Washington County asks board to explore 10¢ library levy increase, adopt ‘base’ service model and centralize book purchasing

Washington County officials on Monday asked the Board of Commissioners to formally explore raising the county library levy by 10 cents — from 22¢ to at least 32¢ per $1,000 of assessed value — and to adopt a county-funded “base service” for the cooperative library system while centralizing purchase of physical collections to reduce system costs.

The proposal, presented at a board work session by Marnie Kyle, an assistant county administrator, and Lisa Tattersall, manager of Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS), would set a county-supported base of 45 open hours per week at each library, fund centrally managed digital and physical collections and infrastructure, and preserve local flexibility for additional hours and services financed by partner cities or nonprofits.

Why it matters: County staff and the consultant Marina and Company said the package is intended to create more equitable, consistent service across the county’s 16 library buildings while closing a projected funding gap. The recommendation couples a levy increase with operational efficiencies — chiefly centralized selection and purchasing of physical materials — that staff and the consultant estimate could yield roughly $4,000,000 in annual savings.

WCCLS structure and current funding

Tattersall described WCCLS as a cooperative linking 16 library buildings operated by nine city partners and three nonprofit partners; those partners provide local staffing, collections, programs and services while the county funds system-wide infrastructure and support. Staff said partner contributions currently make up about one-third of total system revenue. Tattersall said a lack of a consistent method to delineate what county versus local funds pay for has produced uneven service levels across the system.

What staff proposed

• Levy: Staff asked the board to support exploring a 10¢ levy increase (to at least 32¢ per $1,000 assessed value) as a baseline; polling on levy options is underway and will be reported to the board. The forecast model presented shows that a 10¢ increase stacked on current revenue would align projected revenues with the modeled cost of the proposed base service levels, assuming operational efficiencies are realized.

• Base service level: County funding would support a consistent base across the system — described by Tattersall as 45 open hours per week, centrally provided collections (digital and physical) and core support services and infrastructure. Tattersall emphasized that 45 hours is the floor, not a ceiling: libraries could remain open longer using local funds.

• Centralized collections: The proposal would centralize selection and purchasing of physical materials (books) at the system level. Tattersall and staff said partners participating in the process identified centralized purchasing as an efficiency that would reduce local staffing needs tied to selection, acquisition and cataloging. Tattersall said partners would have a two-year on‑ramp to adjust staffing models and that WCCLS would involve local library staff in developing a collection management policy and ongoing input mechanisms.

Projected savings and fiscal assumptions

Staff and Marina and Company told the board the primary savings would come from reductions in locally duplicated positions and that the consultant’s analysis supports a forecast of approximately $4,000,000 in annual savings from centralizing collection functions. When asked whether the team was confident in that figure, Tattersall said, "the team is confident in that. Absolutely." The financial model staff presented also assumes specific revenue and expenditure scenarios, including an assumption about assessed value growth used in levy forecasting and a scenario in which the county general fund transfer could be reduced in fiscal 2025–26 (staff called that a mid-range reduction scenario).

Implementation timeline and governance work

Staff outlined a schedule of near-term actions: steering committee review of initial polling results on Feb. 26, a full-board presentation of polling on March 11, a second round of polling in April with results to the board on May 6, a May 27 work session on ballot titles and explanatory statements, a June 3 public hearing to adopt ballot measures, and a June 24 return to the board with recommended criteria and a formula to allocate funds among partners. Staff also said they plan to return in September 2025 with recommendations to improve governance and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) and to provide draft IGA language to the board in February 2026, with the goal of signed IGAs by mid‑2026.

Board discussion and concerns

Commissioners who spoke expressed general support for exploring the levy increase and for clarifying a county-funded base level of service, while also raising concerns and follow-up requests. Topics raised included:

• Financial risk: Commissioners cautioned that personnel costs, state-required PERS changes, inflation and uncertainty about assessed value growth could alter long-term projections and said those risks should be tested in polling and scenario modeling.

• Local control and staff impact: Several commissioners reiterated support for cities and nonprofits as local library operators and noted centralization’s potential to reduce local jobs or change staffing roles. Tattersall acknowledged the sensitivity of potential staffing impacts and said individual partners would need to manage staff changes locally; she said WCCLS would involve staff in collection policy development and provide a two‑year adjustment period.

• Written commitments: Commissioners asked staff to memorialize key operational commitments (for example, how centralized selection and local input will be guaranteed) in writing so partners and staff have clear expectations; Tattersall said those commitments have been communicated in emails to library directors and could be further memorialized in IGA language.

No formal board vote recorded

At the end of the presentation staff posed three policy questions — support exploring a 10¢ levy increase, support for the recommended concept of county-funded base service levels, and any further direction for staff. Multiple commissioners voiced support for pursuing the options presented and asked for the polling, financial assumptions and written policy commitments to be clarified in follow-up materials. The transcript records no formal motion or roll-call vote on those policy questions during the work session.

What’s next

Staff will report initial polling results to the full board on March 11 and continue work with Marina and Company and local partners on funding-allocation criteria, draft IGAs and public-education materials for a potential fall ballot. The board will consider ballot language and hold a June 3 public hearing if it moves forward with a measure.

The proposal ties a levy increase to operational changes intended to establish county-funded baseline service while preserving local discretion for additional services; the centralization element is presented as necessary to make the fiscal model work, but it generated requests from commissioners for clearer, written protections for local input and staff transition plans.