Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Assistance Fresh Bucks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over Fresh Bucks expansion: advocates urge lift while some members caution on levy scope
Summary
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
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.
