It's a day that ends in Y, so it's time for another round of arguments from the dueling preschool measures on the fall ballot!
At issue this week: accusations that the union-backed campaign competing with the city's publicly funded pre-K proposal would end up costing taxpayers upwards of $100 million per year in new unfunded mandates. The union campaign, of course, calls bullshit. And naturally, it's all becoming fodder for campaign fliers.
Some quick background, in case you're not familiar: Both the city and a campaign led by unions representing child-care workers and teachers will have measures before city voters in November. The union-backed measure, Proposition 1A, improves working conditions in the child-care industry by creating a training institute and raising workers' pay, while the city-hall-supported measure, Proposition 1B, gets the beginning of a potential universal pre-K program off the ground. You can't vote yes on both measuresâgotta pick one or the otherâso stakes are high.
A city budget analysis of the union's 1A idea, written in June of this year by the city's budget director, Ben Noble, and mayoral policy director, Robert Feldstein, says startup costs for Prop 1A would be wildly expensive. Perhaps up to $141 million the first year, with ongoing annual costs around $78 million to $108 million. Costs that high would require some serious rejiggering of the city budget, potentially even a "10% across-the-board General Fund reduction (including Fire and Police)," according to the city's analysis. Ten percent budget cuts in every department? Holy shit.
But Prop 1A spokesman Heather Weiner says that analysis is "politically motivated and divorced from reality," and says their campaign's own analysis puts the cost of their measure at "about $3 million a year." That much lower amount, she notes, could easily be found in the existing budget. The only costs actually mandated in Prop 1A, Weiner and her campaign's legal team argue, are the training institute and some city staff time to work on policy directives. Wages would be paid by employers, and other policy measures are only required to be studied by the city.
Noble disagrees. "When we looked at the initiative," he said in an interview, "we assumed that if it was approved by the council or approved by the voters that it would be incumbent on the city to follow through on what is in the ordinance," including all sorts of language Weiner says is either "aspirational" or unenforceable and wouldn't require fundingâfor example, a section saying Seattle families shouldn't be expected to pay more than 10 percent of their income on child care. Weiner says that's just an aspirational policy goal, but Noble and Feldstein wrote that mandate into their analysis, to the tune of $30 million to $48 million a year.
Prop 1A would also raise the minimum wage for child-care workers faster than the city minimum wage. Noble and Feldstein wrote that into the memo as well, at $15 million to $24 million a year. The training institute doesn't even warrant a mention; Noble says it would simply be part of general administrative costs, budgeted at $7 million to $10 million.
Do they really think the city would spend its general fund dollars subsidizing workers' paychecks and families' child-care costs, even though the other side says that wouldn't be called for? Yes, says Noble, though he acknowledges that there's always "room for interpretation."
The city also worries it could face costly legal challenges stemming from provisions in 1A. But due to attorney-client privilege, the documents supporting that legal analysis have remained secret, much to the chagrin of transparency fans.
Don't expect this one to disappear from the campaign anytime soon. A flyer for Prop 1B echoes the city's claims and concerns, saying that at least 1B has fundingâ$14.5 million a year in new levy dollarsâwhile 1A would "cost taxpayers up to $140 million in the first year alone" and cause "up to a 10 percent cutback to all other City services." 
