[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6220135,"mediaKeyId","3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c","parentId",3618862,"title","Seattle committee debates levy language on school safety after Garfield parents urge return of officers","audioSeconds",2816,"startMs",165000,"endMs",2981000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c&start=165&end=2981","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c/thumbnail_165000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6220135/Seattle/King-County/Washington/Seattle-committee-debates-levy-language-on-school-safety-after-Garfield-parents-urge-return-of-officers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220135-d7f842f04e95d54224827f457828f74e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028416&Signature=WcARHw88EhKuybLv2O~7vBhxNR5VSKkWyzTsh5v9h4-mmtourZLY2-M62gRdx1ES6ks-CGyIW34XFjsxKMi~5SPUmpi0JUMbvftKOMOA5K0tN-10szoZW4ACkdW~Umiv1TGO1f-rlj3MdI-BxzG6FHBO8aNcbBORrn59Apevui1ZYu9f~0EMi0GmX43DLj6b3VjrgXwTYyFZKY8kzdX6HvVbIn9~jzLTbjB~mc3FZqCKtElCN6O-uwlPvFIdpDrIN9UCTAXXifDlautYbyUwws7r3z41UurQaRgEmWNC53kRZxNZNKYL7TQ6W5OVIBXcLXvKWKAT8v1Walr1tTvsMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Seattle City, WA","date","2025-06-02T02:22:15.64Z","article","Chair Maritz Rivera opened the committee’s May 29 meeting of the Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise Levy to consider 12 proposed amendments to the levy ordinance. One of the most contested was amendment 1, sponsored by Councilmember Rink, which would add implementation principles emphasizing equitable access for historically underserved communities, prioritizing nonpunitive approaches to safety, and ensuring investments “do not contribute to the school‑to‑prison pipeline.”

The amendment’s sponsor framed the change as guidance for how levy funds should be used. “This amendment ensures that we are addressing root causes of violence through non punitive approaches,” Councilmember Rink said, adding that the levy should not repeat “mistakes of the past.” Central staff analyst Jasmine Marwaha told the committee the amendment would provide high‑level guidance only and would not bind the Council to specific services or change the proposed property tax rate.

The public comment period preceding the briefing drew parents and educators from Garfield High School, who pressed the committee to prioritize immediate on‑site safety measures. “We need both SROs back in the school and all of the community based efforts at mental health services…Get at the root causes of violence. It's not 1 or the other. It's both that are needed,” said Mark Jacobson, who identified himself as a Garfield parent. Another parent, David Jacobson, said Garfield has experienced multiple shootings and argued SROs and clearly defined police roles could have prevented recent tragedies.

Other speakers pressed the committee from the opposite direction. Substitute teacher Oliver Miska and others said they supported the levy’s goals but objected to limiting nonpunitive investments or restricting community‑led responses. “We do not want punitive practices in our schools. They don't make students feel safe,” Miska said, urging the Council to preserve restorative and community‑led approaches.

Council members questioned how SROs or other safety investments would be implemented if the amendment passed. Jasmine Marwaha and Chair Rivera repeatedly described the ordinance as setting broad buckets of spending and said the Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL) will lead a public stakeholder process to craft the implementation and evaluation (I&E) plan — the subsequent document that will specify contracts and programs. Marwaha noted the levy text as proposed would not change expected revenues and that specific allocations would be decided in the I&E plan and subsequent budget actions.

Several councilmembers emphasized a “yes‑and” approach rather than an either/or framing. Councilmember Kettle told the committee that “school resource officers can also promote school safety” when the program is done well. Councilmember Hollingsworth, whose district includes Garfield, said families and students in her district have asked for community resource officers as part of a broader safety strategy. Councilmember Saka urged flexibility, noting the decision to place officers inside a school is often a school‑level, fact‑specific choice and could include civilian SRO models.

Legal and procedural limits were discussed but not resolved. Council President Nelson asked whether the decision to allow officers on school grounds is made by the Seattle School Board; staff replied that school‑board policy governs school grounds, while officers in public right‑of‑way are within city authority, and that any SRO deployment would require coordination with the district.

No vote was taken on amendment 1. Chair Rivera and staff emphasized the department’s forthcoming stakeholdering process, and Rivera said the committee will vote on amendments at its June 12 meeting, with full Council consideration scheduled for June 17.

The committee’s discussion left two clear points: the amendment would signal the Council’s preferred approach to school safety by prioritizing nonpunitive, root‑cause investments if adopted, and operational decisions about SROs, civilian alternatives, or other school safety staffing would be developed later during DEEL’s I&E process and through partnerships with Seattle Public Schools.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Select Committee on the Families, Education, Preschool & Promise (FEPP) Levy 5/29/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Chair Maritz Rivera opened the committee’s May 29 meeting to consider amendment 1 to the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy, a proposal that would add implementation principles prioritizing equitable access, nonpunitive approaches to safety and measures to avoid contributing to the school‑to‑prison pipeline.","taxTitle","Seattle, King County, Washington","taxId",2543,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6220121,"Committee hears multiple amendments on preschool feasibility, after‑school programs, restorative practices and foster youth supports",773,2156000,2929000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c&start=2156&end=2929","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c/thumbnail_2156000.jpg","/articles/6220121/Seattle/King-County/Washington/Committee-hears-multiple-amendments-on-preschool-feasibility-afterschool-programs-restorative-practices-and-foster-youth-supports","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220121-00fb0a852c0e21610945e1681da2cde0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028416&Signature=TcqbkUM6yOGUileK3pmSlJ5nRwYMxHeokQ1HQzlWx-ZDFPYXd48B5EMiKBXNauCWgQ5ixOVpxjTTZtcvY~AJjwGly8VsQbOK1d3YV21Glz9wQRnFgspcv7D7xh8EaSCHTfI8h3U4k23lIeQqIcM77vZR12gPsYxmKblVxuNOCT41ICgbI6XqxH29OZ7bTsln9izYORSJG0311JzuE3Y1GzGWXUqG7Kit5B1XYUOIPuqzh-KK4y2SANwZ2z5XEEFUXY6ujpZNn2D0fz3yjLAMn3sQw6AdZf~PFaNl6~K0YJ3FIJj0Cq~r~AAlDtN0-1~tQcyKYzpk5cmpSECTRSgvyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee reviewed a cluster of amendments that would shape early learning and K‑12 supports in the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy.

Councilmember Saka proposed amendment 2 to authorize a feasibility study exploring universal citywide preschool and subsidies for families who cannot secure Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) slots. Saka described the proposal as a long‑term goal to lay groundwork for universal preschool and emphasized research showing preschool access increases later educational attainment. Amendment 3, also sponsored by Saka, would add after‑school programming for at‑risk youth to the list of illustrative services under the K‑12 health and safety category.

Vice Chair Rink proposed amendment 7 to add $1,000,000 annually (roughly $6,000,000 total) to support restorative practices in schools, and to add restorative practices to the illustrative list of eligible investments. Rink said restorative practices have reduced exclusionary incidents and exclusionary days in schools where they are deployed and argued the approach advances equity and conflict resolution. The staff briefing noted that restorative practices have received hybrid funding historically — from the levy, general fund and Seattle Public Schools — and that an $800,000 reserve had been used in the current biennium.

Councilmember Saka also sponsored amendment 10 to add support for foster youth transitioning to adulthood and to include career pathways in IT (coding languages such as Python were cited as examples) in the college and career category. Saka framed the change as tapping the levy to expand career pathways and digital skills for underserved youth.

Councilmembers discussed whether specific program lists should be included in levy language at this stage. Chair Rivera, staff and others urged patience for DEEL’s stakeholdering: they said the levy ordinance deliberately lists broad investment buckets and that specific programmatic choices should be developed publicly in the I&E plan. Councilmember Kettle and others said clarifying that the levy can fund particular needs — foster youth supports, after‑school programs, restorative practices — signals Council priorities but cautioned against pinning down program details before stakeholder engagement.

No votes were taken. Committee members reiterated that any funding amounts in amendments are illustrative pending the I&E plan and Council budget decisions; the committee scheduled amendment votes for June 12 and full Council consideration for June 17.","Several amendments proposed to the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy would broaden or clarify investments in early childhood, after‑school programming, restorative justice in schools, foster‑youth transition supports and career pathways in tech; staff stressed that the levy sets high‑level buckets and that DEEL’s implementation and",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6220125,"Council debate over Fresh Bucks expansion: advocates urge lift while some members caution on levy scope",178,2614000,2792000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c&start=2614&end=2792","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c/thumbnail_2614000.jpg","/articles/6220125/Seattle/King-County/Washington/Council-debate-over-Fresh-Bucks-expansion-advocates-urge-lift-while-some-members-caution-on-levy-scope","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220125-4914689858ebe88f0c99fcc696a363b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028416&Signature=n63PnjPU-MHhX5fZYHi1xlpaXqKuK6wWw2GFpqeccec6Uf31IpttzC30CR7P8l8b~mlSRfCl0hs2SlbG8cCNfBKj~fhG-Lowjrl~Ke2GuRGxzFxGw0NYWhXNddCT7HScRhTa91ksrhCijAQRiLUFB03QzDp4nIU65L0FZ2syOXIKr4gF~1zxb6mHxiklwzm2RxnJ3zMbZKEXUXZnCDahrALSuO7U3Wtgy0IBIKN9E1pZCQObtoALT63eEOCPU-dCtXm3XKteNlv8LO8IZuNLJNKAJY9fgEmnkCIdXv0wl7SANxbvBOLKJRLMmAFKzZ9nHWIL-elquPBAHtLVRDTMng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Vice Chair Rehnke (sponsor) introduced amendment 5 to the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy to expand Seattle’s Fresh Bucks program, a healthy‑food voucher initiative. Central staff summarized the request: the amendment would add about $2 million annually (roughly $12 million total across the levy term) to expand Fresh Bucks; staff said Fresh Bucks currently serves about 12,000 households, has a wait list of over 4,000 households and is funded through the sweetened beverage tax and general fund dollars.

In committee and public comment, advocates argued Fresh Bucks reduces food insecurity and supports local food vendors. Vice Chair Rehnke said the program supports households below 80% of area median income with $40 per month for fruits and vegetables at participating markets and grocers; she cited program economic impacts and said it leverages a lean city staff to reach thousands of households. “In this moment, when federal food assistance is becoming less reliable, we have an opportunity to step up here as a local government,” she said.

Opponents and cautious members raised two issues: whether Fresh Bucks is a child‑focused service appropriate for a levy historically dedicated to children and whether increasing the levy amount is the best funding mechanism. Chair Rivera noted Fresh Bucks is not explicitly limited to children and that adding adult‑focused benefits could require revising ballot language or otherwise clarifying levy scope. Councilmember Moore reiterated that the executive could restore or expand food programs in the city budget and said other revenue approaches (she mentioned capital‑gains proposals) could target food insecurity without raising the levy.

Staff also provided an estimated tax impact for the amendment: roughly 0.6 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, with an estimated median annual tax burden of about $6.26 under the amendment’s assumptions. The amendment text included a 1‑cent placeholder in the ordinance so the bill would be reconcilable after all potential revenue‑adding amendments were considered.

No vote was taken. Several councilmembers said they supported expanding food assistance in principle but raised procedural and ballot‑language concerns that they said should be resolved before embedding Fresh Bucks expansion in the levy ordinance.","Amendment 5 proposed adding roughly $2 million per year to the FEP levy to expand Fresh Bucks food vouchers for low‑income households; supporters said the program addresses food security and supports local grocers and farmers, while others said the program is not exclusively child‑focused and questioned whether levy funds or other revenue sources",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6220129,"Councilmember Strauss seeks levy funds to restore Seattle Parks’ environmental education staff",391,2963000,3354000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c&start=2963&end=3354","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3618862-59144286472d5840552f5b573dd0176c/thumbnail_2963000.jpg","/articles/6220129/Seattle/King-County/Washington/Councilmember-Strauss-seeks-levy-funds-to-restore-Seattle-Parks-environmental-education-staff","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220129-30e0c686066d17d0e45eb7ab7ddc4e58/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028416&Signature=ERYmJCMZUT9xB4w1YWF3BSOGunGkLcLDOJj4G~178lM4aNnao-tqHcfom75foovzYul1ir-IzBTKhfXU3Fy1jKcpYAdpg17WcPb1ruhkEIfTQTOQl3sZhZWXKdK17LwA1Q44A1Isfqe9DKjuAmozWKQckOJdnzpkmVHXzed18c5O3r6JENRxN18drqz15vR7gROCQadiS4Z5Aa~GIv4WI1U5HSNieVGlRKpMtUgwKRJdmY0h583vfQbZqMwCcSlLKJa2mKcGCYJ~V0er8T9WmePXO-1xpDUidUDkD9i2KRSXLVNfZhcgKKjJzt6QeoHYMYrkAgf6P01HS-vWIiRX6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilmember Strauss proposed amendment 6 to the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy to restore Seattle Parks and Recreation’s environmental education program positions that are scheduled for reduction in the 2026 budget. Central staff explained the amendment would add $679,000 annually (approximately $4.1 million total over the levy term) and would increase the ordinance’s maximum tax rate entry as a placeholder (the final levy rate will be reconciled if multiple amendments change totals).

In briefing materials Jasmine Marwaha said the mayor’s proposal restored funding sufficient for some youth‑focused environmental learning staff but not the program’s full set of nine positions; the amendment would fully restore those nine historical positions and add environmental learning programs to the list of services the levy may support. Marwaha and Strauss noted the levy language lists illustrative, nonbinding examples of eligible services; final decisions would be made in DEEL’s implementation and evaluation (I&E) plan and during budget deliberations.

Public commenters and community supporters urged the committee to adopt the amendment. Remote commenter Bill Farmer described the program’s education work for Title I schools and families and urged full funding; Louise Coulter and others called for retaining positions that run youth field trips and public programming. “This provides outdoor learning in our local parks and has many mental health and physical health benefits,” Farmer said.

Councilmembers debated two questions: whether the levy is the appropriate funding vehicle for Parks staff and whether the amendment would expand the levy beyond its historical focus on direct services to children. Councilmember Kettle said restoring the full team is important for equity and volunteer coordination: the environmental education program depends on staff who recruit and supervise volunteers who deliver thousands of free volunteer hours. Councilmember Moore said the mayor and executive branch could also restore positions in the city budget and urged caution about increasing the levy size.

Strauss described program results and participation: Parks hosted thousands of students and dozens of public programs in recent years, with many participants drawn from underserved schools. Strauss asked members to weigh a modest levy increase against the program’s reach: he said the added revenue would equal about $2.13 per year for a median‑value property owner under the amendment’s estimate, and that the executive had already proposed a partial restoration.

The committee did not vote on the amendment. Staff reiterated that if the committee adds language or revenue, the final I&E plan will specify how funds are used and that the full Council will reconcile any tax‑rate changes after all amendments are decided.

","Amendment 6 would add roughly $679,000 a year to the Families, Education, Preschool and Promise levy to fully restore nine environmental education positions that current budget proposals had cut; supporters said the program delivers citywide youth field trips and volunteer‑led programming, while some councilmembers questioned whether the levy is","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Seattle committee debates levy language on school safety after Garfield parents urge return of officers

Committee hears multiple amendments on preschool feasibility, after‑school programs, restorative practices and foster youth supports

Council debate over Fresh Bucks expansion: advocates urge lift while some members caution on levy scope

Councilmember Strauss seeks levy funds to restore Seattle Parks’ environmental education staff