Conflicting views
Elected leader believes new library district has the funds to pay rent but others disagree
By Katie Pizza
Argus Observer
Sunday, February 22, 2009 2:15 AM PST
| |
| KATIE PIZZA | ARGUS OBSERVER
Amanda Moreno, 16, Ontario, uses a computer at the Ontario Public Library Friday afternoon. At least one city official believes the newly-formed library district should pay rent, while library officials disagree. |
Ontario—At least one Ontario City Council member said he believes the newly-formed library district has room in its budget to pay $5,000 a month in rent, but library officials assert the budget for the facility is not finalized.
Ontario City Council member David Sullivan said he was able to find an additional $8,646 in revenue because of the fact that he estimated the newly-formed library district would receive a 94 percent collection rate from patrons rather than the projected 93 percent collection rate, pushing the collection rate total from $452,910 to $457,781. He also referred to city records to project that library fines would not be $5,000, but rather $8,776. Sullivan said he was able to shove the library revenues from $563,560 to $572,206.
Librarian Darlyne Johnson said she consulted city staff on her numbers as well and stressed that the current library district budget is a draft.
On the expenditures side, Sullivan said he was able to find around $66,354, bringing the total savings to around $75,000. This money, he said, does not include the contingency cash, which library officials have continued to assert was never set aside for rent. However, Sullivan said Johnson referred to paying rent to the city in the past.
Johnson disagreed with that assessment.
“What I said was we did not know what the city was going to do, I never said we were going to pay rent,” Johnson said.
Ontario Public Library District Budget Committee Chairman Paul Erlebach said library budget committee members are currently in the process of formulating a final budget.
However, Sullivan said he believed it was irresponsible for the newly-formed library district board to issue a budget that was not complete.
“They need to tell the taxpayers what they’re paying for,” he said.
Johnson said work on the budget has been, and continues to be, a work in progress.
“When we did the budget we did it so we wouldn’t have to charge the taxpayers any more per 1,000 than we had to,” she said.
However, Sullivan called the proposed budget “loose,” pointing out totals in its current budget such as a $30,000 expense for books, when the library also receives a $10,000 ready-to-read grant.
Johnson said that money was for two separate needs, with the ready-to-read grant used to pay for children’s books and the $30,000 book budget used to pay for adult books.
“The reference in adults is terrible,” she said. “It needs to be updated.”
She said the city has not given the library much money to purchase new books in the last four years. She also said the library has until December to use the ready-to-read funds.
Sullivan pointed out that he believed the $12,000 budgeted for data processing supplies seemed high when the budget also included $5,000 for office supplies, which is listed to include paper and printer supplies, general office supplies and furniture.
Johnson said the data supplies refers to the library’s bar code system.
Sullivan said the library district was going from an operating budget of about $209,000 to a budget of around $563,000.
However, Johnson said the library district would be paying for services normally funded by the city.
Sullivan said he planned to bring up the issues he has with the proposed budget at the public forum tentatively slated to occur within the next two weeks.
“I’d like for them to defend their numbers,” he said.
Erlebach said even when the budget is hammered out, he still would not support paying $5,000 a month in rent.
“For me, that’s $5,000 in books or hours,” he said.
However, Sullivan said he did not believe the building should be given away for free. He mentioned the current agreement between Treasure Valley Community College and the armory as one type of governmental rental agreement. He also said most people and businesses do not expect buildings to be given to them for free, asserting that rent is something everyone pays.
“I don’t think anyone voted for this to be Malheur County’s largest charity,” he said.
Find more local news at www.argusobserver.com
Mr. Savala wrote on Mar 4, 2009 10:53 PM:
Besides that, personal insults towards Mr. Sullivan will certainly not engender one to support the view of the insulter.
As one who does not support the idea of a Library Tax, the issue should still be handled in a manner befitting citizens of maturity.
It does appear that Mr. Sullivan wishes to charge the Library a rental fee based upon approxiamtion of figures which he adjusted while at the same time denying the fact that if his figures are off a Library tax of that amount could throw the Library; a viable and intergral part of education and community activities into even more severe financial crisis.
A better conclusion in my limited estimation would be to gift the library to the new entity as well as the maintenance, etc. Thereby making the Library Board solely accountable to the community who elected them to the job they desired. "