Select Committee - June 11, 2024

This was a marathon 3+ hour Seattle City Council Select Committee meeting on the **Families, Education, Preschool and Promise (FEPP) Levy** - a massive $1.9 billion, 6-year property tax levy renewal that more than doubles the current education levy. **Chair Maritza Rivera** led the committee through 12 proposed amendments to the underlying legislation before recommending passage to full Council. **Key participants included:** - Committee members: Rivera (Chair), Rinck, Saka, Kettle, Hollingsworth, Nelson, Moore, Strauss - Central Staff analyst Jasmine Marwaha providing technical analysis - 25 public commenters split between supporting restorative practices vs. school resource officers **Major outcomes:** - **4 amendments adopted** (1-amended, 3, 4, 6, 9-amended, 10) - **6 amendments failed** (2-partial, 5, 7, 8) - **Final bill passed 8-0** and moves to full Council June 17th - **Total levy cost increased** by approximately $4.5 million annually due to adopted amendments **Timeline:** Full Council vote scheduled for June 17, 2025, with ballot measure planned for November 2025 general election.

### Amendment 1 (Modified and Adopted): Equity and Safety Principles **Background:** Originally proposed restrictive language about school-to-prison pipeline and safety investments. **Councilmember Hollingsworth** offered a compromise amendment that removed the controversial "school-to-prison pipeline" language while adding "including but not limited to restorative practices." **Technical details:** - Changed "historically underserved" to "historically excluded" communities - Removed specific prohibition on punitive approaches - Added explicit mention of restorative practices as example **Current status:** Adopted 4-3-1 after heated debate about school resource officers (SROs) at Garfield High School. ### Amendment 6 (Adopted): Environmental Education Program **Background:** **Councilmember Strauss** successfully added $750,000 annually ($4.5M total) to restore full funding for the Environmental Education and Outdoor Learning program, which had been cut to only 38% of previous funding. **Technical details:** - Program serves 5,383 students from 65 schools annually - Managed by 9 staff with nearly 100 volunteers providing 4,000+ volunteer hours - Estimated tax impact: $7.50 annually for median property owner **Implementation challenges:** Program currently lacks permanent office space due to water damage at Discovery Park center and fire damage at Camp Long. ### Failed Amendments: Food and Legal Services **Amendment 5 (Failed 3-5):** Would have added $2M annually for Fresh Bucks food assistance program expansion **Amendment 8 (Failed 3-5):** Would have added $600K annually for legal services for vulnerable immigrant families **Key opposition reasoning:** Concerns about levy size already doubling, preference for general fund rather than levy funding, and questions about program scope alignment with education focus.

### The Garfield High School Divide The most contentious political dynamic centered on **school safety at Garfield High School**, where 6 of 7 recent shooting incidents occurred after the SRO moratorium. This created two distinct coalitions: **Pro-SRO Coalition:** - Parents and PTSA representatives citing principal and community support - **Councilmembers Saka and Kettle** emphasizing community choice and balanced public safety - Argument: "Don't tell Garfield families they can't have what they're asking for" **Anti-SRO Coalition:** - Student activists and restorative justice organizations - **Councilmember Rinck** leading with amendments prioritizing non-punitive approaches - Argument: Research shows SROs don't improve safety and contribute to school-to-prison pipeline ### Strategic Positioning on Levy Size **Chair Rivera** maintained strict discipline against levy expansion, voting against all cost-adding amendments while supporting the underlying programs. Her strategy: preserve levy viability by avoiding "Christmas tree" additions that could jeopardize voter approval. **Councilmember Moore** explicitly stated opposition to any levy increases, citing concerns about taxpayer burden and implementation feasibility. **Amendment sponsors** (Rinck, Saka, Strauss) pushed for specific priorities but faced the political reality of fiscal constraints. ### Power Dynamics **Rivera's authority** as chair was evident in her ability to set meeting pace, limit debate time, and frame discussions around implementation planning rather than prescriptive mandates. **Executive alignment** was notable - Deputy Mayor Washington and DEEL Director Chapelle worked closely with Rivera, suggesting strong Mayor-Council coordination on this priority.

### Immediate Opportunities **Full Council Meeting - June 17, 2025:** - **Public comment period** available for final input before Council vote - **Contact all 9 councilmembers** since this will be the final legislative opportunity - **Focus messaging** on implementation priorities since amendment window has closed **Implementation Planning Process (Fall 2025):** - **Robust stakeholder engagement** promised by DEEL after levy passage - **Community input sessions** will determine specific program designs - **RFP processes** for community-based organization partnerships ### Key Decision Points - **June 17:** Final Council vote (passage expected given 8-0 committee vote) - **July-August:** Ballot language finalization and voter education begins - **November 2025:** Voter decision - **Early 2026:** Implementation planning begins if passed ### Contact Strategies for Maximum Impact **For June 17 Council meeting:** - **Email all councilmembers** by June 16th with specific implementation priorities - **Attend in person** if possible - physical presence carries more weight - **Coordinate with coalitions** rather than individual testimony for amplified impact **For implementation phase:** - **Engage with DEEL directly** - they will lead stakeholder process - **Build relationships with school communities** who will be service recipients - **Partner with established CBOs** who have existing levy contracts

### Related Policies and Initiatives **Seattle Promise Program expansion** connects to: - **Workforce development initiatives** through Office of Economic Development - **Labor partnerships** for trades pathway development - **Seattle Colleges strategic planning** for capacity expansion **School safety investments** intersect with: - **SPD budget discussions** ($457.9M budget could potentially fund SRO pilot) - **Community Passageways program** evaluation planned for summer 2025 - **School Board SRO moratorium** requiring separate policy change ### Upcoming Milestones - **June 17:** Full Council final vote - **July:** Ballot language certification deadline - **August-October:** Voter education campaign period - **November 4, 2025:** Election day - **January 2026:** Implementation planning begins (if passed) - **Fall 2026:** First levy-funded services begin ### Cross-Cutting Themes **Equity framework** embedded throughout: - Prioritizes historically excluded communities - Focuses on schools and neighborhoods with greatest need - Includes language access and culturally responsive programming **Workforce development thread:** - Childcare supports working parents - Trades pathways address labor shortages - Promise program creates skilled workforce pipeline

### Budget Implications and Funding Sources **Base levy proposal:** $1.9 billion over 6 years ($316M annually) - **Property tax rate:** Estimated $0.67 per $1,000 assessed value - **Median homeowner impact:** ~$680 annually (more than double current levy) **Adopted amendments add:** - Environmental education: $4.5M total ($750K annually) - **Total additional tax burden:** ~$7.50 annually for median homeowner **Revenue stability concerns:** - Property tax base growth assumptions may be optimistic given economic conditions - **Two consecutive revenue forecast downturns** noted by Strauss as economic warning sign ### Procedural Insights **Amendment process revealed:** - **12 total amendments** proposed, showing significant member engagement - **Verbal amendments** allowed for real-time compromise (Hollingsworth's Amendment 1 modification) - **Technical reconciliation** deferred to full Council for overlapping language **Implementation structure:** - **DEEL as lead agency** with established community partnerships - **RFP processes** will determine service providers - **Accountability measures** include annual reporting and evaluation requirements ### Implementation Challenges **Capacity constraints:** - **Provider network expansion** needed for doubled childcare investment - **Facility requirements** for new preschool slots, especially in North Seattle - **Workforce development** needed for expanded programming **Coordination complexity:** - **Multiple agency involvement:** DEEL, Parks, Seattle Colleges, SPS - **Community partnership management** across dozens of organizations - **Performance measurement** across diverse program types and populations **Political sustainability:** - **Six-year commitment** spans multiple election cycles - **Economic volatility** could affect property tax collections - **Federal policy changes** may impact complementary programs (SNAP, childcare subsidies)