36 Replies to "ELECTION 2026: City Councilmembers enlarge library levy before their second-to-last vote on it"

• J. M April 9, 2026 (3:44 am)

  Reply

  With the rising cost of living in Seattle, and the increasing costs of National policies now is not the time to add costs onto us residents. In times of economic uncertainty you keep things status quo, replace the current levy with the same not a higher ask. Reduce the length and come back when the economy recovers to  add. Also please speak on the accountability in the levy. As with the Seattle Parks levy there is little to no accountability or follow up on unmet promises and a lot of waste. Use our tax dollars responsibly.

• K April 9, 2026 (6:17 am)

  Reply

  $480 million, not billion.

• Jennie April 9, 2026 (6:58 am)

  Reply

  I see ‘$480 billion’ written above. Is that correct?

• vapocool April 9, 2026 (7:01 am)

  Reply

  What is that saying… Give them an inch,  they take a mile?

• dwg April 9, 2026 (7:15 am)

  Reply

  From $410 million to $480 billion! Wow, that is a significant increase. 

  • WSB April 9, 2026 (7:32 am)

    Reply

    Thanks, corrected.

• Anne April 9, 2026 (7:24 am)

  Reply

  Oh they acknowledge it’s a lot to ask of property owners to continue shouldering -but went ahead & voted for it anyway??  What a joke. Property taxes are part of the reason rents are so high. But yes-just keep raising them .

  • k April 9, 2026 (7:46 am)

    Reply

    Without an income tax what choice do they have?  

    And let’s be honest, property taxes are only a small part of the rental rate increases.  Supply and demand sets market rates, and there’s too much demand with too little housing.  Property tax is public record.  I can see that my landlord’s taxes went up by $20/month when he’s raising my rent $150/month because of “taxes”.

    • Anne April 9, 2026 (9:46 am)

      Reply

       Oh I don’t know -how about vote no once in a while. And lets  be honest-that part of rental rates keeps getting larger & larger & you’d better prepare for another rent increase after they add 480 million to this levy. That’s doesn’t take into account what other initiatives/levies will be adding to our property taxes. Isn’t there a  Parks one coming up? Seattle has rarely met a property tax funded  levy/initiative they haven’t approved . 

    • Rob Lourd April 9, 2026 (10:12 am)

      Reply

      I’m sure your landlord’s insurance rates have not gone up at all lately, nor has the cost of maintenance and repairs. Not to mention that if one day you decide to stop paying rent and SPU bills, he has zero chance of recouping your theft and the cost of eviction and damages that can quickly escalate to tens of thousands. Next he has to rent to whoever shows up first, with no ability to background check for criminal or rental payment history at all because you’re not allowed to discriminate against criminals simply because they do crime. Try going to a bank to steal $20,000 and see what happens as opposed to robbing a landlord of the same amount.

      • K April 9, 2026 (12:40 pm)

        Reply

        Everyone who makes investments and owns businesses assumes the risks that go with those. Landlords are no different.  Anne said taxes are what raises the rent and I (accurately) corrected her.  Anne clearly prefers to close libraries than pay taxes and that’s her prerogative, but the poi t stands that rentals are for-profit businesses and the rent increases are primarily profits for the owner, not taxes.

        • Rob Lourd April 9, 2026 (2:50 pm)

          Yes, you are correct – rentals are a business and as such they have an obligation to maximize the profit, so your complaint about rent increases is bizarre, to say the least. I am sure you don’t go to your boss and ask for a pay cut. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone anywhere is arguing that we should close libraries. Simply asking that the constant increase of taxes be curtailed while having at least some spending concerns should be more than reasonable. In this particular example, the levy has been expanded by 17% for reasons that have literally nothing to do with libraries and their primary function. All this in the economy on the brink of a recession, while TFG is waging civilization wipeout wars and no money left for essentials like healthcare anymore? This is maximum tone deafness.

  • Foop April 9, 2026 (10:36 am)

    Reply

    Libraries are vital to a functioning society. They help people get back on their feet in hard times, provide safe spaces, access to printers and fax machines which many of us may not own anymore. We also get free books and NYT subscriptions out of it. This is one of the most worthy investments in our society and easily one of the biggest benefits for our tax dollars. Always fund a better informed and educated populace.

    • IDC9 April 11, 2026 (11:46 am)

      Reply

      I strongly agree with this! The amount of money being sought by the city is a lot, but the benefits are well worth the cost. 

• This levy does not love our libraries April 9, 2026 (7:29 am)

  Reply

  The library levy showcases the real problem in Seattle: we cannot prioritize, so we try to do a little bit of everything to assuage whoever screams the loudest.  This results in horrible Frankenpolicies that are a little bit progressive, a little bit regressive, and 100% incoherent.  Everyone loves libraries and public access to information, but what does this mission have to do with giving money (via a contract for services) to the Washington state black legacy institute?  Nothing against that organization; it’s just that when we are told there are revenue constraints, the correct response should be to articulate some shared priorities and fund those well, while not funding others that are less important.  No one wants to hear that their “thing” is less important, so rather than actual discuss it, we feather every budget with $5000 and $50,000 grants.  It’s true here in the library levy, it’s true in the king county budget (seriously, read Theresa Mosqueda’s newsletter), and it’s true at the state level,  this is the politics of plenty, we have so much money that we can “afford” to buy off loudness rather than have difficulty but necessary conversations.  This is how rich kids end up spoiled, because they never have to confront an actual hard decision.  And let’s face it, whether we have or do not have a “digital skills for teens” program at the High Point library is not a difficult decision or an important program in the big picture.  I know it’s important *to someone* but there is literally zero chance that the expenditures matter in the big picture, even though I’m 100% certain supporters can find a person whose life was positively impacted by a similar program. In a funding environment where, eg open hours that benefit the entire public are under pressure, it is an abandonment of leadership across the board to ask for and receive such funding.  Please, council, and please, library leaders, and please, mayor Wilson: make some real decisions, show some leadership, define real priorities that enable and support decisions about what to do, what is really important.  The answer is not “we can do both” or “together we can do amazing things”. The answer has to be, yes to some things, and no to others.  Figuring out how to have that conversation without saying that any “no” is akin to Trumpism is the basic responsibility of an actually self governing people, and this is the basic failing of Seattle’s politics. 

  • Admiral2009 April 10, 2026 (5:43 pm)

    Reply

    Agreed fund actual needs not wants, it’s past time for Seattle voter’s to SAY NO

• Delridge Dude April 9, 2026 (7:35 am)

  Reply

  THANK YOU, Councilmember Saka, for recognizing the need for digital skilling opportunities in South Park and High Point!  That is just the kind of boost those neighborhoods need!

  • IDC9 April 11, 2026 (11:48 am)

    Reply

    Digital skills education needs to be offered in every neighborhood of every city and town. Kudos to Saka for getting these offerings expanded to more Seattle neighborhoods!

• RD April 9, 2026 (10:33 am)

  Reply

  We need to Vote No. This will force them to cut out programs that are not needed the list is long to many to list. Digital Skilling is available at many of the Seattle schools as an example. Also, how was the previous levy money spent. I want details of how my money is spent not this high level garbage report that may or may not be published.  

  • ik April 9, 2026 (12:10 pm)

    Reply

    SPL has produced 20+ page reports every quarter throughout the entire 2019 levy: https://www.spl.org/about-us/the-organization/budget-and-operations/library-levy/previous-levy-reports

    • RD April 9, 2026 (3:21 pm)

      Reply

      Thanks for the links. These reports are worthless. I would like to see for each category the lines items that total amount spent.  Publish the spreadsheets.

    • Kyle April 14, 2026 (7:37 pm)

      Reply

      Those are self serving reports that constantly change the baseline. The library still hasn’t met their open hours they promised in 2019. That’s why the new levy is more vague, and doesn’t make promises. They’ve learned. As much as I sometimes disagree with what SDOT spends their levy on, their oversight is much more rigorous; including a committee of community members.

• HW April 9, 2026 (4:56 pm)

  Reply

  I spent time analyzing the levy and thinking about what I believe core library functions are/should be. I think there are some compelling reasons why the levy proposal is so large, and upwards of $100M that could be removed. Here’s the letter I drafted to the mayor and city council with my recommendations (sorry, it’s long). I may not have consumed all the context for everything in the levy, but I tried to go deep and remain open minded, despite my initial “throw it all out and start again” reaction to the proposed amount. If anyone spots flaws, I’m open to feedback.Re: CB 121181 — 2026 Seattle Public Library LevyDear Mayor Wilson and Seattle City Council Members,The proposed $480 million library levy is too large. While I strongly support the Seattle Public Library and the essential services it provides, the lack of fiscal restraint reflected in this measure directly contributes to Seattle’s cost-of-living crisis (often pointed to as justification for expanded spending on other city services). Property owners already bear more than $3 billion in voter-approved levies. The amended levy would push the city’s cumulative levy rate to approximately $3.15–$3.21 per $1,000 of assessed value—leaving dangerously little room below the state-mandated $3.60 cap for future levies that fund housing, transportation, preschool, and education. A median homeowner’s library tax alone would jump from $85 to $185 per year.I am writing to urge you to reduce the levy to a level that funds core library services without crowding out other critical city needs or further burdening taxpayers. Below I outline specific, line-item reductions totaling approximately $96–$106 million that would bring the levy to roughly $374–$384 million while preserving the library’s core mission of keeping branches open, lending books and digital materials, providing public internet access, maintaining buildings, and supporting children’s literacy programming.

  The Levy Cap: A Looming Fiscal Crisis

  With the amended library levy, the city would have roughly $0.39–$0.45 per $1,000 of remaining capacity before hitting the $3.60 statutory ceiling. That remaining capacity must accommodate the renewal of every other major levy during the library levy’s 2027–2033 lifespan, including:

  • Seattle Housing Levy (expiring 2030): The current housing levy is $970 million. A renewal at comparable or larger scale will consume significant capacity at a time when homelessness and affordable housing remain the city’s most visible crises.
  • Seattle Transportation Levy (expiring 2032): The current $1.55 billion, 8-year levy funds sidewalks, street paving, bridge repair, and transit. Analysts have noted that a renewal of this levy alone may push the city over the $3.60 cap.
  • Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy (expiring 2032): The recently renewed $1.3 billion FEPP levy funds preschool, K–12 support, and the Seattle Promise college program. It will need renewal before the library levy expires.

  If assessed property values grow slowly—as they may in a period of economic uncertainty—there will not be enough capacity to renew all of these levies at their current levels. The city will be forced to choose between funding libraries, roads, housing, preschool, or some combination. Every dollar of unnecessary spending in the library levy narrows the options available for these equally essential services.The state legislature may eventually need to raise the $3.60 cap, but banking on that outcome is not a responsible fiscal strategy. The city should size this levy prudently based on the legal framework that exists today.

  Proposed Reductions

  I have organized these proposals into four tiers, from the most clearly defensible to the most debatable.

  Tier 1: Items Outside Traditional Library Scope (~$4.2M)

  • Office of Inclusion and Belonging — $2.4M: No peer library system funds a standalone DEI office at this level through a dedicated levy line item. The library has already hired a Director of Inclusion and Belonging. This work can be integrated into existing HR and management functions rather than housed in a separately budgeted office. Retaining the existing director position through more typical channels while eliminating the standalone office would save approximately $2M.
  • Seattle Channel Programming — $2.1M: Broadcasting library events on municipal television is not a library function. Libraries routinely stream events on YouTube and their own websites at minimal cost. This line item is effectively a subsidy for the Seattle Channel. Full savings: $2.1M.
  • CARE Team Co-location Badge Access — $60K: Co-locating a crisis response team at the Central Library is a public safety function, not a library function. The amount is small but the precedent matters. Full savings: $60K.

  Tier 2: Functions That Should Be Funded by Other City Departments (~$12.9M)

  • Community Resource Specialists — $5.2M (base $1.2M + $4.06M Council amendment): These positions are essentially social workers connecting patrons to shelter, healthcare, transportation, food, and clothing. This is a social services function that happens to be located in a library building. The Human Services Department ($100M+ budget) or the King County Regional Homelessness Authority ($97M+ from the city) should fund these positions. If vulnerable people come to libraries for help, HSD or KCRHA should send their staff to libraries—not the library levy paying for social workers. Full savings: $5.2M, with the function transferred to the appropriate department.
  • Expanded Security Staffing — $7.7M (6 new positions): The levy already continues funding for 9 of 24 existing security positions. Adding 6 more would mean 15 of 24 security staff are library-levy funded—a disproportionate commitment. Additional security for public buildings should be coordinated through the city’s broader public safety apparatus and funded through the General Fund, not a library-specific levy. Full savings: $7.7M.

  Tier 3: Expansions That Could Be Funded through a Bond or Scaled (~$67.4M)

  Capital projects better suited to a bond measure (~$48.2M): The following Council amendments fund major capital construction projects that should be pursued through a separate bond measure—the same approach the city used successfully with the $196.4 million Libraries for All bond in 1998. Bonds require 60% voter approval (providing appropriate scrutiny for large capital investments) and, critically, do not count against the $3.60 levy cap:

  • Central Library renovation: $10M
  • Second seismic retrofit (West Seattle Branch): $15M
  • Cooling systems, deferred maintenance, and branch electrification: $15M
  • ADA and elevator/escalator improvements: $8.2M

  These projects are important. I am not arguing they should not be done. I am arguing they should be funded through the correct fiscal instrument—one that preserves levy capacity for operating expenses and subjects major capital expenditures to the higher level of voter scrutiny that bonds require.Program expansions that could be scaled back (~$19.2M):

  • Additional all-ages programs — reduce by $6.3M: The base proposal adds $12.6M for expanded programming. Cutting this in half would still allow meaningful expansion of story times and literacy-focused programs while eliminating vaguer commitments to “events that help bring joy and connection.”
  • Expanded e-book Peak Picks — $2.5M: The base proposal already increases digital collections spending by $2.4M. An additional $2.5M for no-holds e-books is a “nice to have” expansion on top of an already-growing digital budget.
  • Expanded collections and staffing — reduce by $4.2M: The Council amendment adds $8.4M on top of the $4.6M already in the base proposal. Cutting the amendment in half would still represent a significant increase in collections spending.
  • Multilingual Play & Learn and ESOL expansion — reduce by $2.25M: Play & Learn at 7 locations is already funded in the base proposal. ESOL programs are also offered by Seattle Public Schools, community colleges, and nonprofits. Scaling the expansion by half still allows growth at additional branches.
  • HR staffing expansion — reduce by $1.5M: The $2.3M add for Human Resources staffing is back-office overhead. If the social services and security positions above are removed from the levy (fewer staff equals less HR overhead), the full $2.3M is not needed.
  • IT cybersecurity — reduce by $2.4M: The $7.4M for IT systems and cybersecurity is partially duplicative of the city’s centralized IT security functions. A portion of this spending could be absorbed into the Seattle Information Technology Department’s budget rather than funded department-by-department through the library levy.

  Tier 4: General Fund Cost-Shifting (~$9–$18M, Contingent)

  The open hours staffing line at $176.1M has grown from $71.4M in the 2019 levy—a 147% increase that far exceeds inflation. Much of this growth is driven not by expanded service but by the General Fund repeatedly cutting its library allocation and the levy absorbing the difference. The library’s General Fund support was cut $5.8M in 2021, $2.71M in 2025, and decreased another 4% in 2026—even as the General Fund itself grew and the city dramatically increased spending on other priorities.A 5–10% moderation of the open hours line ($9–$18M) would be achievable if the city committed to maintaining its General Fund contribution to the library at current real levels rather than continuing to cut it. I recognize this is the hardest commitment to secure, but without it, any levy savings will simply result in further General Fund reductions—making the cuts pointless. I urge you to include language in the levy ordinance establishing a floor on General Fund support for the library, indexed to inflation.

  Summary of Proposed Reductions

  TierCategorySavingsMechanism1Items outside library scope~$4.2MEliminate2Functions for other departments~$12.9MTransfer to HSD/GF3Capital projects~$48.2MPursue via bond3Program expansions (scaled)~$19.2MReduce scope4GF cost-shifting moderation~$12–$18MGF floor commitmentTotal potential savings~$96–$106M

  These reductions would bring the levy to approximately $374–$384 million—still significantly larger than the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the 2019 levy (~$279 million), but sized to reflect actual core library needs. The capital projects totaling $48.2M would not be abandoned; they would be pursued through a bond measure that does not consume levy capacity and provides voters the opportunity to evaluate major construction investments on their own merits.

  Closing

  Seattle’s libraries are a treasured public asset and I want them to thrive. But fiscal responsibility demands that we fund them at a level the city can sustain—not at a level that forecloses our ability to fund roads, housing, preschool, and other essential services in the years ahead. The 2019 levy passed with 76% of the vote because it was sized appropriately. A $480 million measure—more than double the 2019 levy in raw terms and roughly 70% above the inflation-adjusted equivalent—risks eroding the broad public support that libraries have historically enjoyed.I respectfully urge you to reduce the levy, pursue capital projects through a bond measure, transfer social services functions to the departments whose mission they serve, and establish a General Fund floor to prevent the continued cost-shifting that has driven the levy’s growth.Thank you for your consideration.

  • Scarlett April 9, 2026 (7:30 pm)

    Reply

    Nice presentation, HW.   You’re right, we’re coming close to bouncing our heads on the levy ceiling wih other levy renewals on the horizon. I like your idea of funding capital projects through bonds, and the supermajority needed,  though I wonder If we’re in danger of exceeding our 7.5% cap.  

  • 1994 April 9, 2026 (9:48 pm)

    Reply

    Thanks for your attempts to have the city have some control with their spending which is outta control! The is so true “….the lack of fiscal restraint reflected in this measure directly contributes to Seattle’s cost-of-living crisis (often pointed to as justification for expanded spending on other city services).”

  • Charles Burlingame April 10, 2026 (7:41 am)

    Reply

    Maybe put down ChatGPT for a second and listen to the people actually involved in running the library system.

    • Scarlett April 10, 2026 (10:04 am)

      Reply

      Kinda of a low blow there, Chucky.  

  • IDC9 April 11, 2026 (11:53 am)

    Reply

    I agree that some of the projects the levy will fund could be paid for through a bond measure instead. However, I don’t fault the city for not pursuing that. This levy is very likely to pass, as most levies in our region do. A bond measure would face a significant uphill battle. Ask any school district in our region how difficult it is to pass a bond measure. Its getting to be nearly impossible!

• Derek April 9, 2026 (5:30 pm)

  Reply

  Give all the money to libraries. Need them more than most services. 

  • What happens after we spend “all the money”? April 10, 2026 (6:09 am)

    Reply

    Derek you never saw a dollar of someone else’s that you don’t think should be spent.  If we gave “all the money” to libraries, how would we pay for all of your other “key priorities”?

• What April 9, 2026 (7:42 pm)

  Reply

  Of course, no one hates libraries.bummer that council, but we also deserve to see the [fiscal] books and fiscal responsibility. I am sad that there seems to be a handout to what otherwise is a worthy organization.

• Z April 10, 2026 (9:17 am)

  Reply

  Affordability, yall. Half these politicians spent last year preaching about making Seattle more affordable— then they come up with this?! Higher property taxes for property owners = higher rental rates for property renters. Wilson & Saka are legit doing the exact opposite of what they were voted to do. 

• Seattle Resident April 10, 2026 (9:58 am)

  Reply

  I’m an avid library user, but honestly have gravitated more towards using kindle and libby services. Between KCLS and SPL; my visits have been impacted by folks inhabiting large swaths of areas with shopping carts, dogs and their worldly possessions. I also habitually trip over folks sleeping in the bushes outside the one in my neighborhood. Most of my friends and families with kids experience the same. The library is for learning and entertainment, not a domicile or place to live during open hours… Ordinarily I’d vote yes, but I don’t think they’re being managed effectively. Which is sad.

  • IDC9 April 11, 2026 (11:54 am)

    Reply

    Digital services like Libby are an important part of the modern library experience.

• KT April 10, 2026 (9:59 am)

  Reply

  …”the council members spent a relatively lengthy amount of time saying they realize it’s a lot to ask property taxpayers to keep shouldering…”   And yet they continue to do so, levy after levy, knowing all too well Seattle voters will vote for it and then complain about “affordable” housing afterwards.

• Scarlett April 10, 2026 (10:26 am)

  Reply

  Just because a public entity screams for something doesn’t mean that they need it, or the public  needs it.  After all, they are in the business of ensuring their suvival and that is paramount above all else, even if that requires exaggerating what’s necessary and what’s really not necessary:  “Spend and you shall receive” is the modus operandi of public funded entities.   Libraries perform many useful sometimes critical functions, but don’t take our goodwill for granted.