The Library Tax

I firmly believe that a strong library system is crucial for the deveopment of Louisville. My sense is that the bond system only delays the coming to grips with costs.

I have no illusion that this is a perfect system, but I'll be voting yes on the library tax. I'm willing to take the risk.

and how long has this mayor been mayor.....and promised it.... i will vote no.....

Still looking for those new firehouses, if you find them let us know.

I'm also a proclaimed liberal, but I'll be casting a no vote on this one. It seems that the bond issue is just not being explored. This tax is purported largely to be for bricks and mortar, but it is not time limited, so it will go on forever, well after the bricks and mortar are built. The new tax will free up the previously allotted budget money from Metro government. Why not keep that money headed to the library and reduce the amount of the new proposed tax? This whole thing just smells funny.

And for the record, I don't think that anyone is against a public library system. But you have to choose the most economical way to fund it.

I am a constant library user and have been for sixty years (old fart). Bonds .. same as using your credit card instead of cash. Using bonds is the same as free money ... but somebody (children .. grandchildren) has to pay the bill. If we want it, why pass the cost on to someone else.

I have to agree with Robert Z's post. Let the city taxes continue and I would surely vote for an additional tax to increase the funding.

This is a ripoff by the city, the same as assigning drainage to the Louisville Water Co, thereby freeing up money for other programs. Of course the water company had to raise rates (taxes) since it is owned by the city. And I really resent the mare for life for going back on a campaign promise.

I am a constant library user and have been for sixty years (old fart). Bonds .. same as using your credit card instead of cash. Using bonds is the same as free money ... but somebody (children .. grandchildren) has to pay the bill. If we want it, why pass the cost on to someone else.

Well, this (bonds) is a common way that municipalities fund projects, so I don't think it's all that bad. Maybe TP can add some perspective on the investment side of municipal bonds?

This is a ripoff by the city, the same as assigning drainage to the Louisville Water Co, thereby freeing up money for other programs. Of course the water company had to raise rates (taxes) since it is owned by the city. And I really resent the mare for life for going back on a campaign promise.

The drainage fee is used by MSD to fund drainage projects around the Metro (your MSD sanitary sewer fee is on your LouWatCo bill, too). After all of this rain, many of our neighbors are likely pleased the drainage fees are available for drainage improvement projects. It's not a ripoff.

Also, MSD is required by law to implement improvements mandated by the Feds (Clean Water Act, etc.). They have to raise funds from all of us to comply with state and Federal environmental regulations. We can't blame the government agency (MSD/LouWatCo) - if we must assign blame, we should assign it to ourselves because we are the electorate that demanded our representatives to pass the environmental laws that have to be funded. Nothing is free.

Well, this (bonds) is a common way that municipalities fund projects, so I don't think it's all that bad. Maybe TP can add some perspective on the investment side of municipal bonds?

As you indicated, cities and states are active borrowers for typically project-related funding (libraries, arenas, roads - especially roads in Kentucky). Louisville's generally good bond rating means it borrows at the lower end of the interest rate scale, so the annual debt service on $24 million would be somewhere around $1.2 million or less, I would think. As Steve points out, the principal will have to be repaid some day (usually 15-30 years from now), but the bonds will likely be refinanced well before that and rolled into another bond issue.

One risk that worries me about the bonding issue: as a lobbyist friend of mine puts it so well, you could possibly get the "Christmas Ornament" effect, meaning that when the tree goes up everyone wants to hang their ornament on it (translate, it the library gets their bond money, by golly my favorite Louisville institution is going to get a piece of the bond issue, too).

As for the funding currently going to the library from the city, there is a long line out the offices of the Mayor and Metro Council with entities looking for a piece of that, too. I might even have an idea or two for some of that money!

[Robin Garr]

The editors at LEO came out, rather gingerly, in favor of the tax this week. I'm inclined to agree. A strong library system is critical to a strong community, the proposed tax is small, and the alternatives (and the people who support them) aren't compelling. A yes vote is a smart vote. A no vote looks like a vote against education and progress.

Here's the LEO endorsement:

<B>Vote “YES” on the Library tax.</B>

The library is the core of every intellectual and civic community. Importantly, it serves the most oft-underserved portions of our city with its bevy of free resources, like Internet access and, of course, books. And while Louisville’s library system is decent right now, it could and should be much better. We deserve that from a city parading itself as forward-thinking, progressive and urban-oriented.

Make no mistake; voting for this is voting to increase your taxes — by two-tenths of a percent. For people making the average Louisville income, that’s less than $80 a year to promote a major expansion of our library system, and to bring it further into the technological age.

We do have misgivings. First, the campaign effort in favor of the tax has been somewhat conniving and disingenuous, and at times downright dirty. It is a case of profound mismanagement, and if the vote fails, blame should be cast on those who engaged in misleading the public, possibly coercing library workers and, more generally, fostering the sense among voters that the powerful were trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Second, we are dubious about the ongoing operations funding, as well as oversight of that money, once capital expansions are finished. The referendum would create a Library District, a quasi-governmental agency whose only apparent ethics oversight would be the feckless Metro Ethics Commission. That is disconcerting. But the Metro Council would have to approve its annual budgets, it would be subject to annual audits, and the state Department for Libraries and Archives would have additional audit authority.

Ethics oversight should be addressed while the new revenue is being spent on capital improvements, which should be plenty of time.

Let me start by saying that I am an avid library user and fully believe that our library system needs improvement. Unlike with some govt backed institutions, money is the only way to create the improved library system that we imagine. Although I admit that I am ambivalent on this issue, I do have some concerns with the "yes" plan.

First, I am concerned that a new tax, although low now, could be increased in the future. An increase could be easily passed off as "small" because we are dealing in tenths of a percent, but a bunch of small increases can become a burden. One could say that any increase would be based on an increased need from our libraries, but under a system that allows these increases the library system has little incentive to remain efficient.

Second, as the Leo pointed out, I have concerns about the new agency that would be created to oversee the libraries. Having talked to my Metro Council person about this group, he said, and I agree, that the group would most likely be comprised of a "who's who" of Louisville. This can be a good thing if those chosen are excited and adamant about creating the best libraries and can find the time in their busy schedules. But my concern is that the group will be "big names" looking to make themselves "bigger names" without the care and time to make things happen.

But I remain undecided, and will be looking to you all for compelling bumps in the right direction.

But hey at least we the people are going to vote for it and not just have it crammed down our mouth. So all of the folks need to get out and vote...Yes or No....

The editors at LEO came out, rather gingerly, in favor of the tax this week. I'm inclined to agree. A strong library system is critical to a strong community, the proposed tax is small, and the alternatives (and the people who support them) aren't compelling. A yes vote is a smart vote. A no vote looks like a vote against education and progress.

By "people who support them", do you mean Republican Hal Heiner? Are there any Republicans that you find compelling?

I've not settled on a decision yet, either, but I find TP's comments compelling. Five percent interest per year on the $24MM? That's a compelling rate. I would argue we could give the $24MM to TP and he could invest for a rate of return that would beat the 5%.

If you truly believe that better-financed libraries will improve the education and future productivity of Metro's citizens, the bond option is compelling. TP says the bonds are paid back in 25 or 30 years - a little more than a generation. What do you think the economic/social benefit to the Metro would be because of that generation's benefit from improved library facilities and services? It seems to me that the benefit would far outweigh the cost and a bond issue is a viable way to fund it. As an added bonus of not burdening Metro citizens with an added tax for 25 to 30 years, they get to hold on to more of their own money and stimulate the economy.

[Robin Garr]

This fairly cogent plea from a library volunteer came in by E-mail. I've left the sender's name attached since he is urging people to contact him for more info.


This is an urgent plea for your help.

As you may know on November 6 residents of Jefferson County will be asked to vote for or against the establishment of a Public Library District. As someone who volunteers a great deal of time in our library system I cannot begin to tell you how great the need is for this initiative to pass. I have spent the last several months traveling around to various groups discussing the libraries needs and the plan we have established to deal with those needs. In some cases I have even debated those proposing an “alternative plan” which unfortunately is economically infeasible and has virtually no chance of being enacted.

Unfortunately, the opposition to the library improvement measure has spent the last two weeks diverting the attention of potential supporters with absurd allegations. These unfounded claims have nonetheless garnered substantial media coverage.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, we need your help in focusing attention back to what really matters – and what really matters is that our public libraries need this initiative to pass. It’s the only way to guarantee that our community provides libraries the funding to make much-needed improvements and renovations, to provide more up-to-date books and computers, and to offer more programs for children.

November 6 is our one chance to make known our support for the library. Otherwise, it’ll be up to the same system that has left the library improvement plan unfunded for the past four years.

Please, forward this message to at least 10 people today – to friends, colleagues, family members and acquaintances. Tell them that you will be voting “yes” on November 6, and ask them to do the same.

If you have questions or would like more information please call me or go to http://www.librariesyes.org .

Thank you for your support.

Tad Thomas
Attorney-at-Law
239 South Fifth Street Suite 1800
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

[Robin Garr]

By "people who support them", do you mean Republican Hal Heiner? Are there any Republicans that you find compelling?

Mr. Heiner sounds smarter than Doug Hawkins and dresses better, but I think they have more in common than a lot of people realize. Hal seems to do a great job of representing Southeast Christian Church, though.

There's my trouble with Republicans in general, really, Jay. For years I voted independently, and I've cast plenty of votes for Republicans over the years. But I honestly do believe that the GOP has drifted far to the right in the past generation, with the NeoCons and the Religious Right between them pretty much driving all the moderates out of the party, or at least out of active status. Old line Republicans like Ike or even Nixon look almost liberal by today's standards, and great Kentucky Republicans like John Sherman Cooper and Thruston Morton look like lefties by today's definition.

Tad Thomas is a good friend and colleague. He donates a lot of his time to the library. I hope people respond.

By "people who support them", do you mean Republican Hal Heiner? Are there any Republicans that you find compelling?

Mr. Heiner sounds smarter than Doug Hawkins and dresses better, but I think they have more in common than a lot of people realize. Hal seems to do a great job of representing Southeast Christian Church, though.

There's my trouble with Republicans in general, really, Jay. For years I voted independently, and I've cast plenty of votes for Republicans over the years. But I honestly do believe that the GOP has drifted far to the right in the past generation, with the NeoCons and the Religious Right between them pretty much driving all the moderates out of the party, or at least out of active status. Old line Republicans like Ike or even Nixon look almost liberal by today's standards, and great Kentucky Republicans like John Sherman Cooper and Thruston Morton look like lefties by today's definition.

Justice John Paul Stevens has commented on this development. He is considered one of the "liberals" on the Supreme Court. he finds this hilarious as he is a republican and when he was appointed to the court he was one of the most conservative members. While his position on issues has not changed, he has watched as each new appointee to the Court is more right-wing than the one before. As a result, Stevens, who was the most conservative member of the Court, now appears to be one of the most liberal. I can think of no better example of how far to the right the Republican party has moved. Classic conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon wouldn't even recognize their party today.

It’s the only way to guarantee that our community provides libraries the funding

I'm sure that Mr. Thomas is an ardent Library supporter and is obviously earnest in his support. But statements along the lines of "this is the only option" never wash for me. There is always an alternative and the alternative might be good.

Also just declaring that the bond issue is "economical infeasible" doesn't wash much either.

How are roads financed? bonds University buldings? bonds. Part of the Museum Plaza fundings? bonds

Bonds are a very good way to finance the infrastructure needs of a community.

One of the letters to the editor this morning noted that if Metro left their usual $18m for the Library in the budget, then the community would need to raise less money thru a new tax. That's important in my thinking.

Louisville is one of the most taxed cities for its size. This tax has no sunset clause--it goes on forever. And has no cap so it can be raised in the future. And Metro's budget would be absloved from supporting the Libraries with some of the tax money they've already collected from me.

I'm still voting no.