The Library Tax

I'm still voting no.

I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that if we vote "no" there will be no additional funding from the libraries from any source. The plan isn't perfect (I, too, would prefer raising $24 million to supplement the $16 in the budget), but "no" will really be "no."

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.

What is the alternative that has been proposed by those who oppose this measure? Is it good?

Are you sure that letter to the editor is correct and accurate?

Ron a bond issue proposal has been put forth and seems reasonable. At least to me. And amazingly the basic facts about this are undisputed, I believe.

1. Library needs more funds.
2. Bond issue is one way to fund at least the bricks and mortar part of the need.
3. Occupational tax is another way to fund the library.
4. The current Library funding designated in the Metro budget will revert back to Metro's general fund for other uses, once other funding is established for the Library.
5. Metro has a very good credit rating and can issue bonds. A current group of bonds are set to be paid off in about 5 years I believe.
6. Everyone loves the Library.

1) I am not categorically against tax increases if for good reason.

2) Consider the source: I do not have confidence in proposals that come from Hal Heiner and Kelly Downard. Doesn't make it necessarily bad, but I go in suspicious. The fact that other civic leaders of whom I have a fair bit of regard support the tax also is also significant.

3) Bond issues can be wise, but we have a plan without a bond issue on the table, and something tells me we'll have further needs for bond issues for other items, and we can't defer it all.

For me, the library is worth a tax. I vote yes.

Anyone else pick up the comment from David Jones that Metro won't be able to pay off the bonds because in the future Metro will be paying significantly more for health insurance? Does that qualify as "insider info" or just ahem . . . interesting?

First off, thanks to everyone who is on record in this discussion as supporting LibrariesYes! We really could use your vote on November 6. For those of you who intend on voting "No" right now please let me take a minute to make sure you have all of the facts. It is important that every vote cast is an educated vote.

I’m not going to go into every point since the post would be so long that most people would stop reading by the end. Suffice to say that both sides agree that the library needs a major infusion of funds.

1. The issue regarding the Board of Trustees is really a red herring. Right now the day to day operations of the library is run by the Library Commission (of which I am a member). There are 9 commissioners all of whom are nominated by the mayor and approved by metro council. Under the new system the library would be run by a 5 member Board of Trustees. Guess what. They are nominated by the mayor and approved by metro council just like before. The only difference under the new plan will be that the state Director of Libraries will first send a list of approved names to the mayor who must chose from that list. This adds one more layer of checks and balances to make sure the Board of Trustees is made up of individuals who will be good stewards of the library.

2. The tax CAN NOT go up unless it is placed back on the ballot by another referendum. Once it is in place at the level that is on the ballot the Board of Trustees can’t unilaterally raise the amount.

3. A lot of concern has been raised about the fact that there is no sunset provision in the library district. If that is your concern consider this. Nashville raised taxes within the regular city occupational taxes to do a $100 million build out of their libraries. After they were built the city council ended up using some of that money for other purposes (I’m not saying whether that was right or wrong not knowing what the other needs of the city were at the time). As a result the library system ended up not being fully funded on the operations side which resulted in closures and reduced hours. We don’t want that to happen here. We don’t know what the expenses of the city will be in 20 or 30 years but we do know that health care costs are going up 10% per year which is far more than inflation. We know that there are other worthy needs of city funds like police, fire and EMS and the mayor and metro council must make choices each year on where to spend city money. One of the great things about this plan is that there will always be a dedicated revenue stream the libraries can count on to stay open.

Please remember that on November 6 you are not choosing between a new library district and some alternative plan. The alternative plan that is being discussed by some on the metro council would have to be approved. Most of the council members do not feel the alternative plan will pass as it would harm the city’s credit rating and prevent us from investing in other areas.

I’m happy to answer other questions on here as the come up. Also, feel free to call me anytime if you’d like to talk about it more.
Regardless of your position please vote on November 6. As Ron and I both know the two most important duties of a citizen in a democracy is serving on a jury and exercising the right to vote.

First off, thanks to everyone who is on record in this discussion as supporting LibrariesYes! We really could use your vote on November 6. For those of you who intend on voting "No" right now please let me take a minute to make sure you have all of the facts. It is important that every vote cast is an educated vote.

I’m not going to go into every point since the post would be so long that most people would stop reading by the end. Suffice to say that both sides agree that the library needs a major infusion of funds.

1. The issue regarding the Board of Trustees is really a red herring. Right now the day to day operations of the library is run by the Library Commission (of which I am a member). There are 9 commissioners all of whom are nominated by the mayor and approved by metro council. Under the new system the library would be run by a 5 member Board of Trustees. Guess what. They are nominated by the mayor and approved by metro council just like before. The only difference under the new plan will be that the state Director of Libraries will first send a list of approved names to the mayor who must chose from that list. This adds one more layer of checks and balances to make sure the Board of Trustees is made up of individuals who will be good stewards of the library.

2. The tax CAN NOT go up unless it is placed back on the ballot by another referendum. Once it is in place at 2 tenths of one percent the Board of Trustees can’t unilaterally raise the amount.

3. A lot of concern has been raised about the fact that there is no sunset provision in the library district. If that is your concern consider this. Nashville raised taxes within the regular city occupational taxes to do a $100 million build out of their libraries. After they were built the city council ended up using some of that money for other purposes (I’m not saying whether that was right or wrong not knowing what the other needs of the city were at the time). As a result the library system ended up not being fully funded on the operations side which resulted in closures and reduced hours. We don’t want that to happen here. We don’t know what the expenses of the city will be in 20 or 30 years but we do know that health care costs are going up 10% per year which is far more than inflation. We know that there are other worthy needs of city funds like police, fire and EMS and the mayor and metro council must make choices each year on where to spend city money. One of the great things about this plan is that there will always be a dedicated revenue stream the libraries can count on to stay open.

Please remember that on November 6 you are not choosing between a new library district and some alternative plan. The alternative plan that is being discussed by some on the metro council would have to be approved. Most of the council members do not feel the alternative plan will pass as it would harm the city’s credit rating and prevent us from investing in other areas.

I’m happy to answer other questions on here as the come up. Also, feel free to call me anytime if you’d like to talk about it more.
Regardless of your position please vote on November 6. As Ron and I both know the two most important duties of a citizen in a democracy is serving on a jury and exercising the right to vote.

If you are interested Councilman Engel will be holding a forum at 6:30 on Tuesday at the Fern Creek Community Center, 6104 Bardstown Road. Either Councilman Engel or Councilman Heiner will be there speaking on behalf of the other side of the issue and I will be there speaking on behalf of LibrariesYes!. That way you can have someone answer questions from both sides.

I still vote NO....

Anyone else pick up the comment from David Jones that Metro won't be able to pay off the bonds because in the future Metro will be paying significantly more for health insurance? Does that qualify as "insider info" or just ahem . . . interesting?

Not insider info. David and I serve on the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission that is trying to solve the state's deficit in future health care and retirement benefits for current, past and future state employees (including teachers, city and county employees, state police, etc). We are facing a $20 Billion plus (yup, a "b") deficit over the next thirty years. The current library funding from the city's coffers could well be redirected in its entirely to the city's increased payments in future years for retirement and health benefits for city employees (who are part of the state plan). And, he's right, and it's getting worse.

For what it is worth, I live outside of Jefferson County and will therefore not have a vote, but I will pay the tax if it passes, and I'm OK with that. It's important for this community.

Not insider info. David and I serve on the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission that is trying to solve the state's deficit in future health care and retirement benefits for current, past and future state employees (including teachers, city and county employees, state police, etc). We are facing a $20 Billion plus (yup, a "b") deficit over the next thirty years. The current library funding from the city's coffers could well be redirected in its entirely to the city's increased payments in future years for retirement and health benefits for city employees (who are part of the state plan). And, he's right, and it's getting worse.

For what it is worth, I live outside of Jefferson County and will therefore not have a vote, but I will pay the tax if it passes, and I'm OK with that. It's important for this community.

Am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that you support the tax proposal not because of its stated use for improvement of the library system but because it will free up money for other expenses?

If Metro's ulterior motive for the new tax is to fund other expenses, kudos to them for packaging the proposal in the most politically palatable way - who can be against the library?

If Metro's ulterior motive for the new tax is to fund other expenses, kudos to them for packaging the proposal in the most politically palatable way - who can be against the library?

Definitely do not want to leave that impression - not at all. I was really responding to two posts with one set of answers. The libraries of course need the additional funding and I support that entirely.

I was responding to Leah's comments about David Jones mentioning the pension and medical liability issue - i.e., that it is public knowledge that it is taking a greater piece of each year's budget for all cities and counties in Kentucky (and in most states, as well).

I did not mean to imply that there is a political or fiscal sleight of hand taking place, nor do I believe there is. These are two legitimate and individually important issues.

Was David Jones speaking of medical "liability" in terms of the tort system or that the cost of providing health insurance coverage to persons employed by the Louisville Metro Government is going to rise?

Those are two very different things. I think everyone is cognizant of the fact that the cost of healthcare is getting ready to shoot up for all providers of healthcare coverage due to the fact that the largest segment of our population and workforce is entering the age when they begin to incur the most healthcare costs.

Not sure that David Jones would know anything about increasing costs of medical liability coverage or what that would have to do with Louisville Metro Government anyway because it is immune from lawsuits.

David was referring to our work on the Commission relating to the recognition of future health care liabilities (balance sheet) related to past and current workers covered by state health care plans. There was no reference in my commentary to "medical liability coverage" issues, and I doubt David was referring to any legal issue other than the legal liability of the state under the inviolable contract with current and past employees. The city is included in the conversation because it is part of the Kentucky Retirement System, which is the authority responsible for future health care liabilities under state regulation and as recognized by GASB. Again, it's not a liability coverage issue at all.

I see. We lawyers and finance people use the term "liability" in a very different manner.