the families and children until they age out of our program.

Um I encourage you to enhance amendment 14 to include directly awarded programs such as homelessness, homeless child care, family child care mentorship, and developmental bridge.

A fair and transparent competitive process help ensure that public investment support the highest quality, culturally responsive care while creating equitable opportunities for community-based provider all around Seattle.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ken Seely Sanchez.

Welcome to the good morning, Councilmembers.

My name is Salie, and I work as a health coordinator at Voices of Tomorrow.

First, I wanted to start with a thank you to the entire city council for taking on this levy initiative.

My day-to-day work is driven by data collection and analysis, health outcomes, and the real needs of the families we serve.

Every day I am on the ground tracking developmental progress, keeping up with health and safety compliances and connecting providers and parents to the best care available.

Because I work so closely with these services, I am testifying today to strengthen amendment 14.

Thank you, Chair Rivera, for setting for setting up to the three-year rebitting cycles.

It is a huge steps towards real community inclusion and an involvement.

But because of the way it is currently written, it only applies to investments that already have competitive bids, which leaves out programs that started as direct awards like homeless child care, family child care, mentorship, and developmental program starting in 2027.

Opening these programs up to a fair competitive process provides gives all of our local community organizations a chance to show what they can do, and the small change in language would open the door for future.

Thank you, Seely.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're going back online with Cynthia Green.

If you're there, will you uh please press star six to unmute and you may begin?

I think I hear you, Cynthia.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Madam Chair and Council.

I'm glad to be here this morning.

I would like to have share rather two of my opinion.

First of all, I am in favor of all key because food is a basically number two.

I'm against mean testing.

And the reason being that as the advocate for the kinship community and also a kinship caregiver, we had two means care in order to get the small TANF help care for the children.

Many of the family did not trust the system.

So they would not apply for the TANF.

Instead, they chose to go without.

So my main concern about means testing is that I can possibly once again history repeating itself.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Cynthia.

We are gonna go to Nora Kenworthy.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Hello, this is Nora Kenri.

I want to thank the council for taking this up and encourage them to vote against amendment six.

I'm a PTO from the 46th district.

I'm a public health expert, and I'm the parent of a child at McDonald's International School, where many of our families are in need of free meals and not currently getting them due to concerns about their immigration status or the means testing rules.

The benefits of a universal school meals are unequivocally good for our communities for all families, regardless of income levels.

They improve food security, nutrition, educational performance, and test scores, reduce stigma, and even improve obesity.

The economic benefits of these investments are undeniable.

For every dollar that we spend on universal school meals, we see $2 in health and economic benefits.

And these benefits hold true for higher income students in free school meal programs as well as lower income counterparts.

I would love to see the Seattle Police Department see such uh show such returns on the dollars sent.

Um I can't believe that we're facing an either-or choice here, but uh thank you, Nora.

You're welcome to submit the remainder of your um uh comments uh online.

We're gonna go to Siobhan Hicklin.

Please press star six to unmute and you may begin.

Siobhan, please press star six to begin.

There you are.

Hi there, thank you so much.

My name is Siobhan Hicklin.

Um I am a taxpayer um in Washington, and I um a hundred percent um support expanding access to free school meals because no child should ever have to learn while hungry.

Nutritious meals and um improve a student's ability to focus and participate in school, and they can ease financial pressures like on families.

I have personal experience being about hungry um kid in class, unable to focus in school because the only thing I could like really focus on was how empty my stomach was.

And regardless of circumstance, no child should ever feel like close belly pains.

As the city makes this investment, I really encourage the council to establish clear measures of success beyond the measures of um meals served.

I'd also like to see uh equal attention given to literacy outcomes.

A food helps uh students arrive um ready to learn, but reading proficiency is one of the strongest predictors of long-term academic um success.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Siobhan.

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

Jennifer, if you're there, please press star six to begin.

Jennifer, we'll come back to you.

We're gonna go to Adriana Gorski, please press star six to unmute and begin.

Uh there you are.

Good morning, Seattle City Count Council.

Um, I have worked five years as a co-op teacher in Politos Cooperativo Prescolar en España.

I am asking you all to consider making an investment to fund the gap needed for co-op preschools to have parent educators.

They are key professionals who connect families to resources that will help children thrive, such as diagnostics, therapies.

Early interventions are key for our students to be ready for kindergarten.

Parent educators are akin to our elders.

They have a wealth of experience needed to help our children and families thrive.

I myself have had had my child in uh a co-op preschool and have seen the impact of parent educator, not only in helping kids be ready for kindergarten, but also helping with uh helping parents find rent assistance um and connecting them.

Thank you.

Um, Elbiana, if if you want to um email the rest of your public comment, um you can do so.

Um David Haynes, press star six to unmute, and you may begin.

Jennifer Godfrey is on and unmuted now.

Oh, Jennifer, welcome.

David will come back to you in a sec.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Um I support the free universal meals uh and the current version of amendment six to the FEPP levy implementation plan.

And I would please include undocumented children by helping with food assistance during weekends and school breaks.

Amendment six moves resources to students with the greatest need while providing uh universal school meals uh appropriate.

Uh all just all kids deserve to eat lunch.

I was one of the kids who received subsidized lunches in elementary school.

It was extremely hard to focus in class when there was nothing to eat before or after school while growing.

I would fill up from Hallway Water Fountain as much as possible to just get my stomach to stop growling to get through class uh until lunchtime.

So it was even harder to getting in trouble for not focusing when the cause was not immediately obvious.

Um help provide some and hope.

So by directing resources to families experiencing the greatest need while preserving the FAPP levy, amendment six supports students.

Um so thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer David Haynes, your next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Hi, thank you.

This is an education levy that's supposed to improve education for all, not a race war capitulating to devil's advocates created by Jenny Durkin and the BIPOC City Council sponsors of amendment six perverting the investments based on some ignorant past.

We need more transparency about the levy that redirects over a quarter billion dollars to up to five hundred and over five hundred million dollars away from well that's non-educational.

And we need to call out community passageways and all the people that show up playing the race card while they're running interference for felons who were undermining the youth and then misconstruing what constitutes a youth.

Run an interference for adults, and acting like they got a weaponize and growl beat and bully the city council regularly coming down the council meeting and shaking down the budget and undermining the efforts of the youth, acting like they're doing them a big running interference form, keeping felons out of jail.

Thank you, David.

Uh Christine uh Cromar is next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Kristen, if you're there, please press star six to unmute.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Welcome.

Okay.

Hi, my name's Kristen Cromar.

I am a parent of um two beautiful daughters, and they are in the um eight A Spanish preschool.

And I am just calling to tell about our experience as working parents with our children in this parent education program that's at risk of losing funding.

I am a nurse at Harbor View Medical Center, and my husband is an engineer at King County.

Um these have been the hardest years of our lives for sure.

Um the parent education program has offered us amazing education on how to handle our children, how to make them prosper.

Um it has also offered us a community of people that have supported us through these difficult but wonderful years.

It has made us better workers at work and it has made us better parents.

Um and I just hope that you can see the value in that for families, but also for our community at large.

Um, I believe that this program makes us better community members and it will make us grow better community members and our children.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Kristen.

Lady Scribe, you're next.

Please press star six and you may begin.

Lady Scribe, if you're there, please press star six to begin.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Welcome.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Council Members.

My name is Lady Scribe with the Seattle Sound Music Awards Family Foundation, and I'm here today in support of Amendment Six.

Seattle voters approve this levy with a clear purpose to invest in our children.

Strengthen our public schools and support the communities that need these resources most.

Now make this a race war or pit districts against districts.

Today's discussion should remain grounded in honoring the will of the people who cast those votes and the original intent they approved.

Please stop creating more division, people.

I beg you.

It's about keeping faith with the public and ensuring that our most vulnerable constituents and all of our children facing food insecurity, housing instability, learning barriers, and families struggling to meet and receive the support they were promised.

I urge you to support amendment six because it protects the integrity of the voters' decisions and keeps the focus where it belongs on our students' success, educational opportunity, and the well-being of Seattle's children with all the wealth in Seattle.

Why take allocated dollars away from the very people it was created for?

Please honor the people's vote.

Our scholars need to be supported.

Thank you, Lady Scribe.

Um, please uh go ahead and email any remainder of your public testimony.

There's a handful of people that signed up online and don't look to be present, so I'm just gonna say their names.

If you intended to give public comment, please um send us your public comments.

Uh Tanya Hino, Yamila Sterling, Belinda Dunbar, Jose Jose Nino Rivera, Kathleen Carson, and then we have one more in person.

Um Aiden Kierell.

You can step up.

Yep.

Sorry, I'm at my phone.

No worries.

I see you were online and now you're in person.

Terrific.

Hi.

Welcome, and you may begin.

I am a paraprofessional substitute in Seattle Schools.

And I've worked in places like Mini, where everybody gets free meal.

Worked in places like Green Lake where they didn't used to, and now they do.

I've I've worked in in Roosevelt, where, despite being a more affluent school, there is still a food pantry.

The North End is more than just Magnolia and Queen Anne.

There's a lot of poor kids in Northgate in Lake City in Broadview.

But also, if it was possible to just fund meals for the kids who who need it and not leave anybody out, that would be one thing, but there's not a way to do that with these kinds of systems.

There are people who who need it who get missed because of the layers of barriers.

This should not be a matter of weak versus everyone.

Like we have the money from the cops, from the cameras.

You could save a lot of money from the United Care team by putting two to four sanctioned camps in every council district, for example.

Thank you, Aidan.

Looks like we might have one more person.

Jacob, come on up.

Valecki.

Welcome.

You can begin.

Sorry, I didn't have any prepared words.

Thank you and to the council.

Good morning again.

And I'm sorry, I've been saying uh vice chair rink.

Has it been vice chair Hollandsworth this whole time?

Yes.

I'm really sorry about that.

Um again.

Okay.

Totally.

Well, thank you again for uh the whole council um and the the many amendments that have uh come in.

Uh Councilmember Lynn, Councilmember Rink, uh, Council members Saka and Hollinsworth to support our family child care providers, home and center-based.

Um the one thing that has been kind of being brought up is the competitive betting cycles, and we are in support of Amendment 14 with the inclusion of one more caveat, and that's that the programs that have already been directly awarded, have an open competitive process uh in this coming year.

Uh that way we are able to bring in inclusive community-based organizations and as well as universal child meals, and we are in support, though one million dollars was taken away from early child uh early learning funds, but anything to feed the kids.

Thank you, Jacob.

All right.

Is there anyone else that didn't sign up for public comment here in chambers that would like to give public comment still?

Going once, going twice.

All right.

Well, then I just um wanna thank everyone who showed up today, either in person or online to give public comment on this really important families education preschool promise levy implementation and evaluation plan.

It is really clear that we all care about children in this room.

Um that is undeniable.

We share that in common.

And I really appreciate, and I'm just gonna say this the care and the respect that you showed everyone who came to speak and everyone on this day is because we are more united um than we are not.

Um, and sometimes we may disagree on how to get there, but we all agree that we absolutely love all our kids in this city, every single one of them, and we're all trying to do the best um for them as best we can given the circumstances.

So I wanted to say that.

I want to thank you for being here.

Um, and we will now go on to the next portion of our meeting.

All right, there are no additional registered speakers.

A public comment period is now closed, so we'll now proceed to our item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, an ordinance relating to the 2025 Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy.

Approving an implementation and evaluation plan as required by ordinance one two seven two three eight, ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you, clerk.

Colleagues, again, thank you for your continued participation in the select committee on the FEP INE.

As you know, for 35 years since the 1990s, the FEP levy has been benefiting kids and directly supporting their educational achievement.

Seattle voters have consistently and overwhelmingly voted to invest in high-quality early learning programs that set up children for a lifetime of success to provide our K-12 students with the academic and physical and mental health supports they need to strive, and to pave the way to a bright future by providing universal access to a two-year college degree or a path to the trades with the amazing Seattle Promise program.

This implementation and evaluation plan is really phase two of the FEP levy.

Phase one was the passage of the levy, which included telling voters what investments would be funded.

If phase one is the frame of the House, phase two is the drywall and the paint.

I want to acknowledge former Deputy Mayor Tiffany Washington and the Mayor Bruce Harrell administration who worked with me and the Department of Education and Early Learning to build that frame, which I am grateful that council supported.

All of the amendments now in the INE were outlined in the 2026 levy by design.

I'm sorry, all of the investments in the INE plan were outlined in the 2026 levy by design.

And that is because since it is a levy that goes to the voters, we need to tell voters what we're investing in when they take that vote.

And then we have to fulfill our commitment to the voters when we put together an implementation and evaluation plan.

Today is the final and very important step in the FEP levy process for this select committee.

After we have our final vote today, I'll have a few more words to say, but I want to go ahead and get started with the votes.

I move, colleagues, that the select committee recommends passage of council bill 121240.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of council bill 121240.

The committee will now begin discussion on the proposed chair's package as presented on the agenda.

We have our council, our trustee council central staff here, Jasmine and Tracy.

Please state your name for the record, and you can review the chair's package.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

Jasmine Marwaha, Council Central Staff.

And Tracy Ratzliff, Council Central Staff.

I will kick us off unless you have a few more entry words or I do, Tracy.

I'm sorry.

Madam Chair on my script here.

Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry.

What was that?

Madam Chair.

Oh, Juarez, Councilmember Horace, sorry.

Yes, that's okay.

I recognize I apologize.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for not being able to be there in person.

Um, I just wanted to share, and I I learned from the clerks and from your staff that I needed to put on the record that I am a co-sponsor of item of um amendment number four and amendment number six.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

So noted, um, and when we get there, we'll make sure that that is in there as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Umleagues, I just want to say a few remarks about the chair's package before we go on to central staff.

I want to um uh the items contained therein were initially proposed and discussed at our select committee on July 8th.

Um, and as and there is also a technical amendment that's included in the package.

The plan is to vote on all these items as a consent package.

Central staff will provide us with an overview of the items in the chair's package that have been uh revised since the July 8th meeting.

After central staff's overview, I'll ask members if they would like to remove an item from the package.

This disc request does not require a second or a reason why the request is being made.

If an item is removed, it will be considered after the vote on the chairs package and in numerical order.

Before voting on the chairs package, members will have an opportunity to speak to their amendments included in the package.

I'll make sure that I turn to the folks that put amendments in, my coach, my uh colleagues that put amendments in.

Um, I will say, colleagues, generally speaking, that um the amendments that were included in the chair's package had based on our discussion at the prior select committee and um some conversations that I had one-on-one with many of you.

Um I uh worked with central staff to include these things in the package because I thought they enjoyed broad broad support.

But again, if you would like to remove uh a one from the chair's package, we we can do so and vote on them separately.

Okay, at this point I'll recognize central staff to review the chair's package.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I think I'll start us off.

Um, so nine of the amendments um that are in the chair's package uh that we just that were discussed at the uh July 8th committee meeting.

The majority of the changes I will walk through have to do with changing the page numbers to align with the substitute bill that we now have in front of us, which is not what we had in front of us in July in July when we had just the introduced version.

So it is strictly changing those page numbers to align with the new substitute bill.

It also may add uh co-sponsors.

So there, and then there are two of the uh amendments that actually have some subdued changes that we'll discuss.

And then there are five new amendments uh that have not yet been discussed that we will uh walk through as well.

So moving to amendment number one version two.

So this is the um amendment that would uh call for the formation of an interdepartmental team for the FEP levy coordination.

And the change here that is made is just that it makes it clear that deal would be the lead on that IDT.

All right.

And amendment two version two is only updated to reflect um the new page numbers where the tables and graphics could be found based on the substitute version that was approved by the select committee on July 8th.

Um so all amendments include updated page numbers, but this had to be version two just because of the page numbers.

And as I scroll down, amendment three version two is updated um for the page numbers as well as to reflect um additional co-sponsors.

And here we will note that um the first council member listed among the list of co-sponsors is the prime sponsor, and that continues throughout the um uh the other amendments as well.

Amendment five, version two would update the new page numbers um after adoption of the substitute.

And this is the amendment that has to do with collaboration between deal and superintendent of Seattle Public Schools and Charter Schools.

Amendment seven and version two uh would update uh and reflect the addition of council member foster as a co-sponsor as well as uh correcting the page number updates, and this is the uh amendment that had to do with uh restorative practice coordinators uh in elementary schools being able to be part-time.

Amendment eight version two uh was updated to reflect the co-sponsorships as well as to simplify the report back requirement and to remove the language that conditioned funding upon the school safety programs uh report back.

Amendment nine um was all was updated to reflect the addition of councilmember Saka's co-sponsor and also includes page number updates.

Amendment 10 version two would um uh be updated to reflect additional co-sponsors as well as correcting uh page numbers.

Uh amendment 11 is um similarly just for page numbers.

Moving on to the new amendments that have not yet been discussed.

Uh uh amendment 12 version one.

This is a new amendment that's sponsored by um council member Rivera that would add the Red Barn Ranch as a potential location for the Seattle Parks Recreations Environmental Learning Programs.

Amendment 13, also a new amendment, version one, uh sponsored by Councilmember uh Rivera would clarify that the Path to Trades non-colleges program is intended to support public school students in Seattle entering trades training programs, and this changes um being done to be consistent with the Seattle Promise Path to Trades program eligibility requirements.

Moving on to amendment 14.

This new amendment, sponsored by uh Chair Rivera would state that the uh all FEP investments awarded by competitive process will be rebid in a two to three year uh cycle.

All right, amendment um 15 is a new amendment sponsored by council member foster that would modify the eligibility for Seattle Fire and Police Department career programs by giving additional consideration to students with household incomes at or below 80 percent of area meeting income.

In addition, it directs Seattle Police Department to recruit diverse groups of students and families for outreach events for the SPD career programs, and finally, amendment 16 is a new amendment sponsored by Chair Rivera that would make technical corrections to the plan for clarity and consistency.

I believe that that concludes the chair's package presentation.

Great.

Thank you, Central Staff, Tracy and Jasmine for reviewing that.

Let me get to my script here.

All right.

Um colleagues, are there any items that council member would like to remove from the chair's package before we take a vote?

Chair, um, can we remove 13 and 14?

Uh we can move 13 and 14.

All right.

Any others.

All right.

Oh, councilmember Saka, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um question first.

Can we talk a little bit more about the iterative changes that were made to proposed amendment number eight?

Uh I have previously expressed concerns about the proviso or effective proviso or quasi proviso in that provision.

Um that would uh that went beyond the a mere reporting obligation.

Um from our uh Seattle Transit measure conversations yesterday.

I know some some of us don't like uh and went into a threshold of requiring express and explicit council authorization um after any report is delivered.

Can you talk more about those those uh iterative changes that were made to that specific amendment?

Um sure.

So the um the previous amendment had um uh had said that the um additional school safety programs uh restorative practices, opportunity-based mentoring in the HSD school safety bucket um would um uh would have their funding conditioned upon a report back um after school year 2627 and before contract renewals.

Um this removes that sort of effective quasi proviso as you mentioned, um, so that it is simply requiring a report back um to the city in 2027 um prior to um competitive funding processes or contract renewals, but it is not condition funding upon that report back.

Thank you for the clarity.

Um more further questions, comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Anyone else, colleagues?

All right, then we're gonna go to a vote on the chair's package.

One second while I find my place on my script.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Councilmember Rivera.

Uh Councilmember uh Foster, you were recognized.

I apologize.

I don't have anything to pull, I just wanted to speak to one of my amendments since it was new since the last time we're gonna do that.

Oh, apologies.

No, that said we would do that.

Apologies.

Is if anyone, I'm not gonna call on you individually, but if you would like to speak to an amendment that was included in the chair's package, you may, and we'll start with council member Foster.

Uh thank you so much, Chair Rivera, uh, and thank you, colleagues.

I just wanted to highlight for you amendment 15 um and appreciate central staff for this.

This is a change that uh prioritizes students with area median income or of 80 percent and below uh so they have additional consideration in selection when it comes to the public service career eligibility programs.

Um, from my vantage point, this was an important ad to make sure again that we are um prioritizing recruitment of um lower income students when it comes to these uh public service careers that uh tend to be high quality, good paying jobs.

So colleagues just wanted to highlight this because this was a new amendment.

Um and thank you, Chair, for including this in the package, and I ask for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster colleagues.

Anyone else want to speak to any of the their amendment that might appear in the chair's package council member rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

Um, I simply wanted to voice my appreciation to you for including my amendments in the chair's package.

Um greatly appreciate the collaboration with your office wanted to just express my appreciation for that.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Anyone else, colleagues?

Okay.

Then amendments 13 and 14 have been removed and will be addressed separately.

I move to adopt the chair's package excluding amendments 13 and 14.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the chair's package, excluding amendments 13 and 14.

Since we have already had council members briefly speak to their amendments contained in the chair's package, I will ask the clerk now to call the roll on the chair's package, excluding amendments 13 and 14.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye, Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor, zero opposed.

The Chair's package excluding excluding amendments 13 and 14 are adopted and will be incorporated in the bill.

We will now move on to the votes on amendments that were removed from the chair's package and the additional individual amendments that were not included in the chair's package.

All right.

Um council.

Okay, so amendment 13 was mine.

So I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment 13.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment 13.

Um central staff has provided an overview already, so I will go ahead and address the amendment.

Basically, this is a technical, I consider this a technical amendment because both the prior administration, mayor or administration, this current may uh mayoral administration and the department and I, when we um added the third arm, which I will talk about later in my remarks to the promise program, it was to include another path for the promised students to do a trades program that would not be at the colleges, um uh, but that would give opportunity for uh an apprenticeship at a Washington State accredited education.

When this got put into the INE, somehow this did not meet um the requirements of the underlying levy and the intent, um, and so it was always to match the Seattle Promise program's path to trades, but just at a state accredited school or uh apprenticeship program rather than at the colleges.

So that in essence, what I'm trying to say is the intent of this was always to have we have the promise program for high schoolers in Seattle for public schoolers and charter schools in Seattle.

They could either go to the Seattle promise, a two-year um uh um a two-year associate's degree, or they could do the Seattle's path to trades for a certificate, or now this is the third opportunity, which is they could go straight to the accredited um uh uh trades program uh at a state accredited uh uh institution.

And so this level sets what we always intended and talked about, which is to match it to the Path to Trades Seattle Promise Program.

So this is a cleanup and I'm happy to take any questions.

Go ahead, Councilmember Lynn.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I just um that was helpful.

Could you uh clarify the deletion of the up to H24?

The um purpose of that.

That was something that was picked up.

I um I think this was transferred over from some language HSD had, and so I don't know it was included there, but when I spoke to the, I mean, again, I spoke to the mayor's this I regret not having caught this sooner when I ran through the INE, but when I talked to the mayor's office and the department, um you know, we all agreed that the language should reflect what we already do for the promise programs at the colleges.

It was just another opportunity, which was really something I put in, that's why I know about it the most.

Path to trades non colleges was my big baby, which we'll talk about later.

I'll talk about more later.

But thank you for the questions.

I know it seems odd.

It was odd to me too when I read it into central staff, but we cleaned it up, and that's what that's about.

But I'm glad you you asked so it gave an opportunity for me to say what this was to begin with.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Um council member Kettle.

Chair, thank you.

I just wanted, you know, we've had lots of discussions regarding the trades and ensuring that those options are available and robust uh across the board.

And you know, we had discussions about what to include, and you rightly kept it tight here in the in the in the writing.

Um so thank you for that.

And if possible, I'd like to be a co-sponsor.

Of course.

Council member uh Kettle, you've always been really supportive of the trades as both our parents, both our dads um uh were in the trades, and so this is something that I know is as dear to your heart as it is mine.

So thank you for the co-sponsorship.

All right, colleagues, then let's go to a vote on this amendment.

All right.

Uh will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment 13.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye, Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn, yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

And I also should have said, colleagues, our labor partners.

I I um I didn't list them as uh a collaborator when I was putting this together, and I should have said that.

So wanted to make sure I said that now.

Okay.

The motion carries an amendment 13 is adopted.

So let us go now.

The second one, uh, amendment number 14 is my amendment as well.

Um central staff spoke to it, so I guess now I will speak to it as well.

So you need to move.

You need to move it.

Oh, I need to move it.

Thank you, clerk.

Um I move to amend the bill as presented on amendment 14.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to address amendment 14.

I will go ahead and speak to it.

Um colleagues, basically, I heard I heard um feedback from folks about this um competitive processes.

So in the levy itself, it talks about the fact that we need to do things via competitive processes processes.

And I think when the INE was put together, um, our friends at DEAL didn't call out that the cycles of which they would do RFP processes, because I think in their minds they already do that, and so they didn't it it was just uh uh inadvertent uh inadvertently they didn't call it out.

So I want to make sure that we were addressing some um uh concerns from external folks.

I wanted to make sure that it was very clear that they are gonna be doing RFP processes every two to three years, as is the standard practice for RFP processes, not just across the city, but across the country, really.

So this was just uh clear to clarify that the department will be doing competitive processes on this two to three year cycle.

And it's two two to three because we have this first year is a transition year, and that's why it shows up as a two to three, depending on when they actually do the RFP process, if that makes sense.

Happy to take any questions, Councilmember Lynn.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um just want to make sure I understand because I heard some public comment about you know, certain um things were already on this two to three year cycle, but maybe others weren't.

Um could you just kind of clarify the intent there and or any feedback you might have heard from Deal or Yeah.

Happy to, Councilmember Lynn.

Most people don't know everything the city does really has to be by competitive processes.

There is um a Seattle municipal code allowance for a direct contra uh contract.

Um and it's very clearly uh delineated in the SMC, it has to meet the SMC requirement to be a direct contract.

And usually it's for something that only that organization can provide.

Um, and otherwise it has to be competitive processes.

So what I'm trying to say is in the SMC there's some allowances is very clearly delineated what they are.

Um that is the only way that departments can do um non-competitive processes, otherwise they have to do everything via competitive processes.

And then um I think it's important, and I should mention for this particular levy, for the last levy, some of the investments were done.

Um there was one competitive process at the beginning, and most and then most organizations were awarded for the life of the levy, and we wanted to make sure that we weren't doing that this time to allow opportunity for other folks that wanted to apply, you know, for a future RFP if they didn't weren't successful in the first RFP or if they weren't around during the first RFP and there was some new organization providing some great tutoring, for instance, or I don't know, something that this levy supports, um, that they would have opportunity there to be at the mid-year of the six-year levy, an opportunity for groups to reapply.

Um and that doesn't mean if the groups that were already getting funded in the first RFP could reapply for the second RFP, um, but it really just gives opportunity to other groups that would want to apply at the mid-year.

And in the last levy, that was not allowable, which is why I understand when some groups came to chambers to talk about the RFP processes and the concerns about the RFP processes.

So I wanted to make it very clear that the department will do an RFP process at the mid-year as well to give folks opportunity to um apply.

And I hope I I I answered that.

Um I articulated that well enough for you to understand what I meant, Councilmember Lynn.

Yeah.

Thank thank you so much.

And um just briefly, I mean I think it makes a lot of sense to um, you know, that we have these RFP processes and and that it is a long levy and um so sort of a mid-levee cycle, it sounds like um I mean I I uh I think there's um you know a lot a lot of work that goes into bidding for an RFP, and I also think that um organizations need to do long-range planning.

So I think there's always a balance between sort of that need for long-range planning.

sense to um you know that we have these RFP processes and and that it is a long levy and um so sort of a mid-levey cycle it sounds like um I mean I I uh I think there's um you know a lot a lot of work that goes into bidding for an RFP and I also think that um organizations need to do long range planning so I think there's always a balance between sort of that need for long range planning I think um there's also just a a difficulty of um sort of the timing of those RFPs and how they line up with like school year cycles and or I so I would hope that as this is implemented um that deal works with um our CBOs to uh make sure that they give enough time um as part of the you know it's hard if they issue the RFP or the award and then people are supposed to pivot immediately that creates a lot of turmoil um so I I hope as this is implemented that that they allow for enough um sort of lead time for people to pivot agreed council member Lynn which is why I was it was important to me to include it in the INE so it was very clear on the onset before even all of this gets implemented it was clear to the external community groups what the intent is in terms of the RFP processes and so that they know and so even though the department that was going to be their intent anyway it was important to me that it would the that language this particular language is included in the INE to give everyone um that transparency that level of transparency to to address the very thing you're raising so I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right colleagues are there any uh council member foster thank you so much chair I just wanted to ask a quick question about this it says as I'm looking at it plan competitive processes are outlined in table three and so I I read this to mean that for those processes that are already going to do a competitive process that they can happen no more frequently than two to three year cycles.

I just want to make sure maybe Tracy or Jasmine can make sure I understand this correctly is it um is it ensuring basically that we have a minimum or is it like you have to at that period I so you are correct there's a table that talks about when will the various programs be RFP'd this language is saying there's an intent that it would happen on every two to three year uh period it will require if it is contradictory to what is in the table as the RFP they will have to come back to us either through the budget process or through a separate ordinance to authorize that RFP process but I think the intent is that that generally speaking for those investments that are listed that are funded by the FEP levy that they would try to do it on a two to three year period but they're clearly going to have to come back to us for the ones where we actually have listed what the RFP dates are because you are correct there are some that are listed there and frankly some that are listed in 28 and 29 that you're not gonna see a uh probably another RFP because it's so late in the in the levy uh uh funding uh yeah process yeah council member foster and that thank you tracy this is why it's left on this two to three year term um cycle I will also say and we haven't talked about this part that the departments do yearly contracts even when they award for a two year award or a three year award they still have to do legally um contracts annually and at that point they can reset the terms of the contracts in terms of outcomes whether or not they met those outcomes or things need um uh if they need to require something different in order to help um uh meet the outcomes so you know thank you for that chair and I um and I excuse me I this is important to me and I appreciate that importance to you as well and I'll just say for me because I worked in philanthropy prior and we always made an effort to provide um when we could because we couldn't always just the same way the city can always these longer term grants to give that stability to organizations and then balance that with the need to be able to make changes if we need to because we're trying to get to particular outcomes.

So I I understand this amendment to be saying um you can't like you know no more than two to three or excuse me no fewer than two to three years.

So I will be supporting it today and then chair I'll just follow up with you after to discuss the the nuance here and I appreciate you Council Member Lynn for highlighting this for our attention.

Thank you council member Foster councilmember Strauss you recognize question for central staff sorry if I'm a little dense and this has been asked and answered a number of times what has been and what is our current practice for RFPs I think it is so my understanding is that it varies throughout the city depending on the department for this levy in the past practice in 2018 my understanding is that uh we had uh for school depending on the investment um for school based investments there was one RFP process that lasted for the life of the levy.

Okay.

And so this is a more frequent RFP process.

Yes.

Thank you.

And I will say the reason for that as well is the last levy was seven years.

And when you award one organization for seven years, I understand the stability piece, but then also it didn't give opportunity, and I think you heard that in chambers for other organizations to be able to uh and providers to be able to apply for a future opportunity.

So then it was just that's all and now with a transition year, that means all of those organizations and providers got eight years worth uh of levy funding.

Um, and it didn't give opportunity for other organizations and providers who wanted to apply.

Um maybe they weren't even ready at this go round, but with a future um RFP, they could be.

And here's the thing, and the reality is that particularly in the K through 12 space, we didn't get the outcomes that we wanted to see with the 2018 levy.

That's just a fact.

And so we want to make sure that we have an opportunity, like I said earlier, if there is an offering that wasn't available now when they do the you know, the next year's RFPs, but that would be available at the two or three year mark that that opportunity could be competitive for another round of RFP.

So councilmember Lynn, you're right, it is a balance.

And it doesn't mean that someone who gets um who applies for an RFP now and gets awarded doesn't mean that they would be successful if they have to reapply for an RFP um uh you know in the two to three year mark.

Um but it does mean it gives more opportunity to some other groups um that were either unsuccessful or not ready to apply for the initial RFP.

So it's a balancing act, and that's what this is striking.

But I do know that the it was um deal um the last time based on past practice, this is what makes most sense to do now.

And then we'll keep monitoring it and we will know um and deal will come back to us um when they're uh uh they'll they will keep us updated and informed on the RFP processes as um Tracy has delineated any other um council member foster is that a new hand?

Nope.

Okay, awesome.

All right.

I don't see any other hands, colleagues, so why don't we take a vote?

Um clerk, can you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment 14?

Councilmember Juarez.

Hi.

Councilmember Kettle.

All right, Councilmember Lynn.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Hi.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are nine in favor, zero opposed.

The motion carries an amendment fourteen is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended, colleagues?

There's two more minutes.

And colleagues, I'll say if you have anything to say in general, I think this is a a good spot to do that.

Oh, Tracy?

I think there's two more amendments.

Apologies, apologies.

It said repeat amendment motion.

Council.

Sorry, Councilmember.

Can you say the next amendment?

Sorry.

It would be if you wanted to do a numerical order, it would be amendments four.

Councilmember Foster is the prime and uh amendment six, uh, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

And I can describe the changes that so there are two ver new versions to both of those amendments, and the changes are identical in both bills or in both amendments.

Um, first amendment four.

Should we move to have council member foster move amendment four and then you can speak to it?

Okay, council member foster, you're recognized.

Uh thank you so much, Chair.

I'd like to move amendment for uh version two.

Do I have a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment four.

Um central staff, you're recognized to review it, and then council member foster, I'll recognize you to speak to it.

So I'm gonna speak to the change of Amendment 4 because Jasmine handled it the bulk of it.

The change that is happening in both amendment four and six are identical.

These are the um two amendments that establish a nude a new food assistance program.

In the prior version, we actually have attached the money to an existing program, the housing and homelessness program.

And in the amendment of version two for four and six, we actually establish a new uh program line called the food assistance program.

In addition, um we uh establish separate outcomes and reporting elements as well as service targets for that new program.

Uh we make it clear that it's for students from low-income families to support food purchases over weekends and school breaks, excluding summer.

And that it also authorizes the um Department of Uh Education Early Learning Director to do a direct award of funds as permitted under the original levy or authorizing ordinance.

Uh and the reason for that authority is um there is a CBO uh community-based organization called Alliance for Education.

It already works with Seattle's public schools to provide uh vouchers for uh students for food, and so they want the flexibility of being able to contract with an existing CBO uh for the purposes of efficiency.

And those are the changes to both Amendment 4 and Amendment 6.

Thank you, Tracy.

Councilmember Foster, you are recognized to speak to your amendment four.

Um thank you so much, Chair.

So as I did in the previous committee, I'm gonna speak first to amendment four in terms of the voucher component, and then I will hold my comments uh in terms of our investments in food security for our discussion on amendment six.

Um so colleagues, I want to give you a little bit of background from my perspective, and I believe you received this context from central staff, but um as we all know, we continue to have um significant need in our city for investments into preschool um and a lot of demand for access to the Seattle preschool program.

Um this amendment is uh in uh in its structural change is designed to allow uh additional consideration for deal when it comes to how they might deploy a voucher pilot program.

And um I typically don't read from my emails, but I'm going to do that again today because I want to provide some really important information when it comes to the existing wait list, uh, and that's what this uh amendment would modify in in the structural component as well as where it sends the dollars originally.

So um when it comes to the Seattle preschool program, because the preschool program already prioritizes enrollment based on factors such as housing instability, age and developmental need, income, family structure, and English language learners, children who are on a wait list for SPP classrooms tend to be younger, middle to higher income and or English language speakers.

Um as of March 2026, there were 420 duplicated children, not deduplicated, duplicated children on the wait list for a deal selected SPP site.

That figure is an overestimate of need because children can be on a wait list at multiple sites and in multiple council districts at the same time.

Children can also be on a wait list if they are actively enrolled and participating in an SPP classroom.

So among the 420 children on an uh Seattle Preschool program classroom wait list in March, I just want to provide some information about the that demographic for those 420 children.

Um 46 percent of them or 195 were already being served by another SPP program while waiting to get off the wait list at their preferred location.

34 percent or 143 people declined offers of placement in an SPP classroom.

Uh 20 percent or 82 people did not yet receive a placement offer in an SPP classroom.

And I just want to share a little bit of information about the um the folks who are represented by that 20 percent of the wait list or the 82 people who were waiting.

Um so 60 percent of them were from a household with a state median income of 95 percent or higher.

So those are families that would pay full SPP tuition.

Uh 37 percent are or 30 families were white, 82 percent were from English speaking households, um, all of them were three years old, and 40 percent lived in council district one.

Um there's more information that you all were provided, but the intent of this um it was to ensure that the department has the timeline and the flexibility to design a program that um allows us to direct any dollars for a voucher program uh to ensure that we're reaching again the families who have the the highest need.

So through this amendment where we make changes uh in terms of allowing the department to take under consideration uh items other than just the council district where a wait list family might be located, we give the department flexibility to bring in other criteria and ensure that we are aligned with the rest of the um FEP levy goals and intentions.

So that's the intent behind the the structural changes in this amendment.

And then again, I'll speak to the funding components of it when we speak to amendment six.

Thank you, Council.

Oh, sorry, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, any questions?

Uh Councilmember Lynn, you're recognized.

Um thank you, Chair.

Um and I just want to uh kind of clarify.

So this would um just push back the start date.

Um one year for this uh the voucher pilot.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And then um I know that we're gonna talk about funding later, but I guess uh I kind of want to understand the funding now.

Um so it would redeploy those to the food support program for uh seven years, it looks like.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

It would average out to about 154,000 a year for the six years.

Okay.

And I guess um just want to uh clarify um, I mean, this amendment could be a standalone amendment, sort of regardless of amendment six.

Is that correct?

I mean, do they two have to work together or can they be standalone?

Um they could be um standalone.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Ling.

Councilmember Saka, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, and thank you.

I want to thank council members Foster and Hollingsworth for bringing this forward.

Um appreciate your your steadfast uh leadership and championing of uh the issue, the broader issue of food access and food security.

Really important conversation for us to have now more than ever, giving amidst all the federal cuts, including to early childhood education, by the way.

Um but I support the goal of making sure families have access to nutritious food, no fundamental disagreement or non-alignment on that point from my perspective.

I'm also you know, at a high level supportive of requiring greater oversight and accountability of various programs that the city would implement.

That said, uh I do worry that this amendment unintentionally pits two very worthy community priorities against one another.

Similar to actually amendment six, uh, but there's actually a huge difference with this one.

Uh amendment six, which I also have some concerns with, we'll talk about later.

Um, but I think there's some glaring differences uh between this and that.

Um with this amendment, I believe that we're being forced to choose between implementation of the Seattle preschool promise.

Uh wait lists, the SPP weightless voucher pilot for the coming 26, 27 school year on the one hand, on the other hand, and funding food assistance over weekends and school breaks.

At a high level and grossly oversimplified, we structured the FEP levy so that there's three main buckets.

They're called different things, but for simplicity purposes, three main buckets.

There's early childhood education component, which was my baby chair.

Something that I led on this council and helped champion and I'm proud of.

And I did it because it's an affordability issue, and I did it because I have three kids and two of which are proud graduates of SPP.

I also did it because I know that my district is my council district out of all the seven council districts, is number two in the number of under eight eighteen and under youth, after council district two.

Therefore, my district is more likely to benefit.

And indeed, some of the stats and data show that for at least 40 percent of the wait lists of current district one.

Also did it.

This has been my baby because it's the right thing to do.

It's good policy.

Helps improve affordability when working parents are able to not have to worry about child care for the kids.

They can go to work, pursue economic opportunity, livelihood.

And then, you know, the research we know is clear on on kids who have access to these programs.

Uh formal kind of curriculum-based early childhood education programs.

Their life outcomes are way better than kids who don't.

Sound policy.

So early childhood education on one one of three buckets, K through 12, another bucket, and then post-secondary or really path to trades.

Those three buckets.

So this amendment, why I have concerns with it is because not only does it purport to put two worthy community priorities against another, it does it at the expense of the early childhood education piece.

And unlike amendment six, where those connections, there's actually a direct nexus, food access and security and food access and security when you talk about universal free meals and and you know, meals during breaks.

I think the connection here is too remote, it's too attenuated, it requires one to undertake, you know, a bit too many mental and logical contortions to to figure out you know, like how this ties into and I I I don't I don't think it does tie into uh early childhood education and um my office has worked closely with DEA and HSD to better understand what current service gaps exist through partnerships with agencies like the Backpack Brigade who do utilize the West Seattle Food Bank in my own district uh which by the way I was recently able to tour and and see firsthand the bags of food that they hand out to kids and families before school breaks.

I I believe that much of this need, not all, but much of this need is is already being met.

However, there is obvious more work to do to continue closing those gaps that exist.

This past week in district at Highland Park Playfield, where I was handing out free summer meals to students alongside HSD director Tanya Kim.

Uh the summer meals program is a worthy city investment that we have funded for many years, offering students free meals throughout the summer, no questions asked, funded through a variety of programs.

There obviously remains some service gaps, as I alluded to earlier, and I believe we made great strides to close these gaps.

But I do not believe that passing this amendment warrants the risks and delays implementing a critical uh early childhood education initiative to support K through 12.

These are different stakeholder groups.

And um and delaying this program, risk delaying this program, which deal is ready to do today, and so I appreciate the intent uh of of the amendment authors here.

Um for those reasons, I I won't be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Foster, is that a new hand?

It is.

Okay.

You are recognized.

Uh thank you so much, Chair.

Uh, and thank you for your uh questions and comments uh to Councilmember Lynn and Councilmember Saka.

Um I did just want to kind of quickly clarify something here, which is, you know, and I appreciate your comments, Councilmember Saka, and I look forward to more discussion when we discuss amendment six, but I would be bringing this amendment forward um regardless.

And the reason is as written without this amendment, um, the criteria that are provided are to prioritize the weightless voucher program based on council districts.

Um I take pride in being a citywide council member and knowing that there is need all across our city for access to preschool programs and high quality education.

Um I know I I rattled off those statistics quickly earlier.

Um, but I want to be clear, you know, through allowing only council districts to be the prioritization, we risk making an error in terms of serving families who need the support the most.

Um that's why I shared the stats and the data in in terms of who is on the wait lists, um, and in terms of who we're trying to serve with the FEP levy.

And I appreciate the categorization of the various buckets of ready to learn to ready to launch.

Um, however, it is my belief deeply that through allowing the department additional eligibility criteria, flexibility, um, and allowing them the time to design a thoughtful program, we will implement a program that is going to be more thoughtful, more equitable, and more in line with the values that we have as a city and more in line with the goals of the FEP levy.

That's why I'm bringing this amendment forward.

Um I'm proud, and um, and I think it's incredibly important that as we give the department more time to develop the program, we direct those resources to families who need that support today.

Um, Councilmember Lynn, I appreciate your question about the connection between amendment four and amendment six.

So I will speak to it now, even though I said I wasn't.

Um what we would do with this amendment as we would if it if four were to pass, is it does provide this additional resource that's targeted towards kids who have food access needs.

Um and it would provide that additional resource.

My hope is that coupled with amendment six, uh, and that's because together we would have over six hundred thousand additional dollars going to our lowest income kids for weekends and school breaks.

If solely amendment four passed council central staff already provided that number, it's around 100,000 additional dollars.

Um and I'll say this again when we get later, that's important to me because right now the city's investment in schools or excuse me in school age children for weekends and um school breaks is around 537,000 annually.

So with amendment four and amendment six together, we have the ability to double the investment that we are providing to kids during these breaks, and I think that's an incredibly important priority.

So just to be clear, I'd be bringing this amendment forward regardless because I believe it's the equitable thing to do so that as we make the investments in a potential preschool excuse me, Seattle Preschool Program voucher pilot over the lifetime of the levy, we make those investments equitably.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Um Council Member uh Saka, is that a new hand?

Okay, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh appreciate your comments, Councilmember Foster, and and you know, I I don't question at all your your motives or intents uh and the basis for you bringing this forward.

I think it's just a uh a matter of different perspectives, respect the fact that you you uh represent citywide perspectives, and just as I know you respect the fact that I represent district perspectives, and if the and if all the amendment did was modify the criteria to make it less sort of district centric, which is I I heard you say is a is is one of the main rationales.

Um I would absolutely be open to that conversation.

Heck, depending on the wording, uh in fact the the the relevant wording in this amendment, I'd probably support it if that's all it did.

But it but it that's not all it does.

It it also again uh it does that at the expense um not only modifying the criteria, but does it does it at the expense of diluting, in my view, in my view, does that at the expense of diluting and delaying uh a vital early childhood education program in favor of you know expanding K through 12 investments specifically as it pertains to food security today, and I I don't think the uh you know the cost benefit analysis, you know, w warrants that, although I do appreciate your perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka, colleagues.

Any other questions, comments?

Um I'd like to address this actually, this um amendment.

Um I appreciate you, Councilmember Foster for bringing this forward.

Um, colleagues, I will say and I and I appreciate that some of our colleagues were not here early last year when we were working on the levy, so I also want to acknowledge that.

We had a lot of conversation about universal preschool.

I just want to acknowledge our colleague, Councilmember Saka.

He and I both had a strong interest in seeing universal preschool because we know that kids do better um uh have better outcomes um lifetime outcomes when they have access to preschool for to quality preschool.

So I will say that deals preschool program is award-win an award-winning program.

It is something that the city does very well.

And um, in terms of, you know, we are not the first um uh council to care about um preschool, and council member Saka, I I admire your advocacy, and um I will say pre-universal preschool, and I will say there are other council members in the past who also very strongly believed um in universal preschool, and I'm gonna name um Tim Burgess as that council member because Councilmember Juarez, you served with Councilmember Burgess, and you know how much and how deeply he cares about preschool even even now.

And um uh so I say that to say, you know, we all of course it goes back to we all care about kids, we all care about um ensuring that they have qual um quality education, access to quality education at the public school level.

And so I do want to call out council member Saka that you very much um cared about doing that, and we just um when council members when council member um bird just looked into universal preschool, it was too um it was cost prohibitive.

I mean, even if we put this full levy um uh just to that, it wouldn't cover all the costs.

So um, but barring that, I know you had then an interest in expanding as much as we could the the preschool program.

So I want to acknowledge that for you.

I also want to say that you know, every time that we do something to expand an offering that we already have, like uh our preschool program, um, I worry about um impacts to that award-winning program.

So I um I say that to say I appreciated you bringing that voucher program, and the department's gonna have to figure out how to implement that voucher program in a way that doesn't dilute that award-winning aspect to the program because now it is outside of the realm of how they normally do it, and when you start giving vouchers to families, it becomes less um uh for the department will have to figure out how they track those providers and how how they ensure that the program stays quality for all the kids that receive that benefit.

And I will also say that this amendment is not uh far afield from what the department actually already does, council member foster.

They do um lead with um equity, and uh so really it's a call out to something the department already does in that way.

I will say, in terms of the council districts, and I've been saying this since I got to this council.

Um demographics across the city are changing, and you heard uh a public commenter come today to talk about um needs across the districts.

Um we have a lot of immigrant families on the north end um in count in the D5, especially.

So when we talk about those, you know, that the council specific, um, the department will have to look across all council districts when they implement this program because we have need all across the city.

Um the type of need that that you're concerned about, council member foster.

So I I don't I want to say it doesn't have to be that it is district specific.

I understand that you want to make sure that we're leading with the equity piece, which I can assure you that the department does, and this levy has always done.

And it is true that interestingly enough, the preschool program serves a variety um of folks because if a slot is open, it's it's it's it's it is a little bit universal in nature.

If there's a slot open that no one's using, it gets offered to someone at a sliding scale.

So there are a number of families being served by this program that are beyond you know what we've always prioritized because of that.

So in that way it serves a little bit of a universal function, but we're not there yet, obviously.

One day I would love to be at universal preschool.

Um, but but that is not today.

So anyway, all that to say that I don't see this um this amendment uh as being very much different from what the department already does.

But what I do appreciate about this amendment, Councilmember Foster, is to give the department the additional time by which to ensure that as they're doing this new voucher program, it aligns with their preschool promise um program in a way that doesn't dilute its its um you know uh uh award-winning status because that is a big deal because you can provide early education, but if it's not quality, it's not gonna help the kids lifelong.

So um for those reasons I'm gonna be I appreciate both my colleagues, Councilmember Saka and Councilmember Foster um on this and I will be supporting this and councilmember foster.

I would like to co-sponsor, and I know councilmember Juarez would like to co-sponsor this as well.

She said so earlier in this meeting um online.

I mean uh uh uh for the record.

Um, so unless there are any other questions, um, I appreciate both of you, council members foster and socca, and let's go to a vote on this clerk.

Will you please call the roll on passage of amendment number four?

Councilmember Juarez.

Hi, Councilmember Kettle.

Aye, Councilmember Lynn, yes, Councilmember Rink.

Yes, Councilmember Saka.

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Foster, yes, Foster, sorry.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth, yes, Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are eight in favor, one opposed.

The thank you, Clerk.

The motion carries an amendment four is adopted.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, would you like to move your amendment number six?

Yes, thank you.

I move to amend excuse me.

I'm sorry, uh I move amendment number six version two.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment six.

Central staff will walk us through the amendment and then council member how vice chair and uh council president Hellingsworth, I'll recognize you to speak to your amendment, Central Staff.

So this is amendment six.

This is the amendment that would add $500,000 a year over the six-year levy period to provide food assistance to lower income students over weekends and school breaks.

Uh the assistance uh provided would be provided through vouchers that would be distributed by school personnel to families in need.

Um this would be implemented in the 26-27 school year.

Uh the program would be funded by implementing the Universal School Meals Program in the 27-28 school year, which would free up about three million dollars to support this new food assistance program.

Thank you, Central Staff.

Um, Council President and Vice Chair Hollingsworth, you're recognized to uh speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank uh colleagues.

I want to thank you for your engagement during this process.

I also want to thank people who joined us today for public comment.

I took time out of the day, they gave feedback, provided information, folks that sent in letters with information, shared their stories and outlets that actually wrote about the issue as well.

Um, I also want to thank Councilmember Foster for her thoughtfulness and advocacy and intelligence and unbelievable deep commitment to helping close the food equity gaps within our system as well.

Um I also want to share that what we're gonna discuss today is particularly a policy and implementation decision.

For me, this was never about universal meals or not.

It was always about an implementation strategy to build a sustainable uh food system.

So food justice has always been at the core of this amendment.

We have always led with facts, data, and reality.

The Families Education Preschool Promise Levy traces its roots back to 1990.

You heard some people talk about the day when former mayor Norm Rice organized an education summit to identify the city of Seattle how we can improve outcomes for children.

The state of Washington, as we know, is responsible for funding public education, but too many students, particularly in low-income families and historically under-resource communities face barriers that extended beyond the classrooms.

What they identified.

Five guiding principles involve communities and schools, celebrate cultural diversity, ensure that every child was safe, healthy, and ready to learn, strengthening learning environments, and advocating for stronger public education and funding.

This led to Seattle's first education levy that was approved by voters in 1990.

And it particularly focused on early learning, health services, academic support, family engagement, and community partnerships.

And since then, this has been one of my favorite levies that Seattle has championed, one of our legacy levies, because we renewed it in 1997, 2004, and 2011, and we expanded to Seattle Preschool levy in 2014 and 2018.

So throughout its evolution, one principle has remained consistent.

It requires targeted investments that address systemic barriers disproportionately affecting students of color, students from low-income households, English language learners, immigrant and refugee students, and other historically underserved communities so that every child has that opportunity to succeed.

This is why this amendment was born.

It was not one or the other.

Excuse me, some of the funds that were intended to close opportunity gaps for students.

And if you look at the data, closing opportunity gaps require us to look who will benefit the most from that policy and try to adjust accordingly.

And I want to thank Mr.

Elmer Dixon, who sent in a letter of support and came here to talk about the free breakfast program, because in some uh outlets talked about you know implementing this program because of the Black Panthers.

And what was important that in 1969 it was responding to the immediate need, the crisis.

The children that were in low-income neighborhoods that had experienced decades of segregation, divestment, and poverty when arriving at school hungry, because we have divested in certain neighborhoods in this city.

And at the same time, there was no widespread school breakfast program in their neighborhood.

So their solution was universal meals within their community.

Seattle 2026 is very different today.

And colleagues, you know that, and it's been shared that there are a lot of there are uh 50 over 50 Title I schools, and we've also heard from people today that that doesn't matter.

There's kids that are hungry at schools that are Title I schools, or there's kids that are hungry at schools that uh don't qualify for free and reduced lunch.

We heard a teacher here who talked about having to pay three, four or five hundred dollars to keep their students fed.

And the one question I've been trying to answer is how can Seattle best address the inequities that still persist?

Data continues to show that food insecurity disproportionately affects uh different neighborhoods, particularly with the segregation that has happened in Seattle.

Seattle has always been a tale of two cities, always equity does not mean providing the exact same investments for every student regardless of need.

It means directing resources where barriers remain the greatest, and that was my goal with this amendment.

Very like intentions that were incredibly uh trying to be very thoughtful about where food insecurity uh was throughout the city, and then also from my personal experience as well, and some of the cracks and and gaps that we've seen.

So, what I've heard from parents and teachers and communities was about supplementing weekend and holiday school breaks, particularly winter break, because there are programs that are in spring break that are not in winter break.

And with this new amendment, we have created a line item, food assistance bucket.

And I would like to break down some information because a lot of the um emails that I've seen uh in objection to this amendment was means testing, means testing.

That was not something we ever put out.

That was not something that was expressed during this amendment.

As you heard the uh Caleb speak here today, he was referring to me working at this emergency feeding program in 2019, and for a lot of food banks, they would require you to have an ID or a light bill to show where you lived because they would only service people within those zip codes.

And so for us, we were the largest black dis food distributor, and we served every single zip code.

We had people coming from Vashon, people coming from uh across the island.

We have people coming from down south, particularly South King County up north to our food bank because we were the only one at the time during the pandemic that did not allow or did not require people to have a zip code or an ID to get food.

We would only ask them how many people were in their household so we can figure out how much we could give them.

So this particularly uh so the means testing, I don't know where that came from.

I just want to highlight that.

This funding would go uh directly to we created it so it was flexible, so it could go directly to family support workers, McKinney Vento programs, school administrators to best identify the rollout of a grocery card assistance program for weekend and school breaks.

They are the experts.

I am not.

I'm the only what I do in my legislative role is to make sure that we provide resources and funding to let the experts do their job.

The food assistance program would be funding for the entire life of the levy six years, five hundred thousand dollars every year.

This food assistance program is also super flexible.

So when speaking to family support workers, McKinney Vento program, and school administrators, having that extra resource is something that was greatly needed, especially as we know while SNAP is being cut and food assistance dollars are being cut federally.

Some people have uh sent in questions.

Well, uh, you know, one versus the other universal meals, $1,200.

Well, Joy, how how far can a $50 grocery voucher go?

Colleagues, a $50 grocery card for winter or spring break for family can make an incredible impact.

It's not intended to replace SNAP, but on a family grocery budget, it's attended to bridge the gap during a three-day weekend, mid-winter break, spring break, or other periods when school cafeterias are closed.

They can purchase milk, a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread, fresh fruit, a bag of rice.

They can survive, be able to try to keep surviving and fill that gap.

This also creates a line item of food assistant under basic needs in the levy.

This has never been done before.

In the levy, we have the housing and homeless services, the transportation bucket.

We have HSD summer foods, which you talked about, Councilmember Saka, going to your uh serving with uh Director Kim.

It also has universal meals in there, and this would create a food assistant bucket that would be in correlation with universal meals to provide supplemental support for resources for our students.

Let me be very clear.

I want to I really want to thank for people for reaching out and uh connecting with us because I'm gonna tell you this it has been very difficult to have these conversations and to listen to some of the narrative that has been put out there because I think we have dived away from the policy piece in this, and this for me has never been about either or, it always has been about how do we implement a sustainable program.

That's all this has been.

Um I want to read from folks from the McKinney Vento program because I had asked how they currently because someone's because another thing was said, well, this would be a lot of administrative burden on people.

How would they implement this?

And I want to say they already do this.

Programs are existing in schools that already do this.

Families, this is directly, families experiencing homelessness in Seattle public schools face decisions, and this is not an endorsement.

This is just how do they implement their program face decisions between uh purchasing food, fueling their vehicles, and meeting other basic needs.

Uh, Seattle Public Schools identifies more than 2,000 students experiencing homelessness each year, and the grocery cards provide a simple, dignified, and highly flexible form of emergency assistance or gap funding to where they can be able to purchase nutritious meals when traditional food pantries may not meet their dietary, cultural or scheduling needs.

And I think this is important, and they do different types.

They do $25 vouchers, they do $50 vouchers, and it can prevent a family from missing work, losing access to school transportation, or going without food for several days.

And the reason why I thought this was so important to read is because I wanted to make sure that colleagues, because I heard some people talked about means, I heard some people talk about this would be very difficult for to implement, and I wanted to make sure that was on the record so we understood what we were proposing and the flexibility within this amendment to make sure that families were able to get the resources that they need, especially during breaks.

I also want to state for the record that I'm all for and I and I want to thank uh the mayor publicly for uh accelerating universal meals before the state implementation plan because we both share the same goals of helping to end hunger, food access, uh, and centering children.

That's always I'm gonna tell people this that has been my mission before being on council, and that's gonna be my mission after on council.

And that remains our shared vision.

I'll I will hold my uh comments at the at the end for my additional comments that I have, and uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember uh Council President Hollingsworth and Vice Chair Hallingsworth.

I'm gonna turn over to you, Councilmember Foster as co-chair.

You are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And um, sorry, I'm not my computer did a restart, so I'm no longer on the Zoom, so thank you for recognizing me.

Um I want to start by um expressing my deep appreciation to you, Council President Hollingsworth.

Um I I'll come back to this later, but I think your background in in working directly in food assistance um and also I think our willingness to have what is in the public a difficult conversation, but what I know to be true is that this is a conversation about how we actually reach all of our kids.

And I know that I've sat in community meetings and neighborhoods where there's already universal school meals and listen to people talk about their gaps during breaks and weekends.

I've listened to kids talk about how they had somebody who looked out for them and gave them a little bit of extra money to close that gap.

And to me, that's what's at the center of this conversation.

That is what's been at the center of these amendments.

That's what the amendment language says and does.

And um, it's been challenging to see the difference between what I know is the heart of this conversation, what I know is the language of the amendments, and then the surrounding public conversation.

And the our jobs are challenging.

I think that's our duty.

Um, and so I want to just talk to a couple of pieces here.

Um, first, and I started to speak to this earlier in terms of what the city is already doing when it comes to weekends and school breaks.

So the city currently invests $537,732 annually in programs that are supporting kids, uh SPS students with food access on weekends and during school breaks.

About less than a half, or excuse me, a little over a half a million dollars.

The proposal that we originally received did not contain any additional resources for those critical investments.

Currently, those investments are paid for by the sweetened beverage tax, uh, which we know is one of our more regressive tax sources.

That's how we're currently paying for weekend and school breaks.

Our amendment asks that instead of starting universal school meals on the timeline that was proposed by the mayor, we wait one year and we take the resources from that year and we put it into a fund along with the fund that we just passed from amendment four, the resources from amendment four, and we create a $3.927 million dollar resource across the lifetime of the levy.

That resource would mean an additional $654,500 annually going to student meals over breaks and weekends.

That is more than double our existing commitment to that gap time need.

We've gotten a lot of emails about this frame of means testing versus universal meals.

And I want to read directly from the amendment language.

The food assistance program provides support for students from low-income families in need of food assistance over weekends and school breaks, excluding summers.

This assistance would be provided through vouchers and would be distributed by SPS personnel to students and their families, identified as in need of such assistance.

SPS will designate how such funding will be distributed by school personnel.

That's the end of the amendment language.

That's the intent.

And my own personal history.

This was, you know, for me more than a decade ago.

And swiping my card, my EBT card, and uh get it, you know, you have that $10 benefit, and then you get this $10 match in the form of it used to be little paper uh tokens that you would use to then that I would use to then get fresh fruits and vegetables from the farmers market from my family.

Uh, my kid has tons of great early memories of going to the farmers market because of that program.

Um, and I think it matters how we talk about things.

Um, and this discussion of this idea of providing vouchers or gift cards to low-income students, when it gets framed as you want to means test people out of lunches, but then when we talk about other programs that require eligibility, we talk about them as expansion.

And I wonder why that is.

I heard that from public commenters today.

And I again want to reiterate what we're talking about in this amendment has always been both and it has been a question of sequencing and what we do first.

I also want to be clear if I didn't offer amendment four and we didn't offer amendment six, we would not be expanding additional resources for those students that we've talked about, who we've heard about who continue to have access needs despite the fact that they already qualify for free and reduced lunch.

There was not a both and in the original proposal.

I'm proud to support this amendment.

I stand here, colleagues, and I ask for your support.

I think that the conversation that we've been having in the public in the last several weeks.

I hope we can move towards a more nuanced conversation of what it means to take care of our children here in Seattle, because I know that that is a shared priority.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues.

Questions, comments.

I'm looking to see Councilmember Saka, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

And I want to start off for just a brief moment talking about paperwork.

Oh no, paperwork, right?

What are you doing talking about paperwork?

I have a confession to make as part of this, and you know, allow me to be vulnerable and uh continue to be vulnerable.

You know, me wear my heart on my sleeve, and I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

Um, but paperwork.

So here's a truth for me personally.

Growing up from age nine to eighteen, I can count on one hand how many times I went to see the doctor.

During that entire time, not one time did I go see the dentist, not one time.

When I finally did go to see the dentist, you know, my early 20s, uh, had to had to have multiple visits because there was some some let's just say it needed to address some latent dental hygiene issues for from over a decade of not going to the dentist.

I one hand, how many times I've I went to the doctor nine through eighteen, despite having suffering severe uh bacterial you know infections of various sorts.

One time I had a frickin' ringworm on my face as a kid, not once, only a handful of times.

And when I did, my dad paid out of out of pocket.

He raised me, colleagues, as you know, as a single parent from age nine to uh to I was 18, and I'm the proud son of a Nigerian immigrant.

And I'm also very fortunate and privileged to be where I am today, personally and professionally.

But I'm also someone who has overcome the foster care system in the state of Minnesota from zero to nine or years old, cycling in and out of the system, mostly in before my dad was able to rescue me.

And we were on free and reduced lunch.

I was on free and reduced lunch when I was under his care.

Went to 13 different K through 12 schools growing up.

Thirteen.

All of them, exclusively, Title I schools for kids like myself at the time on free and reduced lunch.

Talk more about that in a moment.

But I never went to see, I never went to see the dentist, and I rarely went to see the doctor.

Because my dad was an hourly wage worker, primarily in the warehouse industry, and we didn't have employer-provided health insurance.

Now, like I mentioned, we qualified for free and reduced lunch, but I never, which means we also would have likely qualified for Medicaid.

But I I never went to the dentist and only went to the doctor a handful of times in nine years because of the severe, significant, non-trivial and substantial administrative paperwork burden imposed on people that need these valuable resources.

Many families who need help at the end of the day, balancing, trying to figure out how they're gonna put food on the table, how they're gonna provide clothing and shelter to their family, to their kids.

Huge barrier.

Then they have to go and undertake the administrative burden of filling out the that paperwork.

And I can only, and this was in the 90s, and I can only imagine that burden on the families most in need today, especially those from immigrant and refugee backgrounds.

Because now you have now you're worrying about navigating the system, filling out paperwork, and then worrying about information from that paperwork being being sent to the Federal authorities.

If you're an immigrant from an immigrant refugee community, you might be targeted for enforcement of immigration.

It's more burdensome, it's more onerous now, and it's more risky.

So we know today, colleagues, that there are families that qualify, many families that qualify for free and reduced lunch that today are not being served.

We know that.

So when we talk about ways to address systemic barriers, to remove systemic barriers and address inequities, passing universal free school meal program in the city of Seattle now, today, is the number one, in my view, the number one most impactful thing we can do.

Now let's talk about the stigma, and I've been very clear about the impacts of stigma on free and reduced lunch programs.

Because like I mentioned in the past, I've literally waited to the very last moment to buy my lunch for 75 cents, or however much it was on the free on the reduced program, because I didn't want some of my classmates and peers to know that you know I paid the differential rate, the lower rate, not the full buck fifty in some change or whatever it was.

And I missed meals because of it on a few occasions.

Lunchlady close up shop.

Too late.

I should have gone earlier.

And when you're so I know what it's like firsthand to go to school for the number one purpose of receiving services, and as a secondary purpose, education.

And what that means for the rest of the day when the pantry is scarce in the weekends as well.

Launching universal free school programs today, which we are prepared to do, helps address those inequities, remove systemic barriers, eliminate the onerous and burdensome paperwork requirement on our communities most vulnerable.

It also addresses the stigma.

Now let me take a moment and just address the elephant in the room for some at least.

Maybe not primarily, but there are important undertones of race and class and socioeconomic status.

Now I could talk all day about all of that.

But because unlike class and socioeconomic status, race is an immutable characteristic.

One, I think it's a community-led thing, but at the elected official level, there's a lot of us involved.

And based off the one-on-one conversations I have with my colleagues, I think there's a recognition that on this floor on this body, this is this has been my initiative when we talk about universal free school programs.

Frankly, I think it's all of our initiatives, those of us have been here the last three years.

Because time and time again, we've we've discussed, we've taken specific legislative uh actions, including through advocacy of the state legislature to finally bring this to life.

And I'm and um and I'm grateful for the mayor's partnership on this, because championing a particular issue, multiple names can be involved in the conversation.

But so that's why I want to thank the mayor for her efforts to accelerate universal free school meals, but from its inception and ideation through now, this has always been a black-led policy conversation and initiative at the city level.

And it's a form of black erasure to forget that.

From inception to ideation to the current split that we're we're seeing and witnessing right now here today.

Why?

Because many of the communities most impacted by these very policy conversations we're having today are black communities.

Black and African immigrant communities.

But I do think we are ready to roll this out today.

We need to we have an executive who is aligned and has helped champion the acceleration of this effort.

We need to stick with it and and roll it out today, roll it out now.

I do that said, want to thank community for taking the time out of your busy days, showing up, testifying today, sharing your feedback, even within the black community, we witnessed and observed and saw firsthand a split.

We are not a monolith.

There's nuance here, there's complexity.

But when you talk about the full context and the evolution of this of these initiatives, remember how it started at this at the elected official level, which is why I want to thank council members, Councilmember Foster and Council President Hollingsworth for your leadership on this.

I know afterwards, CP, I'm gonna come in your office and we're gonna hug this out irrespective of the of the final vote count.

Um but I appreciate your your leadership on addressing food security and access.

And uh and that and that remains true irrespective of the the final vote.

But I but I have concerns for the reasons I mentioned, I have concerns about this amendment, and I can't I can't support it, but I but I appreciate you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Lynn, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Um great words, uh Councilmember Saka.

Um this one is uh is difficult for me uh for the many reasons that um you just stated we we've heard a very uh robust dialogue uh today, and I just wanted to thank Council President and Council Member Foster for bringing this dialogue forward.

Um and you know, uh there are things that it was it was great to hear about you know the history.

Um I mean I think uh we knew about the history of of the Black Panthers, but it's great to see that history uh before us today.

Come testify.

That's powerful.

Um I do um there has been a lot of sort of uh discussion and dialogue, and some of it is not entirely you know accurate.

Um and that makes the discussion harder.

Um and you know, I think one thing I do just uh I has been clarified, but I just want to repeat that you know this this wasn't something that was promised to the voters, and so I just want to clarify that this wasn't something that that we voted on.

Um and yet it feels that way um because you know I I think people are excited about school lunches.

I'm excited about universal school lunches, and and I and I think we all are.

Um and you know, once there is an announcement that it's gonna happen, it's kind of hard to roll that back.

And so it feels it sort of frames it a little bit differently.

Um and so I just want to you know recognize that.

Um, but uh but again, it wasn't something that um that voters approved.

Um, this is hard for me as a as a district two representative.

Um pretty much every school in my district has uh universal school lunch uh free lunches, which is great.

Uh people it it's a great thing.

I think there's one school that doesn't.

Um, you know, just overall, uh District 2 probably more than any other district uh under the Pep Levy um gets a ton of support, as it should um based on equity.

And I'm extremely thankful for that.

And so this this is hard because you know, um uh this amendment would bring a lot of resources to District 2 to uh to families in need to students in need.

And I think we heard uh very compellingly that you know food insecurity doesn't just happen for breakfast or lunch, it happens in the evening, it happens on weekends, it happens during school breaks.

And that absolutely is something we need to um to figure out and address.

Um part of why I is excited to support amendment number four.

Um, you know, unfortunately, this shouldn't be a zero-sum game.

Um I would love to do both.

Um, unfortunately, we don't have all the resources.

I mean, we're gonna have a a really hard budget conversation this fall.

And and this conversation today, it is just a a small preview of those very, very hard discussions that we are gonna have.

Um but um I I won't be supporting this today.

Um just uh I I am excited to build the momentum for universal school lunches across both the city and um hopefully the state.

Um but I do just want to say uh an enormous gratitude for for you bringing this forward for uplifting the uh the dialogue, for jumping into the nuance regardless of uh some of the public discourse.

And um, you know, I think for the public, they are sort of certainly welcome to say whatever they want about us.

Um and we get criticism from all sides over a number of different things.

But just for me personally, it is it is um less persuasive when things are said that don't ring true to me, when things are said that question the character uh of some of my colleagues when I know uh that you care deeply and have a deep-rooted history around food access and food equity.

And um so while people are free to make those comments, they are not persuasive to me when I know um there's no truth to that.

So just want to state that for the record.

Um th thank you again.

Uh that this I I think this has been a good dialogue for for all of us to understand uh that the huge unmet need, um so if if we do provide uh, you know, universal school lunches if that goes forward um and we don't uh do this uh I I don't know how this vote is gonna play out.

But I think regardless, it highlights the critical need, uh unmet need uh that you have raised.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Rivera.

I want to start off by thanking both Councilmember Saka and Councilmembers Foster for sharing your stories.

I really want to commend you for your courage um to show that vulnerability and share a bit about your stories and and upbringing.

So thank you.

Um colleagues, the discussion on universal school meals and this amendment in particular has been one of the most challenging and emotional policy discussions I've experienced during my time on council.

And hearing today's public comment, I have been reminded of my own experiences of hunger.

Now I didn't go hungry because my mom, my grandma didn't pack me a lunch.

Um I was hungry for a while because my friends' parents didn't pack them a lunch, and I was giving them my food.

And they didn't get free school lunches, but their folks weren't giving them food, and I was giving them mine.

And my folks were so mad when they found out I was giving away my lunch to my friends.

And of course, I tried to keep it a secret for a long time because I didn't want my folks to be mad at me.

I didn't want anyone to get in trouble.

You know, when you're a kid, you you don't want to get in trouble.

You just want to help your friend out.

But once my folks found out what was going on, they said, okay, they started packing the doubling and triple lunches.

You know, hunger can be hidden.

Hunger isn't always obvious, and it isn't always experienced by who you would expect it to be.

And we don't know what's going on in young people's lives.

And I don't think we, the government need to know every single detail about what's going on in kids' lives when it comes to children getting their basic needs met.

And with everything that is happening across our country right now, I do believe it is imperative that we move with urgency to address hunger in our community.

So on one hand, it has been heartening to see the outpouring of support across our city for feeding our kids, whether it be in schools, on weekends, over school breaks, no child in this community should be going hungry.

I know we all agree to that.

And that is why it is shocking to my conscience that in a city with the wealth that we know exists, we still have kids going hungry.

The policy goals of universal school meals and the expanded food assistance on weekend and break, weekends and breaks are both good policies.

The policy choice in front of us with amendment six ask us to delay implementation of universal school meals to fund that weekend and break meals program.

Now, if the option before us was to fund this weekend and break meals program using another fund source outside of this levy, perhaps our graffiti abatement funds, the unified care team, or the real-time crime center, just to name a few examples, that choice would be clear to me, and I would support it in a heartbeat.

But to take it out of our universal school meals expansion is a trade-off that I can't support today.

Now, like my colleagues, I uh want to take a moment to speak to the rhetoric that has been going on in the public about this amendment over the past couple of weeks.

Um, particularly the attacks on the co-sponsors of this amendment, going after their character and their intentions.

I do not support that.

I know the sponsors of this amendment care deeply about the kids in our city and take their responsibility to our community very seriously.

There is no question of that.

And while we may fall on different sides of a specific policy choice we're making here, I want to be clear that I stand with our amendment sponsors and our shared commitment to use our power to take care of our kids equitably and sustainably and holistically.

So I will be respectfully voting no on this amendment today.

And it is my hope that wherever we go from here, we keep up this energy and passion for feeding young people, particularly when it comes to our budget deliberations later this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Councilmember Juarez, you are uh recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I want to start just a few facts, and I want to thank first of all, Council President Hollingsworth and Councilmember Foster for bringing this.

I'll get into a little bit more detail about that in a moment, but Councilmember Foster brought up a really important issue, and I'm really glad we had a chance to talk through and with the council president these issues as well as yourself, Councilmember uh or Madam Chair.

On the sweetened beverage tax that we passed in 2017, which was implemented in 2018.

Um the fact is this over the eight years, a hundred and ninety-one million dollars has been gathered, and only four million has been dedicated to children in school, healthy food in schools, which comes out to about less than nine percent over eight years of total investment, and that should be concerning.

What I want to share though, from a heartfelt position of I've taken hard votes before, and quite frankly, I've I've seen it a lot worse, but I've been around probably a lot longer.

Um, I want to say this about council president Hollinsworth and Councilmember Foster.

I want to thank them for their conviction, their conscience based on dignity and kinship.

In an Indian country, we would call that good words and good medicine.

This has always been about implementation.

It has never been about denying a program.

It's about delaying a program.

And council Madam Chair, you and I, along with the Durkin administration, know and had worked on and were the architects of a universal program called the Promise Program.

That's right.

And how we layered and scaffold that program in, starting with two high schools, then four, and then every high school.

So every high school student could enjoy going to college for free in the city of Seattle.

We did that as architects and working with leadership because we wanted it to be successful and sustainable.

And I want to thank those of you who brought up history is so important.

And we heard so many good comments.

I mean, you know, people are have a right to come to public comment and have their opinions in history, but some of the comments were incredibly sublime and profound.

Um, I love how people come with history and facts before we get to feelings.

Um, talking from 1990, 1997, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2018.

We are uh six times the voters went out there and said this is what we want.

And Councilmember Lynn, thank you for bringing up something that I jotted down earlier.

First of all, your good words about equity, but second of all, we had you had structured this, madam chair, under the Herald administration.

And that's that's what the voters were asking for.

Now I understand that people have um have their ideology.

I understand that they have uh political goals that they want to see done, and I respect that.

But again, I want to take us back to exactly what we're talking about here.

We are talking about implementation.

We are talking about something being delayed, not denied.

We are talking about equity.

We are talking about the roots of children being hungry.

And I just I've been right, I was taking notes during public comment, which I always do, and I want to thank council, our former representative, Dawn Mason, for her good words.

I worked with her in the state legislature many years ago, which I won't bring up.

And the folks, the gentleman from um Jim and Dawn and Elmer, and particularly from the Black Panther and how these all began with social justice movements, because people of color had to do it ourselves.

Well, I thank our allies.

Sometimes I think you try to speak for us.

And so let me just say this.

I love the folks that talked about that hunger doesn't take a break.

And understood the history of this and the passion behind it.

This isn't either or.

It never has been.

Some people have characterized it as that, has put it into some kind of contextual us versus them.

It was never that.

It's always been about how do we feed all of these children, do it universally, make it sustainable across the board.

And then not only that, but talk to the values that this city proclaims to have every day, all the time.

And not just about um not just about politics.

And uh Councilmember Ring, thank you for pointing out some of the comments that were made.

As you all know, I'm not on social media, so I don't, you know, I think it's just trash, but my point is this.

Um I think it's unfortunate, but I've watched it a lot in this job, where people have taken issues that are so dear to us about children being hungry and those that don't get fed on the weekends and during breaks.

I appreciate what council member um Shaka said.

I too was one of those kids that grew up with the last three days of the month I didn't eat.

Food stamps, reduced lunch, no lunch.

So I mean, I could go on and on, but that's not the point.

The point is I'm saying that from what you all love to say, lived experience, but I'm not vulnerable and I'm not marginalized.

And I really want to thank Council President and Councilmember Foster to step up and have a voice, have the support so people can hear us and why these programs came about.

And again, I'll this I'll end on this note.

Madam Chair, I want to thank you because you know I worked with you under the Durkin administration.

I've watched it under your leadership.

You have been great about sitting down with us, going through the FEPA levy, going through the chair's package.

That's the kind of that's the kind of quote unquote progressive, if you will.

That's the kind of conversations that have to have in these policies.

That we start with the facts.

Can we fund it?

Is it sustainable?

We don't have to go into screaming at elected folks and attacking their integrity in their heart.

And it it's it saddens me to see that, but I guess that's where we're at in politics these days.

So that being said, I, as you know, uh, Madam Chair, I am a proud sponsor of Amendment 4 and Amendment 6.

And again, I cannot thank you for um, Madam Chair, for your leadership.

And also, of course, the um respect I have for Council Council President and Councilmember Foster.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the sponsors.

Thank you to all the colleagues that have spoken on this issue.

Universal meals are important and they're important to me.

Uh, it's important that no kid in any school is hungry.

Stigma and paperwork and documentation, as was discussed, are barriers that need to be reduced or eliminated.

I think the question of standing in the lunch line and wondering if they should get lunch or not, is something that is important to me that rings really true to the values that I hold and the perspective that I bring here at City Council.

As Councilmember Lynn mentioned just a couple minutes ago, the question before us was not a promise made to voters through the families education preschool promise levy.

It was a promise that was made just in the last few months.

The source of funding for this plan using the risk and reserve fund is as the name states risky.

And I say that because uh speaking as the budget chair, I'm mostly focused on the numbers here today.

I call the risk and reserve accounts within our levies, the inflation account.

The cost-rising account.

Because these levies are set up for eight to ten years, depending.

And in those eight to ten years, even our best guesses at inflation do not necessarily include the cost escalators of materials, good labor, everything else that it takes to deliver the promises of the levies that are taken to voters.

Just look at the last transportation levy.

If we hadn't had the oversight body alert us to the fact that we were so off base, we would never have gotten back on track.

And we had to use every tool in our book because of the inflation and cost escalations that occurred through the pandemic.

That is why we have.

The first dollar of general fund that ever went into Fresh Bucks was my first budget amendment that I ever passed.

Because what we were seeing was the sweetened beverage tax was not a secure funding source.

It was coming in lower than projections because of substitution effect, said in more plain language, people were going to shoreline to book buy their soda.

Or took Willa.

Um so that's what I did to secure that funding for fresh books.

I said, let's take a look at this general fund.

Does that did my actions increase the structural structural budget deficit?

Yes, it did.

Did it create a more stable funding source?

Absolutely.

And today I'm concerned that the plan as transmitted makes a promise without a plan.

It puts at risk the stability we should be providing our students.

It puts at risk our ability to deliver the promises we have made to voters because we're rushing to make decisions.

Frankly, I'm disappointed by the avoidable conflict we are in today.

It was very important for me to hear from Elmer Dixon.

As everyone has said, who founded the Black Panther Party here in City of Seattle.

I was honored to get to participate in Pow Wow at United Indians of All Tribes this weekend.

Those two, both what Elmer shared with us today and POWOW are the living, breathing examples of the gang of four coming together in the 1970s.

And so I'm moved by the words that I heard from Elmer.

As he was the one that started the programs that so many people that I know benefited from.

And who through action inspired everyone in this room to be having the conversation that we are having today?

Because without Elmer and the Black Panther Party of Seattle, we would not have had these food programs in the first place to even inspire us to have the conversation we're having today.

And so what you have from me is my commitment to make universal meals a reality across our city.

And that we will do so with a plan that does not put promises in jeopardy.

I'll be supporting Amendment 6 today.

And I look forward to what I hope will be a collaborative process with the mayor's office to find a secure and stable funding source.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Rink, is that a new hand?

Okay.

And Councilmember Foster, are you trying to uh are is that a new hand?

Is that your final remarks?

It is not, no.

Okay, then I'll use a new hand though.

Yes.

Okay.

Then you are recognized.

Um thank you so much, Chair.

And um thank you.

I I appreciate all of you deeply, colleagues.

Um I I uh want to make sure that we make a little bit of space just to turn to central staff before we close out today.

Um I wasn't gonna um do this, but Councilmore Strauss listening to your your comments around the the long-term planning.

Um I just I realize there's a part of this conversation that um we haven't yet spoken about.

Um so I just want to ask Central Staff if you can share with us from the last levy, how did we use the underspend in the 2019 FEP levy?

Yeah, so in the in the previous levy, um there wasn't a line item for cost and risk reserve.

Rather, um, individual large programs had a bit of like for better lack of better word, padding in them to account for um any sort of unintended um uh or unanticipated costs.

Um so that the under that underspend, um, my understanding is that on average there was about uh two to three percent underspend that um probably reflected the uh extra um um risk and reserve money that was built into the programs themselves.

And uh for this year's uh this current levy, we have an extra we have um a more transparent cost and risk reserve that is that is pulled out.

Thank you.

And um let me just I guess I'll just read from the the memo that I have from central staff, which shares that the during the 2019 levy, according to the way that the FEP Oversight Committee functioned, they dedicated any of that underspend to preschool for uh is that correct?

The um the previous INE plan had um a policy that said any underspend should be prioritized towards preschool.

Um what ended up happening um because uh essentially because of COVID, um yeah, there was there was actually significant underspend within preschool and the underspend was then reallocated towards um other programs, um, mostly promise and some K through 12 investments.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure we were highlighting that in terms of ensuring that we have clarity around the previous practices with underspend and then the current practices.

Thank you.

And if I could add something here, Councilmember Foster, because you you raise a um a great point in terms of underspend is that during COVID, um, there was a lot of disruption to this last levy.

And so we use some of the, and I happen to be in the mayor's office, so that's why I say we, and when I say I've worked with with director Chappelle for almost 10 years, is because of that, but we work together, and a lot of the funding did go to fund meals for kids because that was needed during COVID.

Kids weren't coming to school and then what weren't getting them breakfast and lunch, because we talk about lunch, but they get free breakfasts also um at school.

And so we were doing um uh working with Seattle public schools to do um uh SAC meals for families, you know, for kids for the kids and over the weekend.

So there's a long-standing practice of of using some of the FEP funding for that food assistance um, which is actually in the in the levy at language itself in terms of food assistance.

So just wanted to say, you know, the the risk reserve piece was important this go round because we didn't they didn't the department didn't call it out that way last go round, and then when things happen, like a global pandemic, you know, we have to be able to pivot and um use some of the reserves to backfill anything that we are not able to do because we didn't have enough funding for, et cetera.

So that piece is really important.

So thanks for calling out the the underspend piece.

Colleagues, are there any other questions about amendment number six?

All right, seeing none, I I'd like to address a couple things.

Um council member Juarez, thank you for um calling out.

Um, you know, this is an interesting levy because it did start with a different mayoral administration and now there's this mayoral administration.

So I I want to s set some things um uh straight here in terms of when um I worked with the prior administration and the department on the levy.

Um we didn't specifically call out um universal meals.

That's not in the levy.

Food assistance is in the levy, it's very um plainly spelled out so that it says under K through 12 health and safety um that we uh would include health education, mental health care, and food assistance, because we know that kids need all of those things to be successful in school.

Um but it was not called out as as other colleagues have said up has have said have set up here, um, universal meals were not called out.

That said, we all super support um meals.

There isn't a person sitting up here now or who was sitting here um when the FEP levy was passed last year or the last go-round or either uh mayoral administration that I would say doesn't obviously support school meals for our kids, but it is important for the public to know because they're not always aware um that universal meals were not part of this um uh levy at the time.

And also it bears mentioning that under Washington state laws, the schools where 40 percent or more of the kids are on fear and reduced lunch already get universal school meals.

So council member Juarez, to your point about scaffolding, um, without knowing, because I haven't talked to the governor about this, but when he proposed a universal school meals, it sounds like he was scaffolding, right?

Um, and so and I understand that um this current mayoral administration is also interested in meals, so um it sounds like they wanted to bridge a gap.

But as we've said here, um uh there is you know, we have concerns about continuation um of filling the gap if we should need to into the future.

And so we're we're a little bit on um on unsteady ground here in terms of the long term, how we would support this learn long term if we should need to.

Because once we started, and what I do know about working at the city so many years, and council member Juarez, you as well, is that once we start something, we cannot just take it away.

What I also know is that um supporting after school meals, uh, so backpacks like the backpack brigade that Seattle Public School already does and weekend meals has a long-standing practice.

So Seattle public schools are well positioned to implement the funds being contemplated by Council Member uh Council President Hollingsworth with this amendment.

And I will say that I spoke with um the superintendent about this in particular because in Rivera due diligence fashion, I wanted to, you know, we we would be giving funding to the Seattle public schools, and I wanted to check in you know, how would this work out in terms of its you know, universal meal expense expansion across all the schools?

So we know uh or I know from speaking to the superintendent that the meals contemplated by this amendment is doable, they already do it.

It's an expansion of something that they do and is needed because the kids that are getting free and reduced breakfast and lunch in school do need meals after school and into the weekends.

That's something they that we don't have enough of, and that we could do and readily do and easily do.

So to me, it makes sense to bridge the weekend meal gap, if you will, um, knowing that the kids that most need the free and reduced lunch are able to get that at schools, particularly since it's already universal in those schools that service more than you know, 40 or more percent of the kids are free and reduced lunch.

Um, these are difficult um conversations, I know.

And to the point of scaffolding, I'll say too, the school-based health centers, which provide the health and the mental health support to students, that was um scaffold as well.

Councilmember Horaz, you'll remember.

Um, we started school-based health centers at some schools, and then every year the levy, we have added more.

So that with this levy, we're adding more school-based health centers to the list.

Um, and we still don't have school-based health centers at every single school.

Um, but uh as in the the meals that we do after school and over the weekend, I believe um that I am correct in saying any kid, just like with the school-based health center that needs access to that can access that at a different school.

So Seattle Public Schools and Deal have partnered and worked together to make sure that that is the case.

So it is important uh to note that this is this is I I this is one of those points where again we're all aligned here.

There's more alignment than not, um, including with the mayor, and I appreciate that she was trying to bridge that gap between when the state could start this and and now and it all goes to what's the best way to implement um in the fastest way uh meals for kids that need them across our system.

So it is not about um uh folks not folks up here, city council not caring about kids.

It is really about at this juncture, what is the best way and what what is um the best way to provide that food uh support to the kids that need it in this city right now.

So this is why this particular conversation has been so difficult, is because this was something that got added later, it did not get added as universal school meals in the levy.

We could have done so at the time if that had been contemplated, but again, we knew that Washington state law was covering the free and reduced kids' uh uh uh meals, and then in those schools that had the 40 percent or more, it was universal in order to address that the stigma piece that council member Saka you you raised, and that is an important um point to raise.

So I say all this to say that no matter what happens with this particular amendment today, it is true that we all support kids in our schools and food access to kids in our schools and to all kids across the city.

This is important.

We've done a lot to support food access, and I know that council member Hollingsworth, this is something that's been near and dear to your heart.

Um, and I know Councilmember Foster, as in your colleague, you care about this deeply too.

So again, I just want to acknowledge we all care deeply about providing food to kids, and I know the mayor cares deeply about providing food to kids, and whatever happens with this particular amendment, that does not change.

And thank you, Councilmember Lynn, for raising that earlier as well.

So there is no re there is no need, and I hope that this is another one of those things that doesn't go down.

You know, folks love controversy out there in the stratosphere, and I don't want this to be another source of controvers controversy.

I hope that we will all respect each other no matter what happens with this amendment, and that we recognize that the main thing and the important thing here is that we support food for kids in this city.

Period, full stop.

So I will let the the and and I will say also I very much appreciate both Council President and Councilmember Foster for bringing this forward.

Um I too, like Councilmember Juarez, want to add my name as a co-sponsor to this particular amendment.

I will be supporting it, and I look forward to a day just like universal preschool and maybe universal meals will come first, but where we can do universal meals for all kids across all our schools in the city.

But until then, I think there is a huge need for after school and weekend meals, and that is what this need is trying to fill, or that is the need that this amendment is trying to fill, and I am very sensitive to that need given what I know from my experience working with the department during uh COVID and and subsequently, uh, because I know they've given focus to this since then.

So anyway, um, Council President, would you like to say any final remarks?

Or council member Foster?

I know you had two as well.

I think we both would, Chair, if that's okay.

Yes, you recognize uh uh uh council president.

Awesome.

Thank you, thank you, Chair, and I want to first start by thanking Councilmember Saka for your words and the hug.

Um, I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for your words as well, uh, Councilmember Lynn for your words about District 2, uh Councilmember Foster as co-sponsor as well, Councilmember uh Rink, for your words as well, and uh Councilmember uh Kettle uh for our conversations and Councilmember Ware and Chair to you as well.

Um colleagues, this is obviously a really hard decision, and I believe that this was never about either or it was always about and implementation, and I just want to highlight that because I know there's been a lot of different perspectives out there, there's been a lot of swirl.

Sometimes the lies are more entertaining than the truth, and I get that.

Um, but I I I do I do want to say, and just for the record, that I've always been willing and ready to work with our mayor's office on this.

And some people said, Well, can we do both?

I've always been willing and ready to work uh with our mayor's office.

We share the same goals of food access, we save the the same goals of accessibility and to make sure that kids are fed and that families are not going hungry.

We share the same goals of the closing the gap on income inequality and making sure our city is running well and functionally, these are things that we share and the values.

The piece that comes is the implementation of it and how are we moving forward, and that's what's always been in our city.

So those values continue to be the same.

And um obviously this is not a this is not an easy uh uh vote, and this is also not an easy decision, um feeling like you're choosing this or that.

But I feel like from this position, and I'm gonna tell you this knowing what I know, going through this whole process, seeing what I've seen, interacting with people, I would have continued to do this again, even knowing what I've had to gone through in the last couple weeks, engaging with community and talking to people and seeing the comments, reading the articles, some misinformation, I would have continued to do this because in my truest heart of heart, I believe this is the right thing to do for our community and colleagues.

I just asked for your support.

I know where some of you stand, so I appreciate that.

We just have a different of uh opinion on policy, but I really really appreciate the discussion today focus on policy and implementation.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President, Councilmember Foster, you're recognized for final comments.

Thank you, Chair, and um I'll be brief.

I'll say I believe that what this amendment does is allow us to prioritize additional investments while still ensuring that we reach everyone.

Um I echo what you said, Council President.

This is about sequencing and about making sure that we get additional resources to kids during school breaks, additional resources to kids during weekends, and without this amendment, we would not be adding those additional resources.

So that's what this is about for me.

That's what's in the core of this amendment.

Um and colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

All right, colleagues, let us go to a vote on amendment number six.

Uh clerk, can you please call the roll on amendment number six?

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lynn.

No.

Councilmember Rink.

No.

Councilmember Saka?

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are six in favor and three opposed.

Um the motion carries, and amendment number six is adopted.

Okay.

All right, colleagues.

Um second.

This is a very long screen script.

Apologies, and it's been a long meeting.

Thanks to everyone who stayed here for it.

All right.

Yeah, but all right.

Sorry, colleagues, one more minute.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Here it is.

No, I don't know what happened to it.

All right.

It's here.

No.

Wait.

All right.

Colleagues, are there any final comments on the bill is amended?

All right.

Then we will close uh oh, Councilmember Saka.

I didn't see your hand up here.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh couple quick points.

First, you know, I want to address the notion that the uh because specific provisions and and proposals were not included in the underlying levy legislation uh and forming the basis for what voters ultimately approve that that therefore we shouldn't approve them or um and want to address the the relative relevance, significance uh uh of that fact or not.

I just I couldn't disagree more on the notion that just because something wasn't included expressly or explicitly stated in in the underlying levy legislation that therefore you know when a proposal emerges when we start fleshing out the details that we should discount that because it was included.

Colleagues, we know the purpose goal of any levy legislation or legislation that ultimately forms the basis of a proposal that will ultimately go before voters, whether it's a levy or it's a as in the case of yesterday, the transit measure, the whole purpose and goal of that exercise is not to uh specifically articulate or codify or or or uh enumerate every single conceivable program and investment, you know, that could potentially be uh spent, you know, we're worthy of investment um in create and articulate an exhaustive list of stuff.

Purpose is framework level legislation only with details to be implemented and and finalized and iterated upon later, and that's why we have this uh levy implementation plan.

Um so although on the one hand it was not expressly or explicitly contemplated in the or or or or covered in the framework level levy legislation, it was a hundred percent contemplated.

We had so many parallel conversations about that initiative at the time.

Uh and so just want to be mindful of that.

The second thing want a friendly reminder that we we learned and were reminded today that the whole the whole universal free school meal program from its ideation and inception here in the city of Seattle.

It's it started out and continues today to be a black-led initiative.

Going back decades with the local Black Panther Party through the conversations we're having today.

Don't forget that.

Um third final point is look, I had three main priorities for the levy implementation plan, which are sort of offshoots of uh you know how I approach the original levy legislation.

Um, or so three of my babies, if you will, uh, as as the chair noted.

Um of them was the ultimately creating universal free preschool for all, so early childhood education.

Uh another was food access and security through primarily through universal free school meals for all.

And the third and final one is digital addressing digital equity, digital skilling and AI initiatives to make sure uh more Seattleites are empowered with the skills to be competitive in um you know various tech fields, so digital skilling professions.

Uh two of those three priorities were significantly abrogated, slow down, water down, eroded as part of this amendment process, and that uh that I fought so hard for for my constituents and and and communities uh to help bring to life and deliver.

So two of three of those significantly abrogated, and um I I cannot support the current version of the uh the amended legislation.

Um I do intend to work with central staff to figure out ways to strike a better balance and potentially you know restore some elements uh before the final legislation comes to full council, but in its current amendment forum I cannot support for those reasons.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Um I will ask, please, that if you're anyone considering anyone considering making any amendments for next week to please talk to me right away.

This process has been very robust and uh uh we need to be able to move forward and we need to take a vote on it next week because the department has to start implementing this work, and there is somewhat of a time a time issue.

So if you are contemplating anything, please let me and central staff know right away.

Um right, colleagues, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass the bill as amended.

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye, Councilmember Lynn.

Yes, Councilmember Rink.

Yes, Councilmember Saka.

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

Hi.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rivera.

Aye.

Chair, there are eight in favor and one opposed.

Thank you, clerk.

The motion carries the recommendation to pass the bill as amended will be sent to the July 28th full city.

Um I heard from Amelia Um because the vote happened after one p.m.

today.

Um, the intent to send this to the July 28th meeting has to be voted on by um council.

So if there's no objection, Council Bill 121240 will be recommended recommended uh for passage at the July 28th City Council meeting.

Do I hear any objection?

Hearing no objection, the recommendation is to bring uh once passage of this bill happens today to the July 28th full council meeting.

All right.

Now the recommendation to pass the bill as amended will be sent to the July 28th full council uh full city council meeting.

Um colleagues, I'm so sorry, but I would like to read, thank you for your attention today.

It's been a very long meeting, but I would like to read some remarks um for the record.

I am so happy, as I'm sure you are too to be at this point.

This is such an important levy.

We all care so much about our kids across the city.

This levy means so much to those kids and their families.

As I said earlier, this is an important step in the levy um process.

Um I just want to make a couple comments.

First, I'm so grateful for your support in expanding the Path to Trades Investment with the Path to Trades Non Colleges, which I put in the levy so that our promised students will have an additional opportunity.

This means that our public high school students can either get an associate's degree or a certificate from a trade program at the Seattle colleges, or this third option, which is to go straight from high school to an apprenticeship at an accredited trade school.

As you all know, this one is near and dear to my heart as the daughter of a welder who lived paycheck to paycheck, but whose great union job put food on the table.

Today the trades are an excellent option for students, which is why I wanted to ensure they had this additional path.

And I also want to shout out the Seattle colleges who were supportive of this third path, which I know would be outside of the colleges, but it doesn't diminish all the great work they do.

There's so many great trades programs at the colleges, including welding, and shout out to President Monica Brown at Seattle Central uh South Seattle, who runs all the trade programs at Seattle Colleges.

The second point I want to make, which I cannot overstate, is this levy and therefore I and E plan includes investments from other city departments.

While not new to the city, they are new to this levy.

As you know, these investments from the Human Services Department, Seattle Parks and Rec and Seattle Office of Sustainability were transferred over because they were in support of kids' education and appropriate to this levy, with of course the understanding that by law they would have to meet the levy requirements and parameters as told to voters.

As this I and E is implemented, we need to ensure, and I will be monitoring closely that all investments, including those that have been transferred, do not stray from the constraints set forth in the levy and which we told voters we would do.

Doing so would diminish our ability to truly help kids.

This levy has been so successful for decades because we have always stayed true to its purpose to support our kids, whether that be child care, K through 12 or promise.

This 2026 levy was passed by 80% of voters because we showed our work.

In six years, I want to be in this same position where kids receiving this investment are better off and doing well.

And so I want to thank all of you for engaging in this process.

I want to shout out to my sister, Councilmember Juarez.

It's her birthday.

Happy birthday.

Thank you for all you do for your district and for our city.

I also want to thank my staff, chief of uh my chief of staff, Wendy Sykes, and Jacob Evinger.

Um, and I also want to thank Tracy Ratzliff and Jasmine Marwaha from Central Staff, without which we could not have gotten to this point today.

Um, and want to thank the Department of Education and Early Learning for their partnership, not just on this, but for the last almost 10 years on the prior levy and in support of the kids because they too care as uh about kids across our city as much as we do.

So thank you all.

If there are no further uh business to come before this committee, it is one twenty one twenty one, and this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Happy birthday.

Yes, turning 39.