When Seattle political leaders finally settled on a $365 million property-tax levy to improve streets, bridges and much more, the proposal was bigger than two city-appointed citizen committees had recommended — by a lot.

The size and sweep of the levy — almost twice as big as any in city history — is both helping and hindering the ballot measure, Proposition 1 on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The nine-year levy, pushed by Mayor Greg Nickels and the City Council, would fix only half of the backlog.

"Unfortunately, the ballot measure includes non-essential capital improvements. ... the [City] Council has failed to prioritize the work," the Municipal League of King County wrote in a statement opposing Proposition 1.

Others argue that the levy's reach — and the fact that one-third of its money would go to better bus service, bike projects, pedestrian safety and neighborhood improvements — is a key selling point.

"It would've been wrong to do just roads. The bike, pedestrian and transit elements give people reason to support the package and some of these people wouldn't traditionally support just a roads project," said Ref Lindmark, a Green Lake activist and member of the Citizens' Advisory Panel for Transportation Funding appointed by Nickels and the council earlier this year.

Proposition 1: Seattle's transportation levy


What it would do: The $365 million, nine-year levy is part of a larger, $544 million plan to fix aging streets and bridges; help fund several major projects such as creating a two-way Mercer Street; and put money toward bike lanes, sidewalks, road signs, traffic lights, buses, street trees, stairways, neighborhood traffic circles and some basic maintenance.

What it would cost: The levy is projected to cost $36 per $100,000 of assessed value next year, or $144 on a $400,000 house.

The Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club, Feet First and Transportation Choices Coalition all have endorsed the levy.

The pro-levy campaign was "slow out of the chute," said Darryl Smith, a supporter who is a former president of the Rainier Chamber of Commerce. In part, that's because Nickels and the City Council withdrew their initial, much-criticized 20-year, $1.6 billion plan and didn't substitute a shorter, slimmer package until Sept. 22.

But in the month since then, the campaign has collected $140,500 in contributions, with most of the money coming from developers, contractors, unions and consultants.

Eight contributors have provided more than half of the campaign's financing. They are Midmountain Contractors; Glacier Northwest, a building-materials supplier; Paul Allen's development companies, Vulcan and City Investors; the Laborers' Union; the Amalgamated Transit Union; Pemco Insurance; and Parsons Brinckerhoff, a transportation consulting and engineering firm.

The campaign has sent out brochures tailored to six areas of the city. If funding allows, more mail will be delivered to voters, said campaign spokesman Christian Sinderman.

The orange and green brochures depict projects in different neighborhoods, saying "check out the improvements to your area." There's no guarantee, however, that the city would do all the projects shown. Instead, the levy promises to spend a certain share of funding for different kinds of work, such as road paving, bridge repair and new sidewalks. City officials would decide each year which specific projects make it to the top of a priority list.

The levy is about 40 percent larger than what was recommended by citizen committees appointed by Nickels and the council in 2004 and 2006.

Still, most of those who served on the two panels support the levy, citing grim statistics about the city's needs. Of Seattle's 149 bridges, 46 percent are in fair or poor condition, proponents say, and 29 percent of the most heavily traveled streets, or arterials, are in similar shaky shape.

"Even if it's not a perfect package, I hope people are going to vote for it," said Smith, who served on both citizen committees.

Opponents of the levy haven't mounted much of an organized campaign. Mukilteo anti-tax activist Tim Eyman formed the only official group fighting the levy, along with three Seattle residents. But Eyman has reported contributions of just $750, most of which has been spent on campaign accountants.

To date, Eyman's effort has consisted mainly of e-mails touting a report on the levy by a business-funded group, the Washington Policy Center.

The report stresses that City Hall wants a special levy to provide services that should be covered by regular property taxes. It says the levy encourages a kind of budget blackmail. "Placing core functions on special levies makes voters feel they must either agree to pay higher taxes or do without a vital public service. ... This is part of a pattern — elected leaders spend the regular budget on lower-priority items, then ask citizens to pay extra for essential services."

Others who have publicly spoken against the levy include University District activist Matt Fox and North Seattle Industrial Association President Eugene Wasserman.

Fox argues that city officials could have fixed roads and bridges instead of spending tens of millions on a new City Hall and other less critical projects.

Wasserman, who served on the 2004 citizen committee convened by city officials, says the levy has drifted from its original purpose. "Buses and bicycles use city streets and it's more important to fix those things than it is to add more hours of transit service, which is not the city's responsibility, but the county's," he said.

Bob Young: 206-464-2174 or byoung@seattletimes.com