Meeting to Discuss Revocation of the Library's Taxing Authority

Tough Love wrote:

I did a little research and put together a few statistics. Through its 5 locations, our library system services a county of 63,063 people (21010 census figures) or an average of 12, 612 people per facility. In Boyle County (Danville) their population of 28,432 is serviced by 1 main facility. They recently closed their only branch because of budgetary concerns -- not lack of use. The Lexington library system which doubles as a county system has 6 locations which serve 295,803 people or an average of 49,300 people per facility. In Hardin County (Elizabethtown) their population of 105,543 people is serviced by 2 locations or an average 52,771 people per facility. While I like our north, south, east, west branch concept, I’m not convinced that our population justifies 4 branches -- particularly given the size and scope of the main building. RIght now 3 of our 5 facilities, are new or almost new and if memory serves, the plan is to replace the older branches in Nancy and Science Hill as well -- thereby adding to what is already a healthy debt.
It would be very interesting to see the library’s usage report for the last 5 years which details the number of customers who frequent each branch, number of books and periodicals accessed, materials borrowed from and loaned to libraries outside our system, reference usage, ebook loan statistics, programs, details on computer, meeting room and other public access usage -- just to see how we stack up against other libraries and if the usage justifies such an elaborate and costly network.

Judged:

1

dionysio wrote:

<quoted text>
These numbers hide a few differences between other areas and our own. Although I cannot speak for the Danville situation, I did live in Lexington for several years and it is very different because all of the Lexington branches are very large, when compared with ours. Our branches employ far fewer people by comparison so thinking of it as one branch per X number of people would not be nearly as accurate as thinking of the cost to maintain that branch per X number of people. I think you will find that it is more in sync from that standpoint.
The other issue is that Pulaski County is about twice the size of Fayette County, geographically speaking. That means that someone living in Andover can easily get to the branch on Richmond Rd. However, someone in Eubank might as well be in another county. Servicing such a large geographical area requires lots of small branches.
Our library is a tremendous asset to our community. The main branch is beautiful and the children's programs are fantastic. It is also used by community groups and events. I see no reason to pursue a witch hunt to satisfy the emotional frustration of a fringe group of people who want to claim over taxation just to feel a sense of relevancy. Very few local people pay significant net taxes anyway and the ones who do have better things to do than drum up something like this.

Judged:

1

Tough Love wrote:

<quoted text>
All library systems are of great value to their respective communities, and for me, a local library says a lot about the community as a whole. That said, no one is questioning the value or beauty of our library -- only how it is funded and if the perpetual raising of taxes is really necessary. Because of their independent taxing authority, the library can raise taxes annually and there is nothing the county government or the tax payers can do about it. We can all hope that they use our money wisely, but there is no mechanism to reign them in if they don't. Also, the library board says they have to raise taxes each year partly because of prior financial commitments related to loans for several new facilities -- some of which were probably not necessary in the first place.
Pulaski County may be large in physical size, however it's population is relatively small in comparison. As previously noted, it would be interesting to see a readout of use figures -- how many people in the county actually use the facilities and in what ways. If the majority of the use is related meeting rooms, computers and ebook rentals, your staffing needs are very different than if there is heavy reliance on books, periodicals and programs. If the majority of the users are at the main building, then perhaps hours and/or staffing can be reduced at some of the satellite branches. Also, do we really "need" 4 fully staffed branches, when the main library is within striking distance for everyone in the county? I suspect people would be far more receptive to the library's financial situation if they knew that before raising taxes again, they had taken concrete steps to live within its means -- something we have not seen. Even during the recent meeting -- at least the account that I read in the CJ -- the staff was focused on the size of their debts and how expensive things are. Not once did they talk about steps taken to reduce their overhead.
I lived in Lexington as well and used the library quite a bit. Some of their branches are indeed larger and some are not. One difference though, I can't ever recall seeing a group of staff standing around chatting with each other. They all seemed to be gainfully employed.

Judged:

3

2

1

dionysio wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I think I agree with most of what you are saying. My only concern is that if given the choice of paying taxes or not having a library, the average person here might agree to not having a library and, just as we saw in Danville, that does not lead in a positive direction. The average person can be very selfish and would rather not pay $.50 a year if they could get out of it. The current system at least ensures that they won't have that option.
At the same time, I do understand the concern because we are placing our trust in a group of people whose interest may be at odds with our own. Now, I have only had positive experiences with the library and its staff and I have no reason to believe they aren't doing their best to keep costs down but that may not always be the case.
It's a tough issue for me because you are basically given the choice between the wisdom of the library staff or the wisdom of the average Pulaski Countian. I would much rather go with the library staff on that one. Another thing is that the library is just about the only cultural thing we have going for us. There are no children's museums or museums of any kind, for that matter. Most towns this size have a variety of cultural things happening. That also says something about the values of the community. If they do revoke or limit the library's authority, I just hope they will continue to fund it somehow. Otherwise, it will be a huge loss for all of us.

Judged:

1

1

dionysio wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I think I agree with most of what you are saying. My only concern is that if given the choice of paying taxes or not having a library, the average person here might agree to not having a library and, just as we saw in Danville, that does not lead in a positive direction. The average person can be very selfish and would rather not pay $.50 a year if they could get out of it. The current system at least ensures that they won't have that option.
At the same time, I do understand the concern because we are placing our trust in a group of people whose interest may be at odds with our own. Now, I have only had positive experiences with the library and its staff and I have no reason to believe they aren't doing their best to keep costs down but that may not always be the case.
It's a tough issue for me because you are basically given the choice between the wisdom of the library staff or the wisdom of the average Pulaski Countian. I would much rather go with the library staff on that one. Another thing is that the library is just about the only cultural thing we have going for us. There are no children's museums or museums of any kind, for that matter. Most towns this size have a variety of cultural things happening. That also says something about the values of the community. If they do revoke or limit the library's authority, I just hope they will continue to fund it somehow. Otherwise, it will be a huge loss for all of us.

Watcher wrote:

The way the last Libary tax was enacted was wrong it should have been voted on by the people,The very people that got stuck with it

Judged:

1

Paul Revere wrote:

I haven't heard anyone opposed to the way the tax process is setup say "we need to defund the library". No one wants that or is even remotely considering that. It's the process in which taxes can be raised that is in question. An unelected board, answerable to no one, that can raise taxes on the populace is historically been frowned upon. In fact, I think some relatives staged a revolution over such issues. While a library tax probably won't cause a revolution anytime soon, it does envoke the same general theme.
I signed a petition over the weekend that would revoke the library's taxing authority. It's the only way to change the process.

Judged:

1

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you realize and accept that if this happens, the county government takes over the building and operations of the library and assumes the $10 million dollar debt?? The debt can't go away so the county is stuck with it and must pay it through TAXES. Do you really think the county has less nepotism and family members/buddies on their payroll than the library?

Judged:

1

1

1

try that wrote:

how about the libraries try this.. instead of five free copies to the public and then a dime a sheet after that how about .25 cents per copy period. how about a dollar per sheet on your fax sending or recieving. why not start charging again for the videos you check out. oh and maybe all of those overdues that get waived how about the staff charges them to you. how bout you pay per every 15 min you are using the computer kinda like your 15 min is up insert a dollar. that would help ease the budget right there.