Okay, great.
Good afternoon or good afternoon everybody.
So this is a special meeting of the Select Committee on the Library Levy.
The date is April 11th and the time is 532. I'm Councilmember Juarez, Chair of the Committee and joining me is the Vice Chair of the Committee, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Thank you.
Some of our other colleagues will be running a little bit late and some of them are watching but they are paying attention.
I'm going to start with the chair's report.
This is the third meeting to deliberate the 2019 proposed library levy renewal.
Amendments to the proposal were due last Tuesday, April 9th.
Today, Asha will present these amendments and provide information to concerns brought up in our last meeting.
In preparation for this meeting, Asha and Nagin have provided an updated memo from council members and a FAQ packet that illustrates important concepts and clears up common misconceptions of this proposal.
Both are available to the public online and in hard copy on the table outside of chambers.
There's a few comments that I want to make before I do a few reminders to my, oh, thank you, Council Member Herbold.
I'm glad you're here.
A few comments that I want to read before we move on to some just housekeeping matters.
The library levy is a potential source of additional funding for public libraries to continue providing services for patrons.
In fact, in short, it is a levy for the library and the services that it provides.
The city levies a tax on the property.
First, the mayor's office proposes a plan to the city council for adoption.
The Council may amend the proposal with the understanding the Board of Trustees has sole responsibility for allocating the funds.
The Council must approve the proposal before it can proceed to the ballot for a final decision by the voters.
I also want to add about who sets the library priorities.
I'm glad you joined us, Council Member Mosqueda.
The proposal is constructed based on neighborhood needs, and I want to thank Marcellus Turner, our librarian.
Where is Marcellus?
Thank you.
And all the hard work that you and the Board of Trustees have done over the last two years.
And my understanding is that you went out and met with all the neighborhoods with community input.
The Seattle Public Libraries hosted at least six major community conversations.
in the last two years and constructed a survey with more than 26,000 responses that affirmed the following priorities, the same priorities that we had in the 2012 levy.
So this library levy is constructed around four categories and that is what the legislation that was transmitted to council.
And I've said this before, I'm gonna say it again so we can have our conversations based on community input for two years and 26,000 responses, that it's on hours and access, collections, updated technology, clean and safe buildings and maintenance.
So with that, let me move forward.
I have an important reminder to my fellow council members to include concerns brought up in tonight's public hearing.
The deadline for those amendments is tomorrow, Friday, April 12th at noon to Asha and to my office, Nan Nagin.
Following the staff briefing, I will open the public hearing on this proposal.
It's a great opportunity for the public to voice their input, ideas, and concerns.
Of course, it is not the only opportunity.
You're encouraged and always welcome to continue to dialogue by contacting your council member directly, in person, by phone, or email, and certainly to our office, and certainly to Mr. Marcellus as well.
I want to welcome Council Member O'Brien and Council President Harrell.
Thank you for all being here today.
Can you go ahead and read the first item into the record?
Or the only item into the record.
Item one, Council Bill 119491, an ordinance relating to regular property taxes, providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on August 6th, 2019, a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 RCW, and authorized the city to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of sustaining investments in library operating hours, collections, technology, and maintenance, while expanding access to opportunity through additional hours, library materials, and technology, and undertaking seismic retrofits of three library facilities, authorized the creation of a new fund, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
Thank you and with that um Asha for the record can I have you identify yourself um and and thank you again for this great memo that you did and you followed up from our last public hearing so thank you for that I'll go ahead and let you introduce yourself and we're going to go through this legal or this I'm sorry not legal memo to this issue memo first and then we'll go to public comment so go ahead.
Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.
So I'll just do a quick summary of what we've talked about so far, what we're going to talk about today, and the next steps.
So the library proposed or presented their proposal on March 28th.
On Monday, April 8th, we talked about issues identified by myself, potential additions to the levy, and then some specific proposals to potentially amend the levy to add services that were not currently proposed in the levy as transmitted.
So today we'll discuss these specific proposals, both the ones that we discussed on April 8th, as well as some additional amendments that council members have to add to the levy as amendments.
For each, I've provided an estimate of costs, or we're working on an estimate of costs.
And these are all additional services that would be added to the proposed levy renewal to be funded by, lobby dollars.
And then in terms of next steps based on council's direction, I will be drafting and structuring amendment language for a vote on April 17th.
So this memo essentially summarizes a variety of potential amendments, and I'll dive right into those.
The first is to fund educational programming for children and youth, and this is proposed by Council Member Gonzalez.
As she is not here to speak to it, I will do a quick summary of that amendment.
So the library currently provides programs for children from birth to three years of age.
It includes baby story time, English and bilingual kaleidoscope play and learns, preschool story time, toddler story time, world language story time, and a variety of other story programs.
Patron attendance is approximately 107,000 patrons a year at 2,900 events.
Currently, this program is funded in part by the Seattle Public Library Foundation at a cost of almost $340,000 as budgeted in 2019. In addition, the library provides educational programming in its Student Success Program, which supports students from preschool all the way through high school.
The library employs a formal learning librarian to support these programs.
Currently, the Public Library Foundation provides the majority of the financial support for these programs at a cost of about $157,000 in 2019. These programs include things like Learning Buddies, which provides time for teens and children to read and play, Homework Help, ages 5 through 18, which is a drop-in homework help service, a middle school program to develop career, college, and life skills for youth age 12 to 14, Team Read, which serves second and third graders to avoid summer reading loss, and Teen Service Learning, which serves youth from 14 to 18 by providing leadership opportunities through project-based, youth-led service learning.
The amendment proposed by Council Member Gonzalez would replace the current foundation funding with levy support at the cost that you'll see on table two at the bottom of page two of your memo.
It would cost about $2.8 million over seven years of the levy for maintaining the programming for children age zero to three, or an additional $1.4 million to maintain the student success programming with levy funds.
Chair?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Is it OK to ask questions?
Absolutely.
Fantastic.
Thank you.
So given that these programs are currently funded by the Seattle Public Library Foundation, and we're proposing to replace that funding, are these dollars that the Library Foundation currently makes available for these programs going to be invested in some different way?
It's possible.
We haven't had discussions about where the displaced funding would go towards, and so it could go towards any number of things that the Foundation currently supports.
And why are we proposing to replace funding that is already provided by the foundation with levy dollars?
I believe the idea, and Council Member Gonzales will have to confirm this, but I believe the plan is to swap them out to provide a more consistent source of funds.
So if at some point donor funds were to drop and these programs were up at risk, then it would have levy funding to support them.
The second amendment I'll discuss is one we discussed on Monday, April 8th as well, to add more hours system-wide.
As it currently stands, the library is open for 1,377 hours as of 2016. Items in the proposed levy as transmitted would add Friday hours for four branches and morning and evening hours to an additional three branches.
And without any additional funding, the library can staff one more open Sunday hour at all branches.
This proposal would add additional evening hours, Monday through Thursday, system-wide.
So it would be four additional hours per week at the Central Library and at each of the 26 branches for an additional 108 hours per week.
The cost to add those hours, and just to note that all of these open hours will start June 1st, 2020, and that's what the costs are based on.
And to add that, additional Hour of service would cost six point two million dollars over the life of the levy It would be an average annual cost of about eight hundred and sixty six thousand dollars The cost to the average median household would increase by two dollars and forty seven cents or twenty one cents per month The $6.2 million breaks down into $3.84 million that's necessary to open those hours at the Central Library, $1.9 million to open the additional hour at the 26 branches, and then the need for an additional floating custodian to respond to custodial needs across all of the new open hours ads.
So colleagues, we talked a little bit about this on, was it Tuesday, Monday?
Monday, thank you.
And so just a reminder, this would serve a couple purposes.
One is to have more library hours in the evening, which I think would be appreciated by a lot of users.
It would also mean that other spaces in the library, such as community meeting rooms, would be available a little later in the day.
And that has been a problem for evening community meetings to be functional in those spaces.
And since we already have those spaces, I would love to be able to make those available.
As Asha said, the price tag here, the $6.2 million over the seven years, includes both the central library and the branch libraries.
The central library is a little less than two-thirds of the cost, the branches being a much smaller portion.
I am supportive of the entire thing, but as we work towards making amendments, colleagues are concerned but would want to contemplate just doing with the branch libraries I would be open to that also and so chair Juarez I don't know if you would like me to submit a second amendment that has this that so there be side by side or we would just amend this amendment if we get there but I'm happy to to have two separate amendments if that makes it easier for you or we can just have it one amendment and if it doesn't work could propose modifying it.
I don't, I mean, we can, whatever's convenient.
We're not doing the, I'm kind of looking to Asha for that one.
Yeah, I'd be happy to propose two options for the amendment language and then it can just get voted on on the 17th in terms of whichever option council members support.
That'd be great.
Thank you, Asha.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Okay.
The third amendment is about creating a feasibility study for co-locating child care space at libraries.
And Council Member Mosqueda is proposing this and spoke a little to this on Monday.
But at the moment there aren't any library locations that are co-located with child care facilities.
It may be possible to add these kinds of spaces to library locations, either through redevelopment or further build out, but a feasibility study could look into what those specific requirements are, what the challenges would be for the branch libraries or the central library, whether it should cover both capital costs and operational costs, and then what estimated costs for both of those would be.
A cost estimate, we're currently working with the library and the executive to gather more information about what the feasibility study might cost, and so that information will be provided as soon as a cost estimate can be landed upon.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
As you heard me discuss a number of times, we're interested in every opportunity there is to create additional child care facilities throughout Seattle, especially for infant and toddler care.
One of the reasons is Child Care Aware of Washington has ranked Washington State 6th in the nation for the least affordable child care for infants and 10th in the nation for least affordable for preschool kiddos.
And as you all know, Seattle pays, Seattleites as parents pay disproportionately higher rates, on average 31% higher than the rest of the state on childcare because we have a lack of supply.
What I'd like to do is for us to think a little bit creatively here.
We know that in the City Council of Washington, D.C., they have passed an ordinance to put at least three childcare facilities on site in city-owned buildings.
I thought this would be a great opportunity for us to see what we could do within publicly owned libraries to create a space for our kiddos to become the newest learners, the youngest learners in our system.
After having conversations with the good chair and conversations with the library, I think that it was a little ambitious to think about how we would do capital projects in this levy when we really need to do is a feasibility analysis.
We have a number of sites that appear ready to go, but having a conversation with our library friends and community folks about the need, the opportunity, and the feasibility of creating child care on site, especially for infant and toddler care, is something I'm really interested in doing.
What you're going to see from us with the Grace of the chair would be to come forward with a dollar figure for a feasibility analysis in this study.
One of the things that we know the library has done a really good job with so far is making it possible for our youngest learners to feel welcome in these libraries.
Parents, for example, can take these board books home without having to check them out.
There used to be a lot of fear of bringing back little books like this with tiny little teeth marks on it.
So if you see a book like this and it has a yellow sticker, you can take it home without fear of having it be considered damaged when you bring it back and actually without We are excited about this opportunity to continue the extension of the library's ongoing commitment to bring in early learners.
And to create the cycle of education and programming, I think this goes nicely hand in hand with the amendment we just talked about first.
And I hope that with this narrowed down approach to just looking at a feasibility study and in partnership with the library and community partners and supporters of the library, that this would be seen as a good entree for future library patrons as we go forward.
So some of the requirements that you see here are we would be doing an analysis for the requirements for licensing, site-specific considerations like outdoor space, bathrooms, square footage, estimated capital costs in the future, and where we would continue to be able to find operational funding and partners to run such an operation.
So thank you for your encouragement to think about the feasibility first and foremost, and this has been scoped to that conversation.
Thanks again to the libraries for engaging with us.
Thank you.
And again, I just, first of all, Council Member Mosqueda, thank you so much for allowing us to have a real nice conversation.
Just two of us in the office, everybody, just two, just us two, talking about how we look at pre-K and childcare and facilities and public assets that the city owns.
But I really do want to caution my colleagues that This is a levy that we are putting to the taxpayers, and it is a levy based upon 26,000 responses in two years of community meetings, in which four areas, as I outlined before, is what the focus was.
75% of the library is funded out of the general fund.
This levy is only for 25% of how we maintain operations from 1998 to now.
So unlike the budget process, This is different in that it's a levy and we're asking the taxpayers to pay for this in the sense of here are the issues that they wanted and they deemed important.
I do want to point out as Councilmember Muscat and I discussed and we've had ongoing discussions with this council, is that there is capital funds available in other areas, not only through the general fund for pre-K and childcare, but also within DEEL, the Department of Early Learning and Education.
If anyone here wants to add to that, please help me out.
But there's room in there for that as well.
And I just want to share this.
I really appreciate Council Member Esqueda because I know she has three more potential amendments coming.
The first one I'm very much inclined to support and learn more about and find out where and how we can make this happen in different neighborhoods that need these services.
And I know that Council Member Scata you're going to want to talk about the other three amendments and I just would like to you know because I just want to be candid and straightforward with you.
Some of these issues for me are labor related and collective bargaining and union related and some of them I would like to find some space on how we can have a discussion about the funding.
But again, the four corners of this document and the levy focus around four categories and what we're putting to the voters.
And I'm just trying to have everyone mindful of that.
Okay, so if we can go ahead and continue.
The next amendment proposed is to provide additional security officers to the library.
As it currently stands, the library employs 19 security officers.
There was a study done in 2010 about library security that recommended 21 security officers.
So that would mean an additional two regular security officers.
As it stands, the security officers provide responses both in the central library and to branch libraries about security-related concerns and also provide some level of outreach through a person-centered approach.
The cost of one security officer for 2019 is about $61,000.
To add two security officers over the life of the levy would be about $1.3 million at an average annual cost of about $181,000.
The average annual cost would be 51 cents annually or 4 cents a month.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So just to clarify, we have three amendments total, so this is the second of three.
As you heard, there was a study that the library conducted back in 2010 on the need for additional security precautions, and the staff at the library did this out of a desire to make sure that everyone felt welcome.
As we know, our library staff and our library's mission is to ensure that the library is accessible to all members of the public.
and that we ensure that there's a safe workplace for those who are working in the libraries and that those who are visiting libraries also feel safe.
We currently know that there's been an increase in incidents in certain locations, such as Ballard, Capitol Hill, University, and Lake City libraries, and it has made responding to these crises or these incidences harder when we have limited staff.
You can imagine that a staffing shortage has made it harder for folks to respond when there's a crisis or a mental health breakdown, and someone needs attention, which gets us to our second one in a minute here.
But one of the things that we know is that anytime someone's having a moment of crisis, having our security guards who are here with us today make sure that people feel safe, both while they're reading books in the library and working in the library is critically important.
I really applaud the fact that the library already has 19 officers on hand.
What we're asking for is basically just two more to meet the 2010 recommendations for 21 security officers.
I've heard directly from folks who work in the library that this creates a challenge when they don't have adequate staffing in terms of safety support for both helping the public and making sure that those folks who are working there feel safe.
So as you heard, this amendment would include $1.263 million over the life of the levy for a 4 cents a month investment per household.
I think the return on investment is very high, making sure that people feel safe going to the library.
accessing the library for the first time potentially and being lifetime members of our libraries throughout Seattle and hope that we can continue to work on this piece.
It is something as well that I know that is paramount to make sure that our folks who are working there and visiting the libraries feel safe.
Thank you.
The last amendment would be to expand the current community resource specialist program.
As it stands, the library has a contract with the downtown emergency service center for a social worker and a case manager to be at the central library.
as well as for drop-in hours at various other branches such as Ballard and Capitol Hill.
To expand the work that this program does, the library would prioritize supporting youth in those services or potentially adding two caseworkers to supplement the current adult services that are provided.
The services provided by the, excuse me, by the service program is to connect patrons to a variety of services, and they're primarily unhoused patrons, to housing or health or social services, as well as performing the vulnerability index assessment that enters people into the coordinated entry program.
To expand the youth services portion of this would be about 1.1 million dollars over the cost of the levy.
About $164,000 at an average annual cost.
It would cost the average median household 46 cents per year with a monthly cost of 4 cents.
To add in two caseworkers to provide adult support would cost about $986,000 at about excuse me, $141,000 of average annual cost, costing the average median household 40 cents per year or three cents per month.
Okay, Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
My question for this one is also the same as my question for the one related to security guards.
I'd be interested to know of the 19 security guards that are already funded, to provide security services for the library, where those dollars come from?
Are those dollars currently coming from the general fund, or are they coming from the current levy?
And likewise, for the services that are provided for the community resource specialists that currently exist, are they provided through the general fund, through our budget process, or through the existing levy?
You'll give me just a moment, I can find that information.
Okay, currently the operating fund, which I believe is general fund, pays for 14 security officers.
The levy currently pays for four positions, and in 2020, the proposed levy will pay for six officers, with the operating funds paying for the remaining 13.
So that's a security officer piece.
Excuse me, can I just follow up with that, Asha?
Would you give us those numbers again?
Is the new proposed, that is in the proposed levy language now, would you just give me those numbers one more time?
Yes, so moving forward, rather currently, so under the current levy, 14 security officers and the supervisor are funded by the library's operating fund.
and the levy pays for four positions.
So four of 14 are currently paid for by levy dollars?
Four out of the current 19.
For the current 19?
Yes.
Okay.
In 2020, so moving forward, the proposed levy would pay for six officers with the remaining officers being funded by operating fund.
So still having 19?
Yes.
Under the current proposal?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay.
So, can I just add one thing here?
And Council Member Muscata, you and I oftentimes, and more often than not, line up with how we want to spend our money.
I will alert you that I am really concerned that we don't supplant the operating fund with levy dollars or ask taxpayers in this levy to pay more than what we could be asking for coming up in our next budget or even in a quarterly supplement.
So I just want to acknowledge that what you are suggesting, I think, is a great suggestions both for security, safety, and for education purposes.
And I would like us to revisit that out of the general fund money as contrasted to new levy dollars.
That's a question, Madam Chair.
Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to clarify on your answer.
So it does sound like currently four out of the four of the positions are currently being paid for by levy dollars.
The proposal is to actually increase the number to six being paid for by levy dollars.
So we're already seeing that the proposed levy that came down from the executive's office already made some value judgments that this is a really important issue that we fund with levy dollars.
And I think that in order for us to be responsive to both what the frontline workers and what the library have said is the need, again, we have a 2019-2020 budget issue paper where they were also at that point asking for to additional FTEs for security.
So this has been a longstanding need given that it's already a current practice of using levy dollars to make sure that our patrons and our workers feel safe.
I hope that folks will take another look at it and potentially consider supporting this as I think it's not changing the process or supplanting existing dollars.
Thank you.
Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
Just a follow-up because I've confused myself with what we mean by currently.
What you just described, is that the Mayor's proposed new levy or is that what is happening today?
So currently the split is sorry, my math, is four officers funded by the levy.
So that's through 2019. As of 2020, as the proposed levy was transmitted, two of those officers, two additional officers will be funded by the levy.
So six officers funded by the levy.
This doesn't include any of the potential amendment additions.
So we'll have a total of six, then, as proposed by the mayor for this levy.
Yes, that's correct.
And this adds two more?
Yes, this would add two additional officers so that it would be a total of 21 officers, eight of which would be supported by the levy.
Chairman, you have a question, please?
President Harrell.
It's been a lot of time talking about two officers here.
The larger issue for me in the context of these two officers are, if we look at the percentage, and the chair keeps talking about this levy is around 25% of the total operating fund of the library, based on the proposed levy, is that changed at all?
Has it gone up slightly or down slightly in terms of the overall?
Because for me, as we layer on, additions from the executive's package, I don't know if we are tipping the scales in terms of sub-planning or not, and that's my larger issue.
All these are great ideas, phenomenal ideas.
I can't disagree with the need for it.
So what I'd like to see before we actually put the levy on the ballot is some feedback from, for example, on Council Member Gonzalez's suggestions or proposals, her amendments, If I'm hearing it correctly and the foundation are paying for those things, what's their confidence level in terms of the volatility of their stream if those are in place?
Can we get some feedback?
And Marcellus, I'm looking at you to make sure that as we amend this, because now we're up around 227 million.
starting to get my attention a little bit here, that we need to know if there are smarter ways to do some of this.
I like the executive's feedback as well, as we're getting close to budget considerations.
And so these great ideas, are there alternative ways to to do this.
You know, one possibility could be we could have lowered the levy amount from the executive.
By the way, we don't always have to go in one direction on these things in our discussions.
And so I don't hear anyone talking, and I just haven't had the wherewithal to really see if there were savings possible.
I already got outvoted on my fine theory, by the way.
So I am getting concerned about the dollar amount escalating.
I need some feedback from the experts in the library world.
and be happy to follow up with the library and the executive on that.
Yes, we will be doing that.
And I should note for the public's comment too, is I had an opportunity to talk with our head librarian over these amendments.
So I have a sense of what they are inclined, but my understanding is that Marcellus, Mr. Turner had to go back and make sure that he met with his board of trustees.
And again, I'm not trying to, not take away from anyone's amendments or issues, because as the Council President said, they all make sense and they're all great, except we still have to be mindful that we are in levy mode.
We are not in general budget mode, our general fund budget mode.
You're right, Council President, you're absolutely right.
We could go down or we could go up.
But again, we're putting this to the taxpayers and we don't want to put a poison pill where everything goes down because taxpayers are not going to be comfortable.
We're not voting on a childcare levy.
We're not voting on a public safety levy, we are voting on a library levy.
And so we have to keep that in mind.
And we had this discussion in our last hearing, is that libraries are the most public of institutions that this city has, all cities have.
And we have to be mindful as an essential governmental function or essential governmental service that those core services are provided for.
I would like to see these type of items that Council Member Mosqueda has generously put together within our libraries.
I would certainly like to see a lot of these issues integrated into our 27 community centers.
But again, I have to go back to the actual brick-and-mortar purpose of those public assets and civic development and what our job is as stewards, particularly when we propose this to the taxpayers.
And that's all I'm being mindful of at this point.
So, okay, I'll just move forward.
Councilor Mosqueda.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Would you like me to read through the summary of item number three since we didn't do that yet?
Yes.
Okay.
And you already presented on that, is that right?
I'm sorry, item number five.
Yes.
Okay.
And just to clarify again, you know, I appreciate the cautionary note from the chair and the other council colleagues to reiterate this concept of having security guards is already part of what we fund.
in our existing levy and already part of what the mayor has suggested in her proposed levy.
So this is a core component to making sure that people feel safe in libraries and that they continue to access and that those who are working there feel safe.
Again, applaud the folks at the library for bringing forward the budget issue paper last year that requested the two FTEs based on the data that was analyzed in 2010. And we'll continue to have conversations, I have no doubt.
One other area that I have to bring forward for your consideration on item number five, as was discussed a few minutes ago by Asha, relates to expanding the community resource specialist program.
And I have to say this was an excellent opportunity for me to learn about the innovative programming that our libraries are currently doing.
I think, Madam Chair, you said it just a second ago that we have libraries that function in our city as the most public of our institutions.
And I would also say this is the point of entry or point of service for many in the public, our residents, to be able to access services that the city may offer by coming into the doors of the library.
What our library has done by the inclusion of a community resource specialist has been to connect patrons who self-identify.
I want to be clear that they're self-identifying as experiencing homelessness to resources such as housing, health, and social services.
So when an individual comes in to, for example, our central library right now, four days a week, there is a community resource specialist who is one social worker and one case manager who primarily helps individuals these four days a week to get connected to services.
They do, I think, rolling hours also at the Rainier Beach branch.
And we've heard directly from the library workers that expanding the existing community resource specialist program to other high-need locations, including Ballard, Lake City, Lake City D5, Okay.
Yeah.
Ballard Lake City University is a big priority for creating safe and accessible environment and meeting the needs of the patron.
So this amendment would expand the community resource service program two ways.
One, as you see through the youth services support, and then also by creating two caseworkers for adult support services.
So I would offer you, colleagues, that this amendment is scalable.
If we do feel that this is too much to bite off in this one moment, there are two options there.
One is looking at one youth focus youth focus social worker and a halftime youth focus caseworker The other would be looking at adult services as you can see in this chart provided here and on the screen And I would also argue that for less than a dollar a year We would be able to purchase all of these services that the community resource specialist program would be able to provide if we were to extend it as the amendment suggests and Again, I know that this is a critical levy that we get passed by the voting public to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable and thriving public library system.
And I think that this is one element as people are accessing our services where we can help connect people to other services and create greater stability in our community.
I think there's a high return on investment.
I'm not able to articulate it in this fiscal note here, but I think that we will be able to see not only greater support for our library services, making sure people get connected in community, but it's a great opportunity when they're coming into our libraries to get them the services they need.
In addition to books.
Thank you.
Council Member Herbold.
I still had that outstanding question that you answered for the security guards as related to this one as well.
What is currently in 2019 being funded through the levy as it relates to these services and what from the general fund?
At the moment it's a $110,000 contract that is, I'm sorry $111,000 contract that is currently funded by the general fund.
Thank you.
Maybe Asha on for you can provide for us and with further consultation with um with our council um with Marcellus and his staff and with you and you know how I love charts and templates and boxes and all that stuff.
Council Member Herbold and Council Member Mosqueda has have raised some really important issues and I think one of the things I think we need to visualize and I would like the viewing public to see, and certainly the taxpayers, is the questions that Council Member Hurdle has raised is a comparison of what we are actually paying for now in the levy and what the expansion of that would be in the proposals that are now in front of us.
if we could have those two kind of columns and then what the difference is.
It's because the confusion for me is, you know, I was trying to figure out, okay, I know we have four in the levy for the security officers.
I know there are two more, which came up to six.
And then I wasn't sure how many that what Council Member Mosqueda, which she had brought up.
If we can have a side-by-side comparison before we start teeing up amendments and having more discussion, would that be helpful?
I think we have a third column.
So it's like, what's happening now?
What are we paying for now?
What is the mayor proposed?
And of course, that is with our library staff as well.
What if they proposed?
And then thirdly, what would happen if we adopted these amendments?
Absolutely, I can- And tying it up with the bow, I think, comparing it to, or answering the question that Council President Harrell asked about how those things also impact, I think, what is a goal and a narrative that we want to be able to stick to that 25% of the funding is levy dollars.
And let me just add this.
We have potentially seven amendments in front of us that approximately will be anywhere looks like between about 13.8 million over the 213, and I know that's not final, but those are the discussions that we're having.
What I would, and I know that we still have to determine on the Northgate or the feasibility study to collate, co-locate the child care spaces.
Is that still another number that's still outstanding?
One reason it's good that we nailed these issues down now and have a chart that explains that because These are really good ideas and a lot of this information We're going to need either in a supplemental budget discussion or in the regular budget discussion I see councillor Mosqueda is teeing that up now so we want to be ready to go if it's You know, you can have two or three bites at the apple, and I just want her to know that I would be supportive of that.
Okay, with that, is there anything more we need to?
Nope, that is all of the proposed amendments.
Is there anyone who wants to follow up with anything else, Mr. President?
I want to say that we're looking at $13 million worth of additions at the same time we're waiving about $8 million in fines.
Just looking at the math here, no comment on the policy.
I did too.
I was hoping he wasn't paying attention, but he certainly was.
Thank you, Council President.
So with that, Asha, thank you very much.
You gave us some great information.
Thank you for the great memo that you wrote.
I appreciate it.
Nagin, thank you very much for the work that you've done and your phenomenal FAQ sheet.
It was color coded with charts.
I want to say a lot of Microsoft clip art in there.
Good job.
So with that, let's move to public comment.
All right, so why don't you, well, we will now open up for public hearing.
Public comment on the 2019 Library for All renewal proposal, which is in Council Bill 119491. And Nagin, why don't you tell us how many people we got signed up?
Okay, so we have 33 people signed up for public comment.
So to ensure a smooth transition, our clerk, Nagin, will call four people at a time.
When your name is called, please line up behind any of the two podiums and come to the microphone.
The center podium will be podium number one.
Which one is the center one?
That one?
That's one?
That's one, okay.
And this is podium two.
All right.
So, with that, as you all know, again, for the record, you have two minutes to address the items, this item.
If you're a group of three or more, you have five minutes.
Before beginning, please state your name and please address your comments to our calendar that is in front of us today.
Go ahead, Nagin.
All right, the first group, we have Daniel Ortner, Dave Ortner, Camille Jasny, and Marlene Swartz.
And I believe they'll be doing individual comments.
We have our interpreter.
Hi, good evening.
Thank you.
I'm Camille Jasny, and I'm here to represent actually the book group that we have at the downtown library.
We started in 2006. And it's for people that are blind and low vision and hearing impaired.
We meet once a month, and we are the largest book group in the downtown library.
And since it started in 2006, it's been really a wonderful experience also being able to go into the library and be able to use some of the services for all of us.
I've been here before to talk about not closing the doors, hoping not to lose any hours at the library.
I'm glad you're thinking of extending them for people.
I also want to mention that I run a low vision support group at the Capitol Hill Library.
And I also took my children to the programs when they were young.
And I think the benefit of the library is so nice because it's open to the public.
No one has to pay anything.
It's free.
It's fantastic.
And there's so many good places and programs there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Who's next again?
I'm Dave Ortner.
I'm a co-leader of the Low Vision Book Group, and I'm just here to address my relation with the library.
When I was sighted, I used to come all the time and just browse and get books.
And then about 10 years ago, I lost my sight.
And at that time, I thought I would never read books again.
I just thought I'd stop.
And then my sister started getting audio discs, and I started coming back.
And so I've enjoyed the library and completely agree with More accessibility and funding security have always felt safe.
And I think it's important to always fund security and as well as more accessibility for all people to come to the library.
Hello, I'm Dan Ortner.
My brother Dave and I, as he said, co-lead the Low Vision Book Club at the Central Library.
And we also use the Washington Talking Book Library.
It's very helpful.
We're very glad about that.
They record all the books for us on cassettes for us.
As my brother said, I've used the library as long as I've been here in Seattle.
When I was cited, I used to come very regularly, as he mentioned, and then I have been coming a lot less.
But then with the book group, we've been coming more regularly and volunteer at the library as well.
And I think it's very important that the library be open, more accessible, especially for children to use it and be a safe place for everybody, and especially for disabled patrons to use the Library Equal Access Program.
I think that's very important and very helpful.
I think all these things and the library system itself are one of the things that make Seattle one of the top ten livable cities in the country.
Thank you, sir.
Hi, my name's Marlene Swartz.
And so anything you know about me, anybody who knows me knows I'm always reading a book.
You can always ask me what I'm reading, and you'll hear an earful from me.
Long story short, the reason I love reading so much is I graduated high school without being able to read.
So I didn't really learn until my 20s to really start reading.
So I value the library.
When I got my son, who was first a foster son, then to adopt, That was one of the first things I did, was take him to the library, too.
And actually, the library helped him learn to read, because you have those books for kids where you have audio tapes and books.
And he was really struggling with learning to read.
And I was able to help him through that.
My reading to him, but also him seeing me read all the time.
My kid's reading all the time.
He's 19 now.
He's reading all the time, too.
Not only that, my son has disabilities.
And in order to graduate from high school, you need to have volunteer hours.
So my connection with the Seattle Public Library through the ASL Book Club and now the Low Vision Club that I attend, with my hearing loss, I was never able to join book clubs.
So when the Seattle Public Library had an ASL one, I was ecstatic.
When that phased out a little bit, I was really disappointed.
And I was invited to join the Low Vision Book Club, which they graciously let me come.
I approached Cleo and asked her about if she would let Jared volunteer at the library.
And she mentored him.
And he got through his volunteer work.
And now we're actually looking at him joining the employment at the Seattle Public Library students.
Again, he's been unable to get employment.
And with the amount of support the library gives, I think he's going to be successful with that.
I'd just like to say, I know I'm out of time, just real quick.
I'd just like to say maybe part of this levy is also how we educate the taxpayers about what all the Seattle Public Library does.
It's not just books.
absolutely just books and someone I know I can go to the library and have accommodations and be part of the library and that's one of the few places I can do that so thank you thank you we call four names the next group if you could please line up we have Alex Zimmerman Steve groups I apologize if I mispronounce your name and Barb Wilson and Ryan Packer so we have this Wilson and who's the last one
Ryan Packer or Dacker, I'm not sure.
Here he is.
Is he at podium, is the last speaker at podium one?
Uh, podium two.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Mr. Zimmerman.
Hi, my dirty Fuhrer.
A Nazi garbage rats from animal farm.
A racketeer, a cretina and killer.
My name is Alex Zimmerman and I go to library for 30 years.
Many times, almost every week.
So situation right now, very simple.
Number one, why we need suck blood and money from taxes from people?
I don't have sense about this.
Taxes, taxes, taxes, we pay $100 billion of taxes.
We have too much money in system.
City, for example, have $6 billion and pay salary for management $350,000.
It's almost like US president's salary.
Why we pay this?
Why they don't have money, need more taxes?
It's number one.
Number two, what is very interesting, Durkan have proposition for this.
Levy, what is double more than before.
Why is she doing this?
When is she last time in library, with her $5 million house?
Interesting.
Why she don't have a Q&A so we can talk about this, what has happened?
So she make something very simple.
You can cut this everything, but very simple point.
Negotiate with Comcast about $10 for internet per month.
All European people pay $10 per month.
Why we pay $70 per month?
So people go in library most right now for only for internet.
So when we give everybody, I assume 50 percentage poor who make less than $40,000, $10.
For internet, you know what this mean?
Library supposed to be will be close.
Is this exactly what is will be in progress right now?
City go more richer and richer, where our salary right now, $80,000.
I never see in library men who make $80,000 per year.
You understand what I'm talking?
So give something to Duncan and to you because you are freaking like a criminal and like retina acting.
$10 per internet and no need library levy.
Stand up America.
Clean this chamber from this rickety.
Next.
Good afternoon.
I mean, good evening.
Good evening.
Hi, committee members.
Thank you so much for your service.
I'm a Seattle resident since 1993, and I've been serving on the Friends of the Seattle Public Library board for seven years, and I'm currently the president of the Friends of the Seattle Public Library.
And on behalf of the organization, I want to speak in support of the mayor's proposal for the library levy renewal.
So, one of the things I want to talk about is that the strong public library forms the roots of an ecology of literacy in our community.
And so, the thing I really want to speak about today is the indirect benefits from the direct support that comes from supporting the library.
So, I'll just let you know that the Friends were established back in 1941. We're all voluntary run, and we currently have about 1,000 members.
And we have three major programs.
We advocate on behalf of the library, and we run the Friends Shop in the Central Library, and we also have been, since 1971, selling books to raise money for the library.
And those books come from the library collection that are well used but no longer circulating, and then we also take donations from the public.
And our last book sale at the Seattle Center over the St. Patrick's Day weekend was record-breaking.
We had about 12,000 people come through the doors.
We raised almost $200,000.
And one of the things I want to talk about is the indirect benefit is through our Books for Teachers program.
Through volunteers, we've been able to raise money from the Renee B. Fisher Foundation.
they give us a grant of $15,000 so we can buy the books from our collection and give them to title one teachers.
So at the book sale in March we actually got 131 teachers 1,100 books and so I just want to read three quotes from the teachers.
So this is a teacher from Graham Hill Elementary and she says for those of us For those of us with no library budgets, this program is a lifesaver.
This program provides books our school needs but has no resources to acquire.
Another for Concord Elementary says these books supply my entire summer reading program for at-risk youths.
And a teacher from Rainier View says, I cannot thank you enough for your generous book donations for teachers like me in Title I schools.
It's like stumbling upon an oasis in the middle of a long desert journey.
It's joy and water and feasting for the spirit and soul.
Thank you.
Thank you.
May I just say thank you to the friends, and I really appreciate the work you do, and I know you've been going for a long time, but it's a labor of love.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just got a note from Nagin saying that if you come up here, please state your name.
All right, Barb.
We know you, Barb.
Hi, thank you, council members.
I'm Barb Wilson.
I'm here to support the library levy renewal on behalf of Vulcan.
We've been a longtime supporter of libraries and have supported previous levies.
Our founder, Paul Allen, inherited a love of learning through reading from his mother, Faye, who was known for often asking, what's better than a good book?
And his father, Ken, who you may not know, was a longtime librarian with the University of Washington.
Paul used to fondly recall his weekend jaunts to the Seattle Public Libraries and what it meant for him in his development as a critical thinker.
The Allen family's commitment to public libraries and education most notably led to a $22.5 million gift, and the Central Library later dedicated its Children's Center to Faye Allen, Paul's mother.
Vulcan is proud to carry on the legacy forward to supporting the levy renewal so that the love of libraries can be widely shared in Seattle.
And we appreciate the efforts of Council, Mayor, the Library Foundation to put forward the levy.
that will equitably distribute the benefits of public library systems, helping to develop the next generation of critical thinkers, and continue a strong legacy in Seattle.
Libraries provide crucial access to the world, and it's important that all of our neighbors share in this access.
Thanks so much for your hard work.
Thank you.
Sir?
Hi there.
My name is Ryan Packer.
I'm speaking today as a library user and a library lover in favor of the library renewal and in favor of the modifications in the Central Staff Memo, particularly Mike O'Brien's proposal to expand weeknight hours to bring our weeknight hours to the same level that King County Library System currently offers, 9 p.m.
I've been at libraries at 7.30 p.m.
when people are scrambling to use the computers before they close.
I've been at libraries before 1 p.m.
on Sundays to see the line almost down the block to get in the library.
The demand is there right now.
The fact that this was not in the original levy proposal I think speaks to the lack of vision provided by the executive across all disciplines right now.
We should be bolder when thinking about something as essential to our civic life as the Seattle Public Library.
And a final note about the proposal to bring that temporary sort of pop-up library to the City Light building, which is an interesting proposal.
The question is how many residents does Seattle need to add until we add a branch?
Vulcan obviously just spoke in favor of libraries, but there is no South Lake Union branch.
and how many people are gonna be added to our city until we bring that in.
I think that's a good idea to do a temporary city light, but I would have liked to seen some vision from executive and legislative branch in terms of putting another branch in that neighborhood.
I know we just sold the comm shop property, basically for rental vouchers.
I think the vision that could have brought a library branch with affordable housing above, would be much preferable to a prop up added to the light, sorry, the light station after the fact.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
The next group, we have Paula Becker, Jay Rich, Naomi Ishisaki, and Daniel, or no, we already did that.
Hi, thank you so much.
I'm Paula Becker.
I'm a historian for HistoryLink and a Seattle homeowner.
I want to tell you how fully the Seattle Public Library supported my son, Hunter Brown, who died in June 2017. The library was the sole institution with the breadth of mission to serve Hunter, who loved to read, over the entire course of his 25-year life.
We became regulars at the Northeast Branch Story Hour when Hunter was 18 months old, borrowing increasing numbers of picture books and finally attaching wheels to a giant L.L.
Bean canvas bag so he could drag them all home.
Hunter's first act of civic engagement was getting his own library card, an act he proudly undertook the very week that he learned how to print his name.
Hunter used the Central Library Seattle room when researching a project on the Denny party in middle school.
And in high school, he studied at the Northgate branch.
But there's more.
As a teen, Hunter began using drugs.
By 18, he had been through a three-month rehab program.
But within the next year, he was in active heroin addiction, which led eventually to my beloved, book-loving son experiencing homelessness.
The Wallingford, Capitol Hill, University, Green Lake, and Northgate branches provided Hunter respite in those years.
He spent rainy days tucked into their corners, charging his cell phone, finding familiar comfort in all those books.
During some better years, Hunter gained housing through the YMCA's Youth in Transition program and lived in a studio apartment at the Downtown Y. He spent hours across the street at the Central Library, creating resume, completing Central College assignments online, and writing poetry.
Hunter relapsed.
Living by then independently but facing eviction, he used the Central Library's computers to research rehab options.
And days later, he was heading hopefully toward the possibility of starting anew when his life ended abruptly.
The Seattle Public Library, the books, the services, and the professional, nonjudgmental, always helpful staff cushioned Hunter during what turned out to be a pretty hard life.
I never imagined when I was taking him to story hour that he would be a young adult experiencing homelessness and using the library in the ways that he was able to use it.
But I am so grateful that the library was there for him all those years.
So I ask you now for all Seattleites who access our library, sometimes for very complicated reasons, to please give voters the chance to support this levy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Jay Rich, and I'm currently the president of the Seattle Library's Board of Trustees.
I'd like to address the issue of library fines.
First, to be clear, under the levy proposal, taxpayers would not be paying the existing fines of library patrons.
The proposal would create a future, starting in 2020, fine-free environment, though patrons who damage or refuse to return books would have continually their accounts blocked and would have to pay.
Second, we already have a partially fine-free environment.
Many residents of Seattle already have fine-free borrowing because they are able, technologically and financially, to access electronic or e-materials, the very fast-growing proportion of all borrowed materials.
E-materials are fine-free already.
Third, there is significant research about the performance of the over 50 fine, free libraries across the country.
Two are nearby, Kitsap County and Snow Isle Library Systems.
Snow Isle has been fine, free for 35 years, since its inception, and it serves a population significantly larger than Seattle.
Those libraries that have eliminated fines have found that late returns have not increased, more materials are returned, and perhaps most importantly, there is significant increase of participation among users of all ages.
Fourth, when we use late fees to raise funds to pay for library operations, we disproportionately impact those who can least afford to pay those fines.
Other library systems report what I think we know intuitively.
that even the fear of a fine is enough to keep many people from using the library.
The guilt and shame people feel over library fines creates a negative association with libraries and drives them away.
Finally, given the dramatically increased use of fine-free e-materials, Fines are an unsustainable revenue source to pay library operating costs.
We have to solve that funding problem, and we can do it while achieving greater access and equity.
Thank you.
Hi, thank you for having me.
My name is Naomi Ishizaka.
I'm here to talk in favor of the library levy.
I was reconnected with the library in kind of an unusual way after quite a long hiatus since I was a child here in Seattle.
I became involved with the Legendary Children Program about five years ago, which is a library project that, if you're not familiar with it, is a It's a performance, it's also a showcase that centers the lives of queer and trans people of color in Seattle and the region using music, a drag performance, a public runway.
And it was really the first and still the only time I've ever seen that many queer and trans people of color in one space at one time ever in my life.
And it continues to be a place that a lot of us feel at home.
And that was really created through the library.
And while the performances and events are at Seattle Art Museum, it's a place that we know we can look forward to and always know that there's a place that we can go that speaks to us and is actually representative of us.
It's a really glorious feeling and one that you don't get to have very often.
Through the Legendary Children program, you see the margins in their community centered in a way that they aren't in any other place.
You can learn about not just experience the people in the room, but also learn from reading lists and other ways that there's a pop-up bookstore, other ways that people can find out about queer and trans people of color at this event.
And you can also connect with organizations that serve queer and trans people of color in the region.
So it's a really wonderful opportunity.
It's really unusual.
There's one coming up on May 10th.
You should go.
It's pretty extraordinary.
I'm a photographer, and that's how I came to be connected to it.
And I would love to show you pictures, because it really kind of speaks better than I'm speaking right now.
But it's really extraordinary, and it speaks to the ways in which you can create community in different ways through the library.
Thank you.
The next group we have Carmen Benedickson, Sean McEachin, Grace Nordhoff, and Karen Taring.
Hi, I'm Carmen Vindickson.
I'm a board member for the Friends of the Seattle Public Library.
I've been volunteering for the Seattle Public Library and the Friends both since 2007. I brought a little prop.
This is my bag from the Friends shop in the library.
It says, my library, knowledge and humanity and dignity and access.
And I think these are all the things that go into why I continue to spend my free time, time I don't get paid for, time that I could be spending doing something else.
But I prefer to spend it with the library because it's part of my community.
And I just wanted to say really quickly of how I came to this point.
And like so many stories, there's the intangibility of why the library means so much to so many.
And for me, it came down to after I had started volunteering in 07, the recession hit, I lost my job.
2012, we had a library levy.
And where was I spending most of my time?
At the library.
And I had all this free time to work on the campaign.
And so it became this kind of natural synergy of, yes, I could help the library because it had already given so much to me. you know, obviously I'm here and my career is back on track, but there's so much more that the library gives that isn't, you know, is in these words and is in the feeling you get when you come to a library program or when you feel that the staff sees you for what you really want or for what you really need.
And it's not necessarily available in other places where you might have to pay to, you know, sit there for hours on end.
Having sat at my computer working on resumes, I've had that feeling.
So in the end, it is about community.
It is about the intangibility.
So please support the library levy.
That's all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Sean McEachran, and I think the levy is a good idea.
Other than that, I had a bunch of stuff I was going to say, but I think my stuff's more of a budgetary matter than necessarily something for the levy.
I sense that there's a lot of wisdom in the walls tonight, and I like that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sean, for being nice to us.
Hello, my name is Grace Nordoff, and I serve as president of the board of the Seattle Public Library Foundation.
The foundation raises private contributions to fund programs at the library that meet the needs of our community.
The foundation supports this levy renewal package that allows the library to continue its important work in bringing us together, providing opportunity, and providing equity in our city.
I want to mention that just as roads and utilities are critical to the physical infrastructure that we depend on in our city, our libraries are part of the vital social infrastructure.
Libraries bring people together, help us learn and grow, and give us a place to celebrate our diverse cultures.
The library creates a sense of belonging that is essential to a vital and humane city.
So this library levy renewal package, which most significantly represents 25% of the library budget, would continue Seattle Public Library's efforts to respond to the needs of its citizens by providing access to books and materials, information, technology, community resources, and gathering spaces for all.
So thank you for your support.
Thank you.
And Grace, if I can just say, Grace?
Grace?
Grace?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just as we were saying, thanks to the Friends of the Library.
I really respect and I'm grateful to the Foundation.
So for all your efforts, many thanks.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Nadine?
Madam Chair, we actually have two more that have signed in.
I was given copies earlier, so we don't have 30 people signed up.
The last two are Karen Tiering and Betsy Klukeel.
Oh, OK.
Betsy, can I have your time?
I really don't have a lot to say.
Thank you very much.
My name is Karen Turing, and I am here to speak in favor of the levy.
Just this afternoon, my daughter called, and it was one of those FaceTime calls.
You know, it's grandma time, and I have a four-year-old grandson and a one-year-old granddaughter.
And so when I asked my four-year-old grandson what he did today, he said, we went to the library.
So you can see why I really want to have a world where libraries exist and little black boys can grow up and know that that's a fun place and a place that he wants to share with his family.
So therefore I support longer hours, the amendments that came up, the longer hours, the resolution to look into childcare.
so that families can more wholly participate in libraries.
And I really do support the elimination of fines.
I have come into closer relationship with the library because I've had the privilege of working with the library and legendary children, I'd like to second that, please come.
One of the things that the library, I think we need a 21st century library, right?
A library that is even more inclusive and more available and more centered to, you know, just basic existence for most marginalized people.
And when you can have joy in the library, when you can, you know, know that the library is also a place that brings joy like legendary children.
for queer and trans and people of color, it's worth supporting.
And I think tax dollars are worth supporting as well.
I also work with a program called COPE, which actually harnesses the power of the Seattle Public Library for marginalized organizations.
So can you imagine an organization that is volunteer run, that has the power of research and capacity that the library brings?
And I would like to see that supported.
And finally, I would like to speak one more time to the issue of fines and how I was very triggered that there was a very casual comment by this council about using fines to offset the cost of building this 21st century library that I dream of.
And I find it hurt my feelings because these fines usually land on the backs of the most vulnerable people.
And to ask the most vulnerable people to pay for something that we all use and benefit from is really very triggering for me.
So I would ask the council to watch their language when they casually talk about these fines because they also serve to ruin people's credit because they go into collections and criminalize people for just trying to access the resource that we say is available to all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, may I address that question?
Yes, Council President.
I appreciate the comments and I received them well.
Let me put my comment on fines in some context.
I don't want to be taken out of context.
Absolutely.
What I said in our earlier discussion, not this discussion, another day about fines, was I support actually even waiving fees if people lose a book and they can't enjoy the access of a library.
With respect to fines, what I said was, if people can't afford to pay, they shouldn't have to pay.
That's equity.
But there are many people that could pay.
And was there a mechanism by which we could consider those that are willing to pay and could pay can we still capture some of that revenue?
Because when you look at what we're trying to add, we're trying to cut, we will likely reduce $8 million in revenue by waiving all fines.
Having grown up in the library system, from a mother with a finance manager, I was just sort of taught that the fine policy is good to have.
You may not enforce it, and certainly do not enforce it for people who cannot pay.
So the difference between equality and equity, to me, if we are to embrace that, is that you really look at those that cannot afford and you don't penalize them.
In fact, you try to encourage our libraries as being, as you said, a vibrant part of our community that could really address all of the unfair institutional practices that is almost ingrained in our society.
But wiping them all out, even for people that are willing and of higher income or higher affluence, to me, I question whether that was the right method.
So what I asked was, was there any kind of creative way to look at still trying to capture some of those who are willing to pay?
So that was the question.
poor joke that I said when we're looking at the fines.
And so if I offended anyone, I certainly apologize.
But the context, and I, but I still believe in what I say.
And what I say is that while there are 50, apparently 50 successful libraries that have gone to a fine-free environment, and we are also told that in certain situations we still fine people, I don't understand why you still have a punitive fee system in place, and then waive fines.
So another person, a poor person loses their book, can't impose the fee, we impose the fee, and then they still can't enjoy the accesses of a library.
And I also said that certain people are more subjective.
I grew up in an area where there was a lot of theft when I was a kid in the Central District back in the 60s.
So there are certain children that are around a higher theft area that may be penalized.
I receive your point, but I just wanted to be in the context of And you know me, so you know what I stand for, so certainly it's not to make light of this notion of fines.
I also have to say that my primary goal is to make sure this levy passes.
Make no mistake about that.
And a dollar here and a dollar there can start to affect whether this passes.
We are in an environment where people are screaming at the top of their lungs about their property taxes.
I mean we have to be mindful of that.
So this is going to be once again.
a property tax, and so when we start looking at using this property tax for services and products that can be supplemented by our general fund, well, we can, we have discretion there, what we can do with our general fund, so I think we are smartly looking at whether this amount of the levy is gonna be a good investment.
But our goal, I think I share the goal that we want this levy to pass, and so that's first and foremost.
But I appreciate your comments.
Thank you, and if I could just do some wrap-up comments.
Council President, thank you very much for your comments.
You have served on this council for, what, eight, ten years now?
Going on 12.
Going on 12, okay.
And Council President Harrell has been a leader in race and social justice and the equity lens in which we look at all of our city programs and capital projects and his leadership is more than valuable.
He has embodied that whole concept of being, I mean at one time he was the only person of color on Seattle City Council.
And he has led and has been the voice of that and was one of the reasons why I think I believe I'm here today and made a decision to run for office.
So with that kind of leadership, I understand what you're saying.
The other point is with my other colleague sitting here, our goal is to keep in mind again that this is a levy and we are putting this to the taxpayers and this is going to go on property taxes.
Yes, sometimes we can say, well, this is only going to be $0.08 a day, or $14 a month, or how we break it down.
But again, we are asking the taxpayers to pick up the tab for 25% of the library's operating and capital functions.
Is that a fair characterization?
I'm looking right at MT. And so I think I speak for all of us when I say this, our goal here is, since our library was first created in 1890, is the now what I've, it's been called the People's University, is from 98 to 2012 to now 2019 and looking forward, is that this levy passes.
And it passes with what you also heard Council Member Mosqueda share, as well as Council Member Herbold, that we are a library of the 21st century.
And libraries today are doing things they never imagined that they would have been doing 20 years ago.
Having social workers, providing services, programs for our elders.
And we are seeing public assets and public buildings like I was sharing earlier with community centers and even our food banks, they are enhanced service centers.
They are the first line of the most public places that people go to, not just to, again, getting back to libraries, not to just checking out a book, but it's to look for a job.
It's to have a place to go before school and after school.
It's the only place people can go to get online.
It's where the Marcellus made available where we have hotspots and people in low-income neighborhoods can have access to Wi-Fi.
And the programs that the library has set up with the, and I always forget the name, the organization that Mr. Loftin runs.
Yeah, S-H-A, Seattle Housing Authority, where they have, correct me if I'm wrong, free Wi-Fi.
And so there are a lot of things the public doesn't see that libraries do.
And so we wanna remain true to the main and core principle of what the library is.
And for me, that number one issue is that it remains to be the most public of public institutions that this city should enjoy and should pay for, and I hope the taxpayers feel the same.
So with that, I'm going to see if my colleagues have anything else to say.
Oh, well, oh, I know that I saw.
Thank you for that.
I have it written up here as well.
Okay, so before we adjourn, the next meeting of the Select Committee on the library level will be next Wednesday, April 17th at 2.30 p.m.
At this meeting the committee will vote on final amendments for recommendation to the April 22nd City Council meeting for a final vote on the levy proposal for the August 6th ballot.
What is the date that we have to get this done?
May 2nd?
May 3rd?
It's first, yeah, it's early May.
So it's like early May 6th, more or less.
Yeah, okay.
By the first week in May, we have to get this done so we can end up on the August 6th ballot.
And I don't think I can say anything else.
Okay, what?
Is there anything else you want me to do, Nageen?
Why don't you just use the microphone, Nageen?
Why don't you just come on up here?
Madam Chair, we just need to state into the record to close the hearing.
Yeah, I'm just getting ready to say...
Because I failed to write that down.
I'm just getting ready to say that right now.
Oh, does it say that?
Oh, man.
Okay.
Okay, with that, we're going to close the meeting and we stand adjourned.
Thank you, Nageen.