|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 8, 2011 General Election
Election Results
Local Results
King County Elections
Statewide
Secretary of State
City of Seattle Offices and Ballot Issues
Written and Video Statements for Each Candidate and Ballot Issue:
Seattle City Council Position 1
Seattle City Council Position 3
Seattle City Council Position 5
Seattle City Council Position 7
Seattle City Council Position 9
Seattle Proposition 1
or Click Links To Each Race on Right →
Video Voters' Guide
Pick and Choose your Videos:
Click Links To Each Race →
Or Watch the Whole Thing:
at The Seattle Channel
Other Offices and Ballot Issues
on City of Seattle ballots
Information on candidates for these offices,
King County Assessor
King County Elections Director
King County Council
Port of Seattle Commission
Court of Appeals, Division No. 1,
District No. 1, Judge Position No. 2
Seattle School District
Can be found at the:
King County Elections'
Candidate Voters' Guide
Information on these statewide ballot issues,
Initiative Measure 1125
Initiative Measure 1163
Initiative Measure 1183
Senate Joint Resolution 8205
Senate Joint Resolution 8206
Can be found at the:
Secretary of State's
Online Voters' Guide
Information on this ballot issue,
Seattle Transportation Benefit District
Proposition No. 1
Can be found at the:
King County Elections'
Ballot Issue Voters' Guide
Seattle Mayoral Candidates and Campaigns
The next regularly scheduled election for Seattle Mayor is in 2013.
The next regularly scheduled election for Seattle City Attorney is also in 2013.
Information on all registered campaigns for Mayor and City Attorney can be found on our:
2013 Campaigns page
Voting and Ballot FAQs
How do I register to vote?
What is the registration deadline?
How do I get a ballot?
How do I vote absentee?
Where is my polling place?
Which voting precinct do I live in?
What is Vote by Mail?
How do I find my voting location?
How do I get help with voting?
What districts am I in?
Contact King County Elections
State and Federal Offices and Ballot Issues
There are no regularly scheduled elections for State or Federal Offices in 2011.
Seattle voters will see statewide ballot issues on their General Election ballot in November, 2011. You can find out more at the:
Secretary of State's website
Voter Registration, Polling Places & Absentee Ballots
King County Records & Elections administers the voting process for Seattle City Offices and City Ballot Issues. All inquiries regarding the following subjects should be directed to them:
Links are here...
King County Records and Elections
Another source of information on this subject is the Washington Secretary of State, they can be found at...
The Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission is responsible for administering Campaign Finance regulations and the Voters' Pamphlet for Seattle campaigns, not the actual voting process.
Seattle Form of Government
Seattle is a Charter City with a Mayor-Council form of government. The Mayor is directly elected by the voters and most executive departments report to the Mayor. There are nine City Councilmembers, all of whom are elected at-large. The only other elected position is the City Attorney, who is also elected at-large. The regular term of all offices is four years.
Candidates for these offices must be U.S. Citizens, registered voters in the City of Seattle at the time they file their declaration of candidacy, and able to read and write the English language.
All City office elections are non-partisan, which means the top two vote-getters in the primary election are placed on the general election ballot. This is true regardless of whether or not one candidate received a majority of the primary vote. If two people or less file declarations of candidacy for any of these offices, that office does not appear on the primary election ballot, but does appear on the general election ballot. Parties do not nominate candidates to appear on the ballot and the ballots do not identify the candidates by party. Parties can and do endorse and support certain candidates, but play no other role in nominating candidates or determining who is placed on the primary or general election ballot.
Ballot issues may appear on your ballot in the primary, general or special election. Those issues are decided in the election where they appear.
Districts, Wards and Precincts
The offices of Mayor, City Attorney and City Council are all elected at-large in Seattle, there are no districts or wards.
To see Federal and State Legislative District maps, and Voting Precinct maps:
City Council Pos. 1
Click on a candidate to view
their statement →
Seattle City Council Position 1 will appear on the General Election Ballot November 8, 2011. The incumbent is Jean Godden.
Or click on another race to see those statements →
City Council Pos. 1
|
Bobby Forch |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
I’m running for Seattle City Council because city government needs to do a better job getting results.
I started twenty years ago as a laborer putting in parking meters and painting crosswalks. I worked my way up to become the city’s public works contracting manager administering over $100 million in public works projects. My priorities have been shaped by my unique background as a small business owner and advocate, and experience working within government.
I’m the highest rated candidate in this race by the Municipal League. I’ve helped our small businesses. I’ve made city government work smarter. I’ve championed our city’s kids. I have the experience and proven record of results to hit the ground running as your next Seattle City Councilmember.
I’ve lived in Seattle’s Central District for over twenty years with my wife and son. I’ve been a board member for Northwest Children’s Fund and am a member of the 37th District Democrats. I’m endorsed by the most Democratic organizations, including King County Democrats, King County Young Democrats, and the 11th, 34th, 36th, 37th, 46th District Democrats, Laborers Local 440, Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata, King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, Port Commissioner Rob Holland, Reps. Eric Pettigrew and Zack Hudgins.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 1
|
Jean Godden |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
First and foremost, thank you for the tremendous victory on primary election night. I am thrilled and humbled to have nearly doubled the votes of my nearest competitor.
This race is about the kind of city we want to leave our kids. It’s about building a Waterfront second to none and a seamless transportation system where mass transit and better roads complement one another. It’s about prioritizing the most important government services – schools, roads, and public safety – during this recession. It’s about electing leaders who value collaboration, civility, and planning for the future – and who lead by example.
I have lived my entire life for these next four years – to serve selflessly, energetically, and for the greater good – beholden to no one but you. The list of my endorsers is as long as my arm, and my supporters and detractors alike will tell you that I am still an objective, inquisitive reporter. If you make your point and it makes Seattle a better place, then chances are you can count me as an advocate.
You’ve known me as a longtime journalist, your City Councilmember for the past seven years, and more recently as the City’s Budget Chair. In the toughest of times I balanced our City’s budget while restoring cuts to neighborhood programs, libraries, and community health clinics. I’m an unapologetic environmentalist and I’m willing to do what is right to keep our city and neighborhoods safe and protected.
I am privileged to have a broad range of supporters who want to keep me on the job.
Endorsed by:
Seattle’s future can be as bright as we deserve – filled with innovative public projects and good jobs. What we need is leadership that puts you first, and that’s exactly what I will continue to do.
I’m Jean Godden, and I humbly ask for your vote.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 3
Click on a candidate to view
their statement →
Seattle City Council Position 3 will appear on the General Election Ballot, November 8, 2011. The incumbent is Bruce Harrell.
Or click on another race to see those statements →
City Council Pos. 3
|
Bruce Harrell |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Re-Elect Bruce Harrell: Effective Leadership, Recognized Across Seattle
Seattle needs leaders with courage and integrity—who lead with a sense of urgency and vision. That’s why I created the Great Student Initiative to provide 16,000 Seattle Public School students with computers and high speed Internet access for less than $10 per month. With two kids in local high schools, I know how critical it is for families to have these resources. As Chair of City Light, I’ve worked overtime to achieve the lowest power rates amongst the country’s 24 largest cities.
The facts illustrate my commitment to:
Affordable, Green Energy:
Transportation: I am a 4-year regional leader on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board and fought for Seattle to receive over $32.5 million in federal funds for roads and transit. I’ll get us beyond the viaduct era by opening the waterfront and creating jobs.
Social Justice: I created unprecedented race and social justice legislation that requires our City to recognize both the diversity of our city—and diversity of opinion—before taking action. Every community deserves respect.
Strong Public Safety: You must feel safe. I’ve supported adding more police officers and used my expertise as an attorney and youth mentor to enhance community relations. My proposal to equip police with body cameras rebuilds confidence in officers and protects them and the community.
Seattle Times article referred to Bruce Harrell as “The New Definition of Leadership.”
“We Endorse Councilmember Harrell For Another Term!”
Note: As of 8/24/11 my opponent has not listed any endorsements by any legislative district, labor organization or elected official.
I ask for your vote.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 3
|
Brad Meacham |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
I’m running because we need stronger leadership on the Seattle City Council. We can have reliable transit, more affordable housing and more neighborhood businesses. Our city government should live up to the excellence of its citizens.
I am a third-generation Washingtonian from a working class family. I attended public schools and worked my way through Columbia University (the first in my family to attend a four-year college). I worked as a financial journalist overseas and around the U.S. before coming home to raise a family. I was twice elected chairman of the Municipal League, have been a member of the Eastlake Community Council and currently serve on the board of Richard Hugo House.
I love Seattle and am going to make this city a better place. My wife Marie and I chose to make our home in Columbia City because we want to raise our son, Theodore, in a diverse, walkable community with distinctive small businesses and access to mass transit. While my opponent has been ineffective on the council and duplicitous on the campaign trail, I bring passion, skills and a concrete vision for our city.
Creating More Jobs: Seattle can be a national magnet for innovation and start-ups if we make it easier to do business here and provide infrastructure such as fiber-optic Internet. These changes will create more jobs.
Making Transit A Top Priority: I will champion strategies to move freight more efficiently, invest in effective transportation options (e.g., transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure) and improve land use policy to create affordable communities.
Modernizing Seattle City Light: Our power company should be a model utility that adopts smart-grid technology. Bruce Harrell has overseen Seattle City Light for four years and presided over the largest rate increases since the energy crisis without creating new efficiencies or developing accountability. We can do better.
It is frustrating to see delay on these issues. My opponent has missed one-fifth of the major votes during his time on the council and an embarrassing number of his committee meetings. We need a councilman who will show up to work ready to create a more inclusive and just city.
I’ve been a union member and active in the 37th District Democrats. I’m endorsed by the Sierra Club, Tim Harris from Real Change, Rev. David Bloom and hundreds of individuals. I’m excited about our city’s future and I ask for your vote.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 5
Click on a candidate to view
their statement →
Seattle City Council Position 5 will appear on the General Election Ballot November 8, 2011. The incumbent is Tom Rasmussen.
Or click on another race to see those statements →
City Council Pos. 5
|
Dale Pusey |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Hello. My name is Dale Pusey, and I am running for Seattle City Council because I feel that everyday residents do not have a voice in the governing of their city. Everywhere you look, from the crumbling roads to the reduced library services, the lack of care and concern given by our leaders to problems that affect the majority of our citizen’s lives is, quite frankly, appalling. Meanwhile, there is a never ending cry to increase taxes and fees to support projects that Seattle taxpayers have already generously paid for, which affects the vitality and livability of all of our residents who, due to the recession, are already struggling to make ends meet. However, the only people that seem to matter to our elected officials are special-interest groups, whose projects receive special priority, often to the detriment of the majority of the population. I intend to be that voice for those who feel disconnected and ignored by our city leaders.
It has been said by others that I lack the experience necessary to be an effective leader. But I answer that with a question: What has our current City Council done for our city? Has it made any difference to the problems that our city faces? Has it made our roads any more drivable, or transit more dependable? Has any of the legislation passed by the Council made a positive contribution to our city’s economy or made your job more secure? Do you feel more secure in your neighborhood or in the downtown area? But most importantly: Do you feel that the increased taxes and fees that have been levied over the last couple of years been spent wisely? If you answered no to any of these questions, I invite you to consider a new direction for our city’s future and vote for Dale Pusey for your next City Councilmember. Thank you for your time, and, with your support, will work tirelessly to make our city the best it can be for our future generations.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 5
|
Tom Rasmussen |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Re-Elect Tom Rasmussen. Working For Seattle, Getting Results
It is an honor to serve you. When I first ran for office I committed to be open and accessible and to work to get things done. I made it clear I would be a passionate advocate for seniors, people with disabilities and the most vulnerable.
I worked hard to live up to that promise. I take pride in what we have accomplished.
The greatest joy of being a Councilmember is being out in the community and working with you to make real changes that positively impact the lives of Seattleites. The real work does not just happen in City Hall; in fact, it often starts in our neighborhoods, community organizations and businesses.
But there is still much to do. I offer you my experience, energy and passion for the next four years:
Working for Transportation Solutions
I will continue working to ensure that the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is done with the least amount of disruption to residents, commuters and businesses. Additionally, I am leveraging every level of government to secure the resources required for smart investments in transit and transportation maintenance and safety improvements.
Jobs for Seattle Families
I fought to protect jobs and invest in our neighborhood business districts. I achieved decisive action on transportation projects that will put thousands of people to work. I welcome and support the innovative and creative businesses that are locating in neighborhoods throughout our city. Keeping Seattle attractive to businesses and workers from all industries and sectors is my top priority.
Protecting the Vulnerable
I have stood up for the most vulnerable in our community–including low-income seniors, victims of domestic violence and people with disabilities–and I will continue to be a passionate advocate and voice for these individuals.
Neighborhoods and Safety
I am proud to have fought for the successful parks levy. I am an ardent advocate for our firefighters and our neighborhood policing programs. I am working for safe and attractive neighborhoods that must include affordable housing.
My Pledge to You
With your support, I will continue to be a Councilmember who is open, accessible and focused on getting things done. Together we are making Seattle an even better place to live and work.
I am proud to have strong support from a wide range of individuals and organizations. Please visit my website at: www.Tom4Seattle.com.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 7
Click on a candidate to view
their statement →
Seattle City Council Position 7 will appear on the General Election Ballot November 8, 2011. The incumbent is Tim Burgess.
Or click on another race to see those statements →
City Council Pos. 7
|
David Schraer |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
David Schraer will change the way Seattle does business. David will bring his passion for social justice, reverence for nature and a life of authentic public service to Seattle City Council – along with straight talk, tough reforms and policies that make sense . . .
Return Public Health to the center of city governance:
Did you know that the city allows developers to build bedrooms with no natural light or air? Sleeping closets were made illegal long ago because they are unhealthy for residents and dangerous for firefighters. Sleeping closets use energy 100% of the time they are occupied. We can stop this nonsense, and much like it, by focusing on public health.
Stop NIMBY obstruction by inventorying our genuine assets:
Change can be welcome. Unfortunately, our current ‘listening’ system enables squeaky wheels to delay or stop almost any project. Truly valuable trees, historic places, and cultural assets should be preserved. Using internet voting and expert opinion, we can prioritize our assets and prevent preservation from being used as a red herring.
Encourage bicycle commutes, create ‘sidewalks’, and make fewer potholes:
Seattle has 1,691 miles of streets, too many potholes and too few sidewalks. We can repurpose some residential streets for local parking, bicycle and pedestrian walkways, gardens, trees, and storm water retention. Repurposed streets with walkways won’t need expensive sidewalks. Little auto traffic means few potholes. Win, win, and win.
Convert residential waterfronts to public use:
We can convert our residential waterfronts to parks, recreation and natural habitat over the next 100 years. My gradual, low-cost, intentionally uncontroversial plan is modeled on national park system land assembly. Let’s think really big for a change.
David Schraer - A Leader in the Community:
David was the first Executive Director of the White Center Community Development Association and founded the Seattle LGBT Community Center parent organization. David has been a leader on many efforts, including bringing farmer’s markets to Columbia City and White Center and securing a Rainier Valley route for light rail.
Architect and small business owner:
Raised in rural Missouri near Huck’s stomping ground, David served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Oman before moving to Seattle in 1979 and starting his architectural firm in 1988.
For more information: www.davidforseattle.com
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 7
|
Tim Burgess |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Re-Elect Tim Burgess. Experience we need. Leadership we want.
I was born and raised right here in Seattle. Joleen and I raised our three daughters here, too.
When I first ran for City Council in 2007 I wanted to provide productive leadership and get things done. I am incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished. But, we have more to do.
I’m running for re-election because I believe in a Seattle where public education prepares all students for college or job training, regardless of race or social status. Where businesses, large and small, can thrive and grow. Where citizens and visitors alike feel safe. Where transportation systems offer choice, safeguard the environment and efficiently move people and goods. Where government is accountable. Where we protect the most vulnerable among us. I’d like to continue to provide the leadership necessary to achieve this vision.
Determined to Improve Public Safety
As Chair of the Public Safety Committee, I’ve not been afraid to critique our Police Department. I’ve led efforts to improve accountability and bring reform, encourage external investigations, and acknowledge the dedication and good work of our best officers. I have prioritized neighborhood crime reduction, making our downtown streets safe and encouraged new and innovative approaches to policing.
Committed to Protecting the Most Vulnerable
I led the effort to establish a safe-haven residential treatment program for children coerced into prostitution. Today, the country’s fourth center dedicated to caring for these kids is open.
Driven to Restore Public Education
We need to make sure that all of our kids have the resources and opportunities to get a quality education. I worked hard to craft a reform-minded Families and Education Levy that provides proven interventions from pre-Kindergarten to college. You can vote to approve the Levy this election.
Dedicated to Job Creation
As a former business owner, I understand that today it’s more important than ever to support our local business community, make it easier to open businesses here, and foster the entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens.
I’m honored to serve this city that I love so much and would greatly appreciate your vote. I’m grateful to have received the highest OUTSTANDING rating of the Municipal League and the endorsement of the King County Labor Council, Cascade Bicycle Club, Washington Conservation Voters, King County and Legislative District Democrats, Seattle Firefighters and Police Officers, business and education leaders, and neighbors throughout the city.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 9
Click on a candidate to view
their statement →
Seattle City Council Position 9 will appear on the General Election Ballot November 8, 2011. The incumbent is Sally Clark.
Or click on another race to see those statements →
City Council Pos. 9
|
Sally Clark |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Re-Elect Sally Clark: A Positive Vision
It is an honor to work for you on behalf of the city we love. My priorities for the next four years will be job creation, building a mobility-focused transportation system with healthy transit, bike and pedestrian options, and keeping Seattle neighborhoods not just safe, but sought after for great small businesses, parks and housing for all.
I’ll work to position our city and our neighborhoods for a successful rebound by stretching tax dollars further and reprioritizing spending. I’d appreciate your vote!
Serving Our Neighborhoods
Seattle’s acknowledged leader in serving our diverse, dynamic neighborhoods, Sally brings a commitment to listening and a focus on pragmatic solutions to the tough issues we face:
Smart Development: Sally strengthened the rules to curb mega-houses that dwarf neighbors in single-family areas; made it easier to remove derelict homes; improved energy efficiency in new construction.
Stronger Neighborhood Planning: Sally believes in community-driven neighborhood planning. The result: revitalization and investment in keeping with the character of our neighborhoods.
Protecting what we value: Sally believes we don’t have to trade character for economic growth. She works for historic preservation and revitalization in all neighborhoods, especially Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market.
Protecting Businesses, Creating Jobs
Sally is committed to job creation and retention:
Vibrant Business Districts: Promoting development along transit routes, facilitating arts jobs, and fighting for effective transit, Sally is helping local business thrive.
Expanding Clean Jobs: Sally supports expansion of biotechnology and research jobs, worked to keep Children’s Hospital in Seattle, and advocates for middle class jobs at our Port.
Protecting People
Sally uses innovation to expand and protect programs that serve the poor, our homeless neighbors and crime victims:
Protection from Predatory Lenders: To protect low-income people from high fees and interest rates, Sally launched a bank program that serves over 40,000 people.
Preserving Human Services: Facing unprecedented cuts, Sally protected services for victims of domestic violence. Sally opened City Hall to serve as a winter homeless shelter and is the leading voice for affordable housing so families of all income levels can live in Seattle.
Sally has been endorsed by the 11th, 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th Democrats, the K.C. Democrats, National Women's Political Caucus of WA, K.C. Labor Council, Washington Conversation Voters, Seattle Firefighters Union, and The Seattle Times, as well as many more organizations. She also received an 'outstanding' rating by the Muni League!
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
City Council Pos. 9
|
Dian Ferguson |
 |
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Written Voters' Guide Statement
Education
PROVEN LEADERSHIP
Dian Ferguson is a leader. She gets things done. Dian’s been active in the community as a PTA President at Emerson, serving on the founding board of Town Hall, and as a past chair of NARAL Pro Choice Washington. Professionally she worked as a non-profit executive director at SCAN-TV, the Women’s Funding Alliance and as a senior advisor to Mayor Paul Schell. Dian is a business owner and the mother of Elliott, a college graduate.
LET’S GET SEATTLE MOVING
Are you impatient with a city government that devotes endless meetings to "listening," and then ignores public sentiment anyway? Dian will listen...and then she will act decisively, foregoing needless process.
A FOCUS ON WHAT MATTERS
Job creation....public safety and real police accountability --- that’s why Dian’s running.
The differences between Dian and her opponent are:
Dian’s for affordable housing for those making under $50,000 – while the incumbent has voted for favors for developers cashing in on tax breaks under the guise of affordable housing.
Dian will put her management and business experience to work and establish a Jobs Creation committee focused on economic development that results in family wage jobs and student internships– the incumbent hasn’t brought a single job to Seattle.
Dian’s for real transportation solutions that are equitable for all – not expensive, regressive taxes like the $60 car tab the incumbent voted for that doesn’t get our massive backlog of streets repaired, restore infrastructure, maintain bridges, or fix transportation problems.
Dian believes police are accountable to the public as public servants – the incumbent is fine with the Police Guild being the arbitrator of police accountability.
Dian will provide a desperately needed voice on the city council for Seattleites challenged by issues of affordability and failing schools. Dian wants all students, public and private, to receive a quality education. The city must do a better job managing the education levy dollars to enable increase academic standards and graduation rates.
A NEW VOICE!
Dian is endorsed by King County Council Chair Larry Gossett, Seattle School Board member Betty Patu, former City Council member Judy Nicastro, former state legislator Dawn Mason, former state senator, Claudia Kauffman, and Tsuguo “Ike” Ikeda.
This statement was provided by the candidate, who is solely responsible for the contents therein.
Proposition 1
Proposition No. 1
Regular Tax Levy Including Families and
Education
The City of Seattle’s Proposition concerns renewing and enhancing Education-Support Services to improve academic achievement.
This proposition would fund City services, including school readiness, academic achievement in elementary, middle and high school, college/career preparation, and student health and community partnerships as provided in Ordinance 123567. It authorizes regular property taxes above RCW 84.55 limits, allowing additional 2012 collection of up to $32,101,000 (approximately $0.27/$1000 assessed value) and up to $231,562,000 over seven years. In 2012, total City taxes collected would not exceed $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Should this Levy be approved?
LEVY, YES
LEVY, NO
Proposition 1
Seattle Proposition 1 approves a property tax increase totaling $231,562,000 over seven years. The levy is limited so that the City shall not levy more than $32,101,000 in the first year and the levy amount cannot grow by more than 1% per year. The funding provided through Proposition 1 would be spent in seven major categories:
1. School readiness and early learning. Major program elements include preschool for low-income three and four year olds; access for low-income families to high quality childcare; professional development for early education providers; school readiness support for children in home day-care situations, including home visits; health screenings; and preschool to kindergarten transition services.
2. Academic achievement in elementary school. Major program elements include extended learning time, out-of-school time activities, and summer learning programs; and school- and community-based family support services.
3. Academic achievement and college/career preparation in middle school. Major program elements include extended learning time; out-of-school time activities; social, emotional, and behavioral supports; summer learning programs; and advising, guidance and related support for college readiness.
4. Academic achievement and college/career preparation in high school. Major program elements include extended learning time; social, emotional, and behavioral supports; summer learning programs; and advising, guidance and related support for college readiness.
5. Student health. Major program elements include school-based student health clinics and physical, mental and dental support services at clinic sites in middle and high schools; school-based health services at high-need elementary schools; and health services for high-risk middle and high school students in alternative school settings.
6. Community partnership fund. Major program elements include funding for community and school-based partnerships to achieve Levy goals.
7. Research and Evaluation. Major program elements include research and evaluation of the individual programs and services in the foregoing categories and of the overall outcomes of Education-Support Services funded by levy proceeds.
Each year the City Council and Mayor will decide on the particular services to be funded within these categories, consistent with an Implementation and Evaluation Plan approved by ordinance. Funding for the Seattle School District would be controlled by a Partnership Agreement approved by ordinance. There will be an oversight committee composed of the Mayor, the Chair of the City Council’s Public Safety and Education Committee, the Superintendent of the School District, a member of the School Board, and eight community members. This committee will make recommendations on the above-referenced plan and review programs and advise the City Council on proposed levy expenditures and reallocations to be adopted in the City’s annual budget.
In 1990, 1997, and in 2004 Seattle voters approved “Families and Education Levy” property tax increases. Funds from the levies supported programs for children and their families both in and out of school. The 1990 and 1997 levies each totaled $69,000,000 over seven years. The 2004 levy totaled $116,788,000 over seven years. The 2004 levy will expire by the end of 2011.
More information about this measure is available at: http://www.seattle.gov/edlevy
Proposition 1
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Our community is returning to a school assignment system based on neighborhood schools.
At the same time, this generation of Seattle’s students will need to truly compete in the global economy. Let’s make sure every kid in every school has the opportunity to succeed.
We urge you to vote “Yes” for the Families & Education Levy. This is a renewal and enhancement of the existing levy known for its strong record of success. For 20 years, the initiative has provided support to children and their families, both in and out of school, helping all of Seattle’s children become safe, healthy, and ready to learn.
Since 2005, the Levy has successfully provided:
As a result, Levy-funded middle school students are showing a 21% increase in meeting math standards, and a 13% increase in meeting reading standards.
We know this economy will demand more math, science and technical knowledge than ever before. We also know the next generation will compete with workers from all over the world. That’s why the 2011 Levy places special emphasis on:
Moreover, Levy-funded programs are held accountable for specific and measurable results, so our kids get the support they need. Programs that don’t produce results won’t receive funding.
The Levy is endorsed by the League of Education Voters, Alliance For Education, Schools First, Seattle Education Association, Seattle Council PTSA, Stand For Children, King County Labor Council, Former Mayor Norm Rice, Estela Ortega, Matt Griffin, Greg Wong, Bob Watt, Mayor Mike McGinn, the Seattle City Council, and dozens of community organizations and concerned citizens.
Since 1990, the Families and Education Levy has given thousands of Seattle’s students support and educational assistance during their education experience. Without continued support, the gains our kids have made would be at risk.
Renewing and enhancing the Levy will help make sure every kid in every school has the opportunity to succeed. Vote “Yes” for the Families & Education Levy.
Statement submitted by:
Contact Information:
402-9th Ave N | Seattle, WA | 98109
(206) 743-0440
FamiliesAndEd@gmail.com
www.familiesandeducationlevy.org
A 13% or 21% improvement in a few middle school outcomes? Seriously? If this is the best argument for the levy's supposed success, then it only underscores how pitifully unsuccessful the levy has been.
The Levy Annual Reports provide no evidence that any levy program improved student achievement. One of three students still fails to graduate! On the levy's primary goals -- graduation rates, readiness for college or vocations, and narrowing the achievement gap -- the Levy Annual Reports only make promises but don't report any success measures because they can’t! After spending a quarter-billion dollars over 21 years, it seems the real beneficiaries of the levy have been well-connected private contractors and not our children.
Enough is enough. Seattle's families who are struggling in this economy can't afford to double the current tax and spend another quarter-billion dollars on a failed program. Vote NO on Prop. 1.
Statement submitted by:
Nicole Franklin, Andrew MacDonald and Irene Song
Contact Information:
www.FamiliesAgainstProp1.org
Proposition 1
Video Voters' Guide Statement
Seattle voters who really care about families and education should be outraged by, and reject, Seattle Proposition 1. Over the past 21 years, Seattle homeowners have spent one quarter of a billion dollars -- $69M in 1990, $69M in 1997 and $117M in 2004 -- with no improvement in Seattle schools. Despite 21 years of the same grandiose promises of success that the levy advocates are still making today, the achievement gap is as wide as ever and the dropout rate is still appalling. The City Council’s answer is to double-down on failure and ask you for another quarter-billion dollars to throw at the problem without seeming to notice that these programs don’t work.
This levy puts middle-class families at risk in a time of economic uncertainty. You will pay $850 if you are a typical homeowner, twice as much as the prior levy. Parents and grandparents will have less money to provide for their children’s and grandchildren’s educational needs.
The Seattle City Council can’t demonstrate that the funds raised by the last levy were spent wisely. They promised accountability last time but there’s no evidence that the programs have made a difference. Some of the levy dollars were used to pay campaign consultants and political action groups. The city cannot provide a complete accounting of all the funds that were spent. This levy is supposed to help families, but as far as we can see the only beneficiaries will be bureaucrats and politically-connected contractors.
The Seattle School District has shown time and again that it cannot manage its resources responsibly. Every household, family and business has been forced to prioritize its budget over the last few years of economic recession. Doubling the prior levy, as Proposition 1 would do, will only encourage more unproductive spending and won’t force the city and the school district to prioritize and fund the most effective programs. To promote responsible government, give families flexibility, and keep Seattle affordable for everyone, we urge you to vote NO on Proposition 1.
Statement submitted by:
Nicole Franklin, Andrew MacDonald and Irene Song
Contact Information:
www.FamiliesAgainstProp1.org
Accountability has been, and always will be, part of the historic success of the Families & Education Levy. Programs are managed by the city, performance-based, and tied to achieving specific and measurable results.
The successes are clear:
Levy-funded middle school students are showing a 21% increase in meeting math standards and a 13% increase in meeting reading standards.
Economic experts are urging investments in education so we can better compete in the global economy. Our kids simply need more math, science and technical knowledge than ever before. Renewing and enhancing the Levy is the right step at the right time.
The Families & Education Levy is accountable and successful. Let’s make sure every kid in every school has the opportunity to succeed.
Statement submitted by:
Contact Information:
402-9th Ave N | Seattle, WA | 98109
(206) 743-0440
FamiliesAndEd@gmail.com
www.familiesandeducationlevy.org
Proposition 1
ORDINANCE 123567
AN ORDINANCE relating to regular property taxes; requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the November 8, 2011 general election for submission to the qualified electors of the City of a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 RCW and authorize the City to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of providing Seattle School District No. 1 public school students, Seattle children, and their families education-support services designed to improve academic achievement; authorizing creation of a new subfund; creating an oversight committee; and authorizing implementing agreements for this levy lid lift commonly known as the Families and Education Levy.
WHEREAS, providing equal access to a quality education is a cornerstone of our democracy, which thrives on an engaged and educated citizenry; and
WHEREAS, Seattle is a dynamic city, with a strong arts and literature community, and enjoys a strong economic base with a variety of industries and a skilled and educated workforce; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain its competitiveness, keep existing employers and attract new family-wage jobs and economically sustainable industries, Seattle needs to provide a well educated and trained workforce with the advanced skills and abilities needed to compete in the 21st century; and
WHEREAS, a 2010 Georgetown University study of workforce needs found “that by 2018 the United States economy will need 22 million new workers with college degrees but will fall short by at least 3 million. In addition, nationwide we will need at least 4.7 million new workers with postsecondary certificates.” The Georgetown University study analyzed workforce needs by state and forecasts that by 2018 67% of the jobs in Washington state will require a college degree or career credential; and
WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the Seattle School District No. 1 (“School District”) and the community at large to ensure all children within Seattle have the opportunity to attain the skills and education needed to participate in their community, be effective civic actors, and contribute to a strong Seattle economy; and
WHEREAS, while the School District is directly responsible for promoting academic excellence in our schools and classrooms, the support and assistance of families, businesses, non-profit and community organizations and the City is also needed to help children realize their full academic potential; and
WHEREAS, in 1990 Seattle residents came together in an Education Summit convened by Mayor Norm Rice to develop strategies so Seattle children could take advantage of their educational opportunities and the School District could focus its resources on teaching; and
WHEREAS, in 1990 Seattle voters approved a $69 million, seven year property tax lid lift which became known as the Families and Education Levy (Levy) which invested in health, academic enrichment and support services for Seattle children and their families with the stated goal of helping children be safe, healthy and ready to learn; and
WHEREAS, in 1997 Seattle voters approved a $69 million, seven year renewal of the Levy with the continued goal of helping children be safe, healthy and ready to learn; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 a citizen advisory committee convened to review the 1997 Levy-funded strategies and services, and recommended deeper Levy investments with a clearer stated goal of helping students succeed academically; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 Seattle voters approved a $117 million, seven year renewal of the Levy with the expanded goal of helping children be ready to learn, succeed academically and graduate from high school; and
WHEREAS, since 1990 Seattle voters have generously approved three successive seven year Families and Education levies to support and improve student academic achievement within the city by significant margins of 56% in 1990, 61% in 1997 and 62% in 2004; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Levy focuses on programs and services intended to prepare children for kindergarten, improving academic achievement, closing the achievement gap, and increasing high school graduation rates; and measures all Levy investments by their ability to contribute to these goals; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 Seattle residents participated in a series of community meetings throughout the city and a day-long Congress to identify challenges faced by Seattle’s youth and families and resources and strategies to address them, in an effort that became known and continues forward as the Youth and Families Initiative (YFI); and
WHEREAS, helping all students succeed academically in school was identified as an important goal by parents and community members participating in the YFI; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the City adopted Resolution 31206 setting forth a structure, process and schedule to develop and place a seven year renewal of the Levy on the November 8, 2011, ballot, and providing for a Families and Education Levy Advisory Committee (Levy Advisory Committee) to make recommendations regarding a Levy renewal; and
WHEREAS, the 24 member Levy Advisory Committee is comprised of the 12 member Levy Oversight Committee (LOC), which oversees the current Levy, and 12 additional citizens. The LOC members are the School Board President, a School District representative, the chair of the Council’s Public Safety and Education Committee, a representative of the Mayor and eight citizens. The 20 citizen members on the Levy Advisory Committee, including the eight who serve on the LOC, collectively have professional and personal experience working with students and families, and in evaluating evidence-based programs and education strategies. The members include parents, community-based service providers, former teachers and researchers; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the Levy Advisory Committee spent six months reviewing current Levy programs, research on best practices and evidence-based programs, education reform efforts and School District data and recommends that the Levy goals again be expanded and Levy investments be deepened because graduation from high school is no longer sufficient; post secondary work is necessary in the current and future economy and students must graduate with the skills necessary to succeed in college or their chosen career path; and
WHEREAS, the Levy Advisory Committee Report is contained in Clerk File 311309, in which all research references cited in this ordinance may be found; and
WHEREAS, the Levy Advisory Committee recommends the overarching goal for our children should be that all students will graduate from Seattle high schools ready for college and/or career; and
WHEREAS the Levy Advisory Committee further recommends that the goals for the 2011 Levy should be to: 1) help children be ready for school, 2) help all students succeed academically and reduce the academic achievement gap, and 3) help all students graduate from high school college and career ready; and
WHEREAS, the Levy Advisory Committee recommends the City place on the November 8, 2011, ballot a measure to renew the Families and Education Levy for seven years, at a funding level that requires a Levy of $231,562,000, which would add approximately $0.27 per $1,000 of assessed value of additional taxes and cost the owner of a home with 2012 average residential assessed value of $462,000 approximately $124 annually; and
WHEREAS, the Seattle School Board and School District actively participated in the Levy Advisory Committee, held a retreat to discuss how the Levy investments could align with and strengthen the School District’s core mission of helping all children succeed academically and endorsed the recommendations of the Levy Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, Proceeds from the Families and Education Levies are supplemental to the basic education financed by the State of Washington and the Seattle School District Levies and do not displace nor reduce State or School District funding for Seattle Public Schools; and
WHEREAS, the collection of taxes from the current Levy will end in 2011 and services funded by the Levy will end unless the Levy is renewed; and
WHEREAS, because the School District alone cannot address all barriers to academic achievement, and because Seattle residents support the economic, social and civic well-being of the city, supplemental funding provided through the Levy is a legitimate City purpose; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council makes the following findings and declarations:
A. Seattle’s children are its future and the quality of that future depends on providing all students a high quality education.
B. Seattle needs an educated population that is actively engaged in its civic life and contributes to the economic and social well-being of the city.
C. Graduating from high school and completing college or post-secondary training improves an individual’s earnings potential and economic self-sufficiency. A high school diploma alone is insufficient to prepare our children to succeed in the 21st century economy.
D. The need for all our children to succeed academically and the challenges to their doing so are even greater in 2011 than in 1990 when a Families and Education Levy was first approved by Seattle voters.
E. In order to earn a high school diploma, students must now pass standardized tests or approved alternatives to those tests that show competency in math, science, reading, and writing.
F. According to School District data of the 46,000 students enrolled in the School District in the 2009-2010 academic year, 40% qualified for the free and reduced lunch program, 14% qualified for special education services, 12% qualified for the transitional bilingual program and 0.6% were in foster care.
G. The School District has developed and published a District Scorecard. For the 2009-2010 academic year it reports 67% of the students graduated from high school in four years or less, 70% graduated in 6 years and only 46% of the high school graduates were prepared for admission to a four-year college.
H. The School District has also developed and published a school report on the performance of each school in the district. Many of the lowest performing schools are predominately in the central, southeast and southwest parts of Seattle and these schools have a concentration of students who face difficult barriers and encounter significant challenges to academic achievement.
I. The Seattle School District has adopted a new student assignment plan that emphasizes enrollment in neighborhood schools.
J. In recent years, research on child development has informed new strategies and across the nation there are examples where well-executed, research-based interventions can effectively improve a child’s academic achievement.
K. Since the 2005-2006 school year, Levy-funded programs and services have provided preschool support for approximately 4,000 children, out-of-school activities for more than 20,000 children and youth, parent engagement and family support services to at least 12,000 students’ families, academic support and intervention to more than 19,000 students, and physical and mental health services to over 40,000 students.
L. Research findings have underscored the importance of quality early childhood education by identifying critical periods when a child’s brain development facilitates the acquisition of certain skills, such as language, and the need to capitalize on those learning opportunities. Children acquire a larger vocabulary and stronger language skills if exposed to adults with a larger vocabulary. Since the 2005-2006 school year, Levy investments in providing high quality preschools, professional development for preschool workers, and assisting at-home childcare givers have helped 1,600 children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school.
M. Education experts and advocates stress the need to provide a continuum of services from cradle to college. For example, Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone, emphasizes that such services need to be consistent and provide appropriate support for children through each developmental stage and through key school transition years.
N. This understanding of the need for consistent and sustained supportive services has led to the development of “road maps” from birth to the completion of college or career certification which identify key education milestones and transition years, and helps focus efforts to improve education outcomes. The Community Center for Education Results (CCER) in Seattle has developed such a road map for students in South Seattle and South King County which is modeled after those adopted in other parts of the country. CCER has brought together government, education, philanthropic and community partners who have endorsed the CCER project and its goal of doubling the number of students in our region who are on track to graduate from college or earn a career credential by 2020. Mayor Michael McGinn and all members of the current City Council have endorsed the CCER approach, and the City of Seattle’s Office for Education and the School District are collaborating with CCER and its partners in this effort.
O. Mary Beth Celio’s recent studies of School District students has found that while most students don’t drop out of school until their junior or senior year of high school, there are dropout early warning signs as early as 6th grade. These include a high rate of unexcused absences; very low scores on state proficiency tests in 7th and 10th grades; a grade point average below 1.5 in middle school; more than one out-of-school suspension during middle or high school; and failing one or more grades in any one year from 6th through 10th grades. The School District and Levy-funded programs use these key indicators to identify and respond to students who have these early warning signs.
P. Research also shows there are key indicators of whether a child is on the path to academic achievement. For example, there is an instructional shift in 3rd grade from teaching children to read to having children learn through reading. Instruction relies increasingly on assigned written materials, including math directions and word problems. If a child is not reading at grade level in 3rd grade they are at great risk of never catching up and dropping out of school.
Q. Many students enter middle school with reading and math skills several years behind their grade level. Data from the current Levy’s investments in middle school show the effectiveness of extended learning opportunities that provide students additional time to master the academic skills they’re lacking. Since the 2005-2006 school year Levy investments have helped 2,500 middle school students meet the required standard on state proficiency tests for the first time. In addition, Levy investments have helped 1,500 elementary school students meet the required standard on state proficiency tests so they enter middle school ready to succeed academically.
R. Healthy eating and an active lifestyle are fundamental components of being ready to achieve academically. Levy investments should incorporate strategies that promote healthy eating and active living for students and their families when feasible and appropriate.
S. Since 1990, the Levy has invested in health services for Seattle students. Research findings in a 2009 study by Sarah Cusworth Walker and others at the University of Washington show that school-based health centers improve student health and emotional well-being, and that these in turn aid academic performance by increasing attendance rates and student grade point averages over time.
T. Increasing the academic skill level of high school graduates is as important as increasing the number of students who graduate. Today, many high school graduates do not have the academic skills necessary for apprenticeship programs or college level work and must take remedial courses. The need for remedial coursework increases the financial barriers to post-secondary education for these students. Top administrators of Seattle post-secondary institutions confirmed this problem in testimony to Council on November 15, 2010.
U. The School District’s graduation requirements are not presently aligned with requirements for entering or succeeding in post-secondary institutions.
V. The School District Board of Directors agrees that students should leave high school college and career ready and adopted the following Instructional Policy in March 2010:
“The Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools believes that every student can and must learn at grade level and beyond, and that all students will be afforded the opportunity to reach their potential and graduate from high school ready for college, career, and life. We recognize that in today’s global economy, college ready and career ready standards are the same and are appropriate for all students. It is the responsibility of the School Board and the Superintendent to ensure that all students receive an education that meets these goals.”
W. The academic and financial challenges facing the School District and its students have been and are being experienced throughout the country. Bold initiatives have been undertaken and positive results are possible. The management of the current Levy has relied heavily on the evaluation of outcomes and future investments should and will be made in areas of demonstrated effectiveness.
X. An urgent need exists to continue the provision of City Education-Support Services that support academic achievement to be funded by regular property taxes. This urgency requires submission of a proposition authorizing regular property tax levies for up to seven years in excess of the levy limitations in Chapter 84.55 RCW. The proposition should be submitted to the qualified electors of The City of Seattle at a special election to be held in conjunction with the general election on November 8, 2011.
Section 2. Statement of Policy. It is the paramount duty of the State “to make ample provision for the education of all students.” The School District is directly responsible for providing a quality education for all students. However, the School District cannot do this essential work alone. Government, business, community and families should collaborate and together all can contribute to the academic success of Seattle’s children. The City endorses the following Priorities for Levy Funding and Implementation Principles adopted and recommended by the Levy Advisory Committee. The School District and its Board were active participants on the Levy Advisory Committee, endorsed these Priorities and Principles and agreed that they are aligned with the School District’s strategic goals.
Priorities for Levy Funding:
1. Children at risk, including English Language Learners,
2. Children, birth to age 5, likely to attend low performing schools,
3. Students with the highest level of academic need,
4. Schools with the highest level of academic need,
5. Maximizing impact by funding a targeted number of schools and students,
6. Build on the success of previous investments, where possible,
7. Use evidence-based and/or promising practices to improve academic outcomes, and
8. Invest in family strengthening practices.
Implementation Principles:
1. Use an accountability structure based on student outcomes, indicators and performance-based contracts,
2. Encourage course corrections to improve outcomes; defund projects that do not achieve outcomes,
3. Report on student performance at least annually,
4. Continue data-sharing agreement with Seattle Public Schools,
5. Maximize partnerships to achieve outcomes,
6. Provide support for innovative academic strategies aimed at dramatically improving academic achievement, and
7. Help support academic elements of place-based community strategies for transformation of schools or feeder patterns of schools.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words when capitalized have the following meanings:
A. “City” means The City of Seattle.
B. “Education-Support Services” means the array of programs and activities referred to in Section 6, with such modifications as the City Council may from time to time authorize by ordinance.
C. “Proceeds” means that portion of regular property taxes levied and collected as authorized by voter approval pursuant to this ordinance that are above the limits on levies provided for in RCW 84.55.010, and all interest and other earnings derived from that portion of the Levy.
D. “Seattle School Board” and “School Board” mean Seattle School District No. 1 Board of Directors.
E. “Seattle School District” and “School District” mean Seattle School District No. 1.
Section 4. Levy of Regular Property Taxes - Submittal. The City hereby submits to the qualified electors of the City a proposition as authorized by RCW 84.55.050 to exceed the levy limitation on regular property taxes contained in Chapter 84.55 RCW, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, for property taxes levied in 2011 through 2017 for collection in 2012 through 2018, respectively, raising up to $231,562,000 in aggregate over a period of up to seven years. The proposition shall be limited so that the City shall not levy more than $32,101,000 in the first year, in addition to the maximum amount of regular property taxes it would have been limited to by RCW 84.55.010 in the absence of voter approval under this ordinance, plus other authorized lid lifts. Proceeds shall be used to provide Education-Support Services for Seattle School District students, Seattle youth, and their families. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the maximum regular property taxes that may be levied in 2018 for collection in 2019 and in later years shall be computed as if the levy lid in RCW 84.55.010 had not been lifted under this ordinance.
Section 5. Application of Proceeds. Unless otherwise directed by ordinance, Proceeds shall be deposited in the Education-Support Services Fund. The Director of Finance and Administrative Services, or the Director’s designee, is authorized to create subfunds or accounts within the Education-Support Services Fund as may be needed or appropriate to implement the purposes of this ordinance. Proceeds may be temporarily deposited or invested in such manner as may be lawful for the investment of City money, and interest and other earnings shall be used for the same purposes as the Proceeds.
Section 6. Education-Support Services. Education-Support Services funded by Proceeds are intended to promote school readiness and learning, support academic achievement and reduce the academic achievement gap, and prepare graduates for college and the career of their choice. Levy investments shall be guided by the Statement of Policy, Priorities for Funding and Implementation Principles in Section 2. Initially, these core strategies will be pursued through a variety of Education-Support Services that include the following:
A. School readiness and early learning. Major program elements include preschool for low-income three and four year olds; access for low-income families to high quality childcare; professional development for early education providers; school readiness support for children in home day-care situations, including home visits; health screenings; and preschool to kindergarten transition services.
B. Academic achievement in elementary school. Major program elements include extended learning time, out-of-school time activities, and summer learning programs; and school- and community-based family support services.
C. Academic achievement and college/career preparation in middle school. Major program elements include extended learning time; out-of-school time activities; social, emotional, and behavioral supports; summer learning programs; and advising, guidance and related support for college readiness.
D. Academic achievement and college/career preparation in high school. Major program elements include extended learning time; social, emotional, and behavioral supports; summer learning programs; and advising, guidance and related support for college readiness.
E. Student health. Major program elements include school-based student health clinics and physical, mental and dental support services at clinic sites in middle and high schools, school based health services at high need elementary schools, and health services for high-risk middle and high school students in alternative school settings.
F. Community partnership fund. Major program elements include funding for community and school-based partnerships to achieve Levy goals.
G. Research and Evaluation. Major program elements include research and evaluation of the individual programs and services in the foregoing categories and of the overall outcomes of Education-Support Services funded by Proceeds.
These program elements are illustrative examples. In the annual City budget or by separate ordinance, the City shall from year-to-year determine the Education-Support Services and funding allocations that will most effectively achieve the Levy goals and outcomes. Within a budget year the City is authorized to reallocate unexpended and unencumbered funds from one core strategy to another by making operating budget transfers consistent with SMC 5.08.020. The Council requires that before the Executive submits to the Council any proposed changes in Levy funding requiring Council approval by ordinance, the Executive will seek the recommendation of the Oversight Committee.
Unexpended appropriations of Proceeds shall carry forward to subsequent fiscal years until they are exhausted or abandoned by ordinance.
The City’s expenditures on administrative costs over the seven-year period of the Levy shall not exceed a total of five percent of the total expenditure authority of the Proceeds.
Section 7. Oversight Committee. Conditioned upon voter approval of the ballot proposition submitted by this ordinance, there is established an Oversight Committee (Committee) to make recommendations on the design and funding of Levy programs and to monitor the progress of Levy programs in meeting Levy outcomes and goals.
A. The Committee shall make recommendations on the Implementation and Evaluation Plan called for in Section 8 and on the Partnership Agreement called for in Section 10.
B. The Committee shall each year:
• By February review the annual report of Levy outcomes and indicators for the previous school year;
• By April review mid-year indicators of progress for the first semester of the current school year;
• By May review and advise on proposed course corrections, program modifications, or program eliminations;
• By September review and advise the City Council on proposed expenditures and reallocations, including the annual Levy budget; and
• Periodically review and advise on program evaluations.
C. The Council requires that before the Executive submits to the Council the Implementation and Evaluation Plan, Partnership Agreement or proposes any changes in Levy funding requiring Council approval by ordinance, the Executive will seek the recommendation of the Committee.
D. The Committee shall consist of twelve (12) members: the Mayor, the Chair of the City Council's Public Safety and Education Committee or its successor with respect to education issues, the Superintendent of the School District, a member of the School District Board, and eight (8) citizens. The Mayor and City Council shall each appoint four (4) of the citizen Committee members. All members appointed by the Mayor shall be confirmed by the City Council.
E. The eight citizen members shall be appointed to three (3) year staggered terms subject to reappointment, except that two of them (one Mayoral appointee and one Council appointee) shall be initially appointed for a single year term, three (two Mayoral appointees and one Council appointee) for a two (2) year term, and three (one Mayoral appointee and two Council appointees) for a three (3) year term. Upon the resignation, retirement, death, incapacity or removal of a Committee member, the authority appointing such member may appoint a replacement for the balance of the term. The appointing authority may remove any member who is absent from two or more consecutive meetings without cause. The appointing authority may remove any member for other good cause shown or to ensure compliance with subsection F of this section.
F. The eight citizens should have professional, personal or research experience associated with the growth and development of children, including their academic success. For example, this experience may come from classroom teaching, student mentoring, or education policy research. The City will also seek candidates to serve on the Committee who have an understanding of and experience working with new immigrants and refugees, communities of color, Native American tribes, children of different abilities, and others who have historically not been academically successful in traditional education programs.
G. At all times no more than three (3) Committee members shall be an officer, director, board member, trustee, partner or employee of an entity that receives or competes for funding under this ordinance; or be a member of the immediate family of, or an individual residing with, an officer, director, board member, trustee, partner or employee of an entity that receives or competes for funding under this ordinance; or be a person seeking or having an arrangement concerning future employment with an entity that receives or competes for funding under this ordinance. For the purposes of this ordinance an individual’s “immediate family” means an individual’s spouse or domestic partner, child, child of a spouse or domestic partner, sibling, sibling of a domestic partner, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parent, parent of a spouse or domestic partner, a person for whom the individual is a legal guardian, or a person claimed as a dependent on the individual's most recently filed federal income tax return. Subject to the preceding sentence and applicable law, an individual serving as an officer, director, board member, trustee, partner or employee of an entity that receives or competes for funding under this ordinance, or who has an interest in such an entity, shall not thereby be disqualified from serving on the Committee, but shall fully disclose any such relationships and shall not vote on any matter in which the interest of such entity is directly involved. For purposes of this section, “entity” does not include a City department or office. The provisions of this section are in addition to the requirements of SMC chapter 4.16.
H. The Mayor and the Chair of the City Council's Public Safety and Education Committee or successor committee overseeing education, or their respective designees, will co-chair the Committee. The Committee will generally meet every other month or as needed beginning January 2012. The Office for Education shall provide staff and logistical support for the Committee. Members shall serve without pay. The Committee shall continue in existence through December 31, 2018, and thereafter if so provided by ordinance.
Section 8. Implementation and Evaluation Plan. Proceeds may be spent only in accordance with the Implementation and Evaluation plan (the Plan) approved by ordinance. The Plan may be amended by ordinance.
The Plan shall set forth the criteria, measurable outcomes and methodology by which programs funded by Proceeds will be selected and evaluated. The evaluation methodology shall measure both individual programs and overall effects of the Education-Support Services. The achievement of all stated outcomes shall be evaluated and no one component will be determinative of an individual programs’ effectiveness or the overall effectiveness of the Education-Support Services.
Section 9. Implementing Agreements. If this proposition is approved by the voters, the City may carry out the Education-Support Services with City staff or by agreements with the School District, with Public Health Seattle-King County, and with such other agencies and persons as may be appropriate. It is the intent of the City Council that all 2011 Levy investments, including services previously funded in the 2004 Levy, shall be awarded through a competitive process. The Implementation and Evaluation Plan will set out a process and schedule for how programs will be selected and contracted.
The Mayor or the Mayor's designee is authorized to enter into such agreements, consistent with Section 10 below. The City shall, when soliciting businesses for goods or services agreements, perform outreach to small, economically disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities. City agreements with other public entities shall encourage those entities to actively solicit bids for the subcontracting of any goods or services, when such subcontracting is required or appropriate, from qualified small businesses, including those owned by women and minorities. City agreements with businesses for goods and services and with other public entities and non-profits shall encourage these entities to employ a workforce reflective of the region's diversity. All City agreements for goods and services shall require the contracting entities to comply with all then-applicable requirements for non-discrimination in employment in federal, state, and City of Seattle laws and regulations.
All City agreements funded by Proceeds will stipulate that no assurances are made of continuation beyond the 2018-2019 school year after the levy lid lift authorized by the voters has expired.
Section 10. City of Seattle/Seattle School District Partnership Agreement. There shall be a Partnership Agreement (the Partnership Agreement) developed by the City and the Seattle School District in which the roles and responsibilities of the City and the School District in developing the Implementation and Evaluation Plan, referenced in Section 8, and in implementing Education-Support Services are established. The Partnership Agreement shall set forth the parties roles and responsibilities for achieving the desired outcomes for Education-Support Services. It shall outline, in a variety of areas, ways in which both the City and the School District shall work collaboratively toward better results for children and youth. The Partnership Agreement shall cover items including, but not limited to: data sharing necessary to implement program evaluations and course corrections, standards for delivery of services, and methods for identifying and targeting students and schools most in need of support.
The City cannot enter into the Partnership Agreement, or materially amend the Partnership Agreement, until the Partnership Agreement or the amendment, as the case may be, is approved by the Seattle City Council and the School District’s Board of Directors. Proceeds may be spent on School District programs or functions only in accordance with an effective Partnership Agreement.
Section 11. Reporting. The Director of the Office for Education will prepare and submit to the Oversight Committee, City Council, the Mayor and citizens of Seattle annual progress reports on the implementation of the Education-Support Services covering each of the core strategies and the actions taken as a result of the adopted City of Seattle/School District Partnership Agreement.
Section 12. Election - Ballot Title. The City Council directs that the City Clerk file this ordinance with the Director of Elections of King County, Washington, as ex officio supervisor of elections, requesting that the Director of Elections call and conduct a special election in the City in conjunction with the state general election to be held on November 8, 2011, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City the proposition set forth in this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the King County Director of Elections the ballot title approved by the City Attorney in accordance with his responsibilities under RCW 29A.36.071. The following ballot title is submitted to the City attorney for his consideration:
THE CITY OF SEATTLE
PROPOSITION NUMBER _____
REGULAR TAX LEVY INCLUDING
FAMILIES AND EDUCATION
The City of Seattle's Proposition concerns renewing and enhancing Education-Support Services to improve academic achievement.
This proposition would fund City services, including school readiness, academic achievement in elementary, middle and high school, college/career preparation, and student health and community partnerships as provided in Ordinance ____. It authorizes regular property taxes above RCW 84.55 limits, allowing additional 2012 collection of up to $32,101,000 (approximately $0.27/$1000 assessed value) and up to $231,562,000 over seven years. In 2012, total City taxes collected would not exceed $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Should this Levy be approved?
Levy, Yes
Levy, No
Those in favor shall vote “Yes;” those opposed shall mark their ballots “No.”
Section 13. Ratification. Certification of such proposition by the City Clerk to the King County Director of Elections in accordance with law prior to the date of such election on November 8, and any other act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 14. Severability. In the event any one or more of the provisions of this ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this ordinance or the levy of the taxes authorized herein, but this ordinance and the authority to levy those taxes shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid provisions had not been contained herein; and any provision which shall for any reason be held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted by law.
Section 15. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.