SAVE OUR SMALL PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Points to Consider before Voting on the Public Question of Placing Tax Caps into the Constitution

2010-10-04T16:31:00.002-04:00

Official position of the Indiana Public Library Association (ILPA) of the Indiana Library Federation (ILF).

Yes, being a member of ILF is important. When being a member of an organization, you should ask yourself: "What can I do to make it [the organization] better," rather than, "What can it do for me?"

Points to Consider before Voting on the Public Question of Placing Tax Caps into the Constitution
It is time for Hoosiers to educate themselves, do research, and look deeper into the issue of permanently placing property tax caps into the state’s constitution. Voters will be asked to respond to this issue on the Nov. 2 ballot. Here are some points to consider:
• Popular Misconception: While the word “caps,” may entice property owners into thinking their taxes won’t increase, that is not the case. It is a cap on the taxes paid relative to the assessed value of the home. The assessed value can still rise.
• Truth: While many property-tax initiatives are politically popular, they often mask a hidden truth: the revenue lost likely leads to increases in many other kinds of taxes and user fees.
• Current: Caps are already in effect—they are in statute—having been enacted by the General Assembly. Libraries, schools, cities and towns, counties and other local units are already operating under the 1%, 2% and 3% limits. It is unnecessary to vote them into the Constitution. The caps will not guarantee homeowners’ property taxes to decrease.
• Future: Understand that if the amendment is approved by your vote on Nov. 2, it will take about five years to remove if, subsequently, it is judged to be too restrictive. We urge voters to appreciate the need for flexibility for all local government units.
Elected local officials, library directors, staff, educators and others involved in delivering necessary services at the local level have urged caution. The more prudent approach is to wait and see how significantly the statutory 1%, 2% and 3% caps impact the delivery of needed services.
• Fact: Everyone wishes for lower taxes but few want the consequent reductions in services. Citizens value good schools, good streets, quality libraries, emergency services, police protection and livable communities; property taxes are by far the most significant revenue stream which supports these services.
• Consequence: Placing tax caps into the constitution will result in some unintended consequences. You can expect user fees, fines, penalties and probably more regulatory fees to proliferate in your daily life due to loss of the revenue. The statutory caps have already resulted in local units experiencing decreases of millions of dollars for schools, libraries and other services.
• It is unnecessary to vote them into the Constitution because they are already law.
That is why it is important for YOU to do research and think about the result of your vote on Public Question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot.

This statement was developed by members of the Indiana Library Federation, the Indiana Public Library Association, the Indiana Urban Schools Association, the Indiana PTA, the Association of Indiana Counties, Sustainable Libraries Coalition, Central Indiana Jobs with Justice, the NAACP Indianapolis (Branch #3053) and several educators.

IPLA website

Finally, a new post!

2010-10-04T15:58:00.002-04:00

I can't believe that it has been well over a year since I last posted. Fortunately there hasn't been anything to report as far as the threat of consolidation to Indiana Libraries.

The next big issue is the editing the Indiana Constitution to place caps on property taxes. Many sides have valid points, but the point that matters is that the caps are already in place. Do we have traffic laws in the Constitution, no, so why does this have to be added. We are going to allow Legislators to tie their own hands and then we will be in a real mess.

Another point. Daniels running for President. Oh dear. One of the "buzz points" is that Indiana's budget is balanced. That's nice, but he did it by taking away money promised to the schools...as usual...only select bits of information are being provided.

Below is a text edition of a presentation delivered by Dr. Larry DeBoer of Purdue University entitled, "Indiana's Constitutional Referendum on Tax Caps, November 2010." If you would like a .pdf copy, please contact me here

----------------------- Page 1-----------------------

Purdue Cooperative Extension Service

Indiana’s Constitutional Referendum

on Tax Caps, November 2010

Larry DeBoer
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University

August 2010

For more information

DeBoer’s Indiana Local Government Information Website:
www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov

----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

PROPERTY TAX REFORM, 2008-2010

 What happened in 2008?
o Sales tax increase from 6% to 7%, on April 1.
o Added homestead credits reduce homeowner taxes by about one-third.
o Township trustees give up assessing duties to counties; most township
assessor offices are eliminated, as of July 1.
o Township assessors eliminated in 30 of 43 larger townships after voter
referendum on November 4.
o Capital projects become subject to referendum; as of June 2010 there have
been 30 capital projects referenda; 11 have passed.
o General Assembly passed first resolution to amend theprop erty tax caps into
the Indiana Constitution.

 What happened in 2009?
o State took over school general fund and county welfare funds, eliminating
those property tax levies.
o State property tax replacement credits and most homestead credits were
eliminated; small state homestead credit retained, to be phased out.
o Homeowners received new 35% homestead deduction.
o Tax caps begin phase in, at 1.5% of gross assessed value for homeowners,
2.5% for farm land and rental housing, and 3.5% for all other property;
created local revenue losses.
o General Assembly did not hold a second vote on amending the tax caps into
the Indiana Constitution.

 What’s happening in 2010?
o Tax caps tighten to permanent levels, at 1% of gross assessed value for
homeowners, 2% for farm land and rental housing, and 3% for all other
property; this creates greater tax savings and greater local revenue losses.
o State homestead credits continue to phase out.
o General Assemblypassed the second resolution to amend the tax caps into the
Indiana Constitution; Voters will see a referendum on November 2, 2010.

1

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

HEA 1086 (2010); Public Law 113: SECTION 185. [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]

(a) If the amendment to Article 10, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana agreed to
by the One Hundred Fifteenth General Assembly (P.L.147-2008) is agreed to by the One
Hundred Sixteenth General Assembly, the amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the
state at the 2010 general election in the manner provided for the submission of constitutional
amendments under IC 3.

(b) Under Article 16, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which requires the
general assembly to submit constitutional amendments to the electors at the next general election
after the general assembly agrees to the amendment referred to it by the last previously elected
general assembly, and in accordance with IC 3-10-3, the general assembly prescribes the form in
which the public question concerning the ratification of this state constitutional amendment must
appear on the 2010 general election ballot as follows:

"PUBLIC QUESTION #1

SHALL PROPERTY TAXES BE LIMITED FOR ALL CLASSES OF PROPERTY by
amending the Constitution of the State of Indiana to do the following:
(1) Limit a taxpayer's annual property tax bill to the following percentages of gross
assessed value:
(A) 1% for an owner-occupied primary residence (homestead);
(B) 2% for residential property, other than an owner-occupied primary residence,
including apartments;
(C) 2% for agricultural land;
(D) 3% for other real property; and
(E) 3% for personal property.

The above percentages exclude any property taxes imposed after being approved by the
voters in a referendum.

(2) Specify that the General Assembly may grant a property tax exemption in the form of a
deduction or credit and exempt a mobile home used as a primary residence to the same extent as
real property?"

2

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION No. 1, 2010

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to Article 10, Section 1 of the Constitution
of the State of Indiana concerning taxation.

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: (10)SJ0001.2.1. --> SECTION 1. The following proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Indiana, which was agreed to by the One Hundred Fifteenth General Assembly of the State of
Indiana and referred to this General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement, is agreed to by this the
One Hundred Sixteenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana.

SOURCE: CON 10; (10)SJ0001.2.2. --> SECTION 2. ARTICLE 10, SECTION 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.
(a) Subject to this section, the General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of
property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of
all property, both real and personal.

(b) A provision of this section permitting the General Assembly to exempt property from
taxation also permits the General Assembly to exercise its legislative power to enact property tax
deductions and credits for the property. The General Assembly may impose reasonable filing
requirements for an exemption, deduction, or credit.
(c) The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following
classes:
(1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable
purposes.
(2) Tangible personal property other than property being held as an investment.
(3) Intangible personal property.
(4) Tangible real property, including curtilage, used as a principal place of residence by an:
(A) owner of the property;
(B) individual who is buying the tangible real property under a contract; or
(C) individual who has a beneficial interest in the owner of the tangible real property.
(b) (d) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes (not otherwise exempt
under this section), airplanes, boats, trailers, or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the
property tax is substituted therefor.
(e) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. The
following definitions apply to subsection (f):
(1) "Other residential property" means tangible property (other than tangible property
described in subsection (c)(4)) that is used for residential purposes.
(2) "Agricultural land" means land devoted to agricultural use.
(3) "Other real property" means real property that is not tangible property described in
subsection (c)(4), is not other residential property, and is not agricultural land.

3

----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

(f) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. The
General Assembly shall, by law, limit a taxpayer's property tax liability as follows:
(1) A taxpayer's property tax liability on tangible property described in subsection (c)(4) may
not exceed one percent (1%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the
determination of property taxes.

(2) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other residential property may not exceed two
percent (2%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of
property taxes.
(3) A taxpayer's property tax liability on agricultural land may not exceed two percent (2%) of
the gross assessed value of the land that is the basis for the determination of property taxes.
(4) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other real property may not exceed three percent
(3%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of property
taxes.
(5) A taxpayer's property tax liability on personal property (other than personal property that
is tangible property described in subsection (c)(4) or personal property that is other residential
property) within a particular taxing district may not exceed three percent (3%) of the gross
assessed value of the taxpayer's personal property that is the basis for the determination of
property taxes within the taxing district.
(g) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter.
Property taxes imposed after being approved by the voters in a referendum shall not be considered
for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax liability under subsection (f).
(h) As used in this subsection, "eligible county" means only a county for which the General
Assembly determines in 2008 that limits to property tax liability as described in subsection (f) are
expected to reduce in 2010 the aggregate property tax revenue that would otherwise be collected by
all units of local government and school corporations in the county by at least twenty percent
(20%). The General Assembly may, by law, provide that property taxes imposed in an eligible
county to pay debt service or make lease payments for bonds or leases issued or entered into before
July 1, 2008, shall not be considered for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax liability
under subsection (f). Such a law may not apply after December 31, 2019.

4

----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

Sorry, but the charts and tables didn't transfer to the text file.

8

----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

Some Observations about the November 2010 Tax Cap Constitutional Referendum

 The amendment will not provide additional property tax relief, since the provisions of the
amendment are already in law, and are already restricting property tax bills.

o The amendment will prevent Constitutional challenges to the differential caps
(1% / 2% / 3% for different property types) based on the “uniform and equal rate
of property assessment and taxation” phrase in Article 10, Section 1.

o It will prevent future adjustments in property tax relief from raising property tax
bills above the caps (e.g., a reduction in the homestead deductions can only raise
homeowners taxes to 1% of gross assessed value).

 The amendment will make permanent the reduction in property tax revenues received by
local governments. Here are three possible consequences:

o Local governments will need to become more efficient, in order to deliver
services at lower cost.
 Voters who think that government can/should become more efficient, and
think that revenue reductions will force efficiencies, will vote yes; those
who think that few efficiencies are available, or don’t like the means used
to attain efficiencies (e.g. layoffs, consolidation) will vote no.

o Indiana residents will have to accept a lower level of services, if there is not
enough revenue to continue to deliver the services provided in the past.
 Voters who think that Indiana local government is too big, and provides
services that are not demanded by residents, will vote yes; those who
value the services that are likely to be cut, or think more should be
provided, will vote no.

o Other revenue sources may be used, such as local income taxes and charges/fees.
 Voters who dislike property taxes and favor other sources of revenue to
support local government, will vote yes; those who prefer property taxes
as a means to support local government will vote no.

9

Update for March 11, 2009

2009-03-11T10:49:00.004-04:00

March 11, 2009 update regarding legislation relevant to Indiana’s Public Libraries

This is a long overdue update (there is a logical reason for no posts to this blog) about what has been happening in “Library Land” regarding current issues before the Indiana Senate and House. Regardless of recent happenings, the worst thing we can do is to let down our guard. Kernan-Shepard will not go away and I can't emphasize enough that it must be dealt with. Additional thanks should go to Senator Gard for her support!

In July 2008 I attended a joint meeting of Librarians representing large, medium and small Public Libraries in Indiana and officials from the Indiana State Library. The reason for this meeting was to come up with options and alternatives to the Kernan-Sheppard report (link: http://cber.iweb.bsu.edu/propertytax/kernan-shepard.pdf) which, in short, would have consolidated all of Indiana’s Public Libraries into 92 consolidated units. The Kernan-Shepard report proposed too much of a cookie cutter approach to local government and took control of public libraries away from their representative communities. Voiced, but never in print, was the possibility of privatizing Indiana’s Public Libraries much like the Indiana Toll Road.

The Coalition, with much valued assistance from the Indiana State Library, assisted in the hiring of Wooden and Associates from Lexington, Kentucky to assist in the creation of alternatives to strict public library consolidation. With the assistance of the Consultants, the Coalition came up with five different governance models. It was intended that each county would form its own library planning committee and would utilize the model which most benefitted that county.

The final product of the Coalition was presented to Indiana Librarians at the Indiana Library Federation Conference in Indianapolis, in November and was then formally presented to the Legislative Committee of the Indiana Library Federation. After the Legislative Committee approved the actions proposed it was taken by Senator Beverly Guard (R, 28) and presented to the Indiana Senate as Senate Bill 348.

During its voyage through the Senate the bill underwent some changes much to the chagrin of some in the Public Library community. Eventually there were additional amendments to the bill that would allow libraries to opt out of any plans that would involve consolidation. The bill passed the senate and was then introduced into the Indiana House.

When in Committee in the House, Bill 348 was integrated with Senate Bill 452 which dealt with additional recommendations from the Kernan-Shepard report. During committee action it was agreed that the amendments be taken together and then put into a single bill. When it came time for the bill to exit out of committee it failed.

As of today (March 11, 2009) there will be no local government reform as far as it concerns public libraries. The initial library bill can be picked-up and integrated into a different bill, but strict rules apply.

Next.

Amidst the legislative session, the members of the Coalition overwhelmingly agreed to combine forces with the already established Public Library Association of the Indiana Library Federation. Since the initial goal of the Coalition has been met, there was no further reason for its existence. Instead of abandoning all that had been worked for and learned merging under the PLA umbrella made the most sense.

The Coalition will work under PLA and resume work as necessary utilizing everything that has been put together to date and may propose additional legislation in the fall of 2009. Not dealing with the way in which Indiana’s Public Libraries are governed is not going to be the best way of dealing with the overall property tax situation. Even though we are part of a larger problem, it is still our problem and Indiana Librarians will see to it that reasonable legislation is put forth. Kernan-Shepard is here and can be effectively dealt with, but not by tearing apart small communities by consolidating their Public Libraries.

###

A though provoking and truthful article appears in the March 1, 2008 issue of Library Journal regarding public libraries and consolidation. The article is on page 8. Link: http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1080000308/post/870041487.html

###

The Indiana Township Association has a substantive study regarding government consolidation in Indiana. It may be found at: http://indianatownshipassoc.org/content/view/84/1/

###

Relevant articles concerning this issue.

These articles will only be available for a short time, generally seven days. After that time the articles are archived.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090311/NEWS0501/903110368

http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090311/News01/903110261/1130/Sports01

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/mar/11/local-workshop-assesses-streamlining/

http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/statenews/local_story_069201259.html

Indiana Public Libraries: serving the unserved

2008-06-10T18:04:00.001-04:00

INDIANA PUBLIC LIBRARIES
A PLAN FOR BRINGING SERVICE TO THE UNSERVED
2008

It probably comes as a surprise to many people outside of Indiana’s library community that a significant number of Hoosiers do not reside in an area served by a public library, nor do they pay a local tax for public library service. Annual report data collected by the Indiana State Library from 2006 estimates approximately 395,000 Hoosiers in 38 counties are unserved by a public library.

The report, “Streamlining Local Government” issued by Governor Daniels’ Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform in 2007 acknowledges the problem of unserved citizens and Recommendation #18 of the report proposes to: “Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.”

The report, and some members of the library community have attempted to merge these two issues of library consolidation and unserved areas together when they are two distinctly separate issues. Consolidating existing library districts together will not automatically extend service to unserved areas, and other methods of attaining the objective should be examined if all Hoosiers are to be provided with library service.

Presently, areas not served by a library can voluntarily provide service to their unserved area via three different methods. First, an area, whether it be a city, town, township, or even an area as large as a county can decide to levy a tax and establish their own public library district.

It is important to note however, that until relatively recently, population size was not an obstacle to establishing a new library. Even though Indiana has a long history of developing their public libraries from the bottom up, representatives of larger library districts successfully lobbied the General Assembly to prohibit the creation of new libraries which would serve populations of less than 10,000. The rationale was that instead of creating smaller districts, areas wanting library service would be required to join larger existing library districts, bringing additional assessed valuation and presumably, additional wealth to the larger district.

It is recommended that the Indiana General Assembly revisit the issue of minimum library size and eliminate the restriction so that Hoosiers could return to the practice of building up their public libraries in our small cities and towns, and not from the top down where all we may have are large, inefficient consolidated systems in urban locations that are difficult for large portions of our citizens to visit.

As the Commission’s report noted, three-fifths (136) of all Indiana’s existing library districts serve less than 10,000 library patrons. Also, as the report noted, Indiana’s public libraries ranked second in the nation in 2004 in the overall assessment of library performance measures such as services, collections, revenues, and expenditures. The obvious conclusion must be that Indiana’s existing libraries are “right sized” for their populations and the continued development of small libraries should be encouraged, and not sacrificed to the unsubstantiated notion that bigger libraries are necessarily more efficient or better than smaller libraries.

The second manner through which library service may be extended to an unserved area is through a contractual arrangement. These contractual arrangements are negotiated between an elected board in the unserved area and a neighboring existing library district for level of service to be provided and the annual cost. A contractual arrangement does not require an entirely new district to be formed with a separate governing body or central administration. Service may range from simple access to facilities and materials, to bookmobile stops, to the operation of one or more service outlets in the area under contract.

A great advantage to this option is that the elected body in the unserved area can “shop around” between districts in area for the best bargain for their taxpayers. Contractual districts do not need to have abutting boundaries, nor do they need to even be in the same county so the contracting body has great flexibility to keep expenditures down. Contracts may also be renegotiated before a decision is made to renew, allowing the contracting area the opportunity to continue to seek the best service for the dollar they can find for their patrons.

The third manner by which library service can be extended to an unserved area is for the officials in the area to agree to simply join an existing district and be taxed the same as the citizens in the existing library. The citizens of the joining area would have the same borrowing rights and privileges as those citizens in the existing district, but there are no guarantees that once they join a district, the existing district might build or operate service outlets (branch libraries) in the newly expanded area.

These voluntary methods have been successful in some areas, but the desire for all Hoosiers to voluntarily tax themselves for library service is not universal so Indiana does not have complete library service. It is offered that the only way by which Indiana can have universal library service is through a state mandate, much like the mandate that every community be taxed to provide public education. Public libraries, like public schools, should be considered to be fundamental educational institutions and every Hoosier of any age should have access to the resources and services of a public library facility, conveniently located and ready to fulfill his or her informational needs. It is also vital to Indiana’s economy and the quality of life for its citizens for libraries to provide access to new information and communication technology.

Once it is accepted that the only practical way to provide universal library service is through mandate, a date for the commencement of service should be selected and legislated. In order to make the imposition of the mandate more palatable to taxpayers, the General Assembly should consider preserving the essence of the selection of voluntary options citizens now have about how library service may be extended into their area.

Consolidation of existing library districts by county, as noted earlier, has been mentioned by some to be a solution to the problem. Admittedly, consolidating all existing districts, coupled with mandating universal library service would solve the problem of unserved areas, but it is very likely the most expensive option for Hoosier taxpayers and the most distasteful option for many of the residents of the smaller existing districts. Not only would the new taxpayers of the previously unserved areas be likely to pay a higher tax rate than under other options, but all of the citizens of the consolidated district might also be likely to pay one of the statistically higher tax rates levied by larger libraries. The smaller libraries would also lose their independence and the great amount of local accountability they have in their communities.

According to Sam Staley, an adjunct scholar with the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, a study conducted by the Review in 2005 reported, ninety percent of the expert researchers who studied local government consolidation concluded that consolidation would not reduce taxes and that consolidation makes it more difficult to obtain government services. He notes in an article entitled, “Local Government Consolidation: Why the Savings are Sometimes Disappointing,” that “economies of scale work in reverse in government.” Larger government tends to produce more bureaucracy, regulation, and overhead.

Indiana libraries have certainly seen this to be true in the case of the Indiana State Library. After the transfer of $600,000 from being distributed directly to public libraries and the transfer of the appropriation for the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority to the state library, the state library created many new staff positions, approved extensive new rules for the certification of library employees, and began enforcing standards for public libraries that had long been ignored.

If universal library service is selected to be mandated, it is recommended legislation be carefully crafted to preserve the options of the citizens of unserved areas to create new library districts tailored to meet the needs of their community, negotiate a contractual arrangement with a neighbor, or join an established library district of their choosing. This might even be done without regard for county boundaries if a cross-county configuration is determined to be the most efficient and economical model available. Competition such as this develops efficiency and all Hoosiers are deserving of efficient public library service of high quality.

Phil Baugher

Indiana Libraries: fact sheet

2008-06-10T18:02:00.000-04:00

Indiana Libraries: A Proud Tradition of Local Service
Indiana residents are served by 238 independent town, city, township, and county library systems.
Libraries in these communities were established by local residents and stand as proud reflections of their unique histories and of the choices their library boards have made in regard to the programs, services, and collections that are needed and preferred by their communities.

What Is the Library Policy of the State of Indiana?
The state shall encourage the establishment, maintenance, and development of public libraries throughout Indiana as part of its provision for public education. Public libraries provide free library service for all individuals in order to meet the educational, informational, and recreational interests and needs of the public. These library services include collecting and organizing books and other library materials and providing reference, loan, and related services to library patrons. These library services are provided by public libraries supported by public funds. (Indiana Code 36-12-1-8)

How are Indiana Public Libraries Governed?
Seven community residents, appointed by the elected members of the local school board and the elected representatives of local governmental units, serve without pay as library trustees for each library district. Appointing authorities provide public oversight for the library board and the library and they can recall an appointee if his or her service is deemed unacceptable. Library trustees set policy for their local libraries, provide administrative oversight, and serve as contacts for local citizens’ concerns and suggestions in regard to the services, programs, and collections of their libraries.

How are Indiana Libraries Funded?
Indiana public libraries are independent taxing authorities, each with the ability to levy a portion of the local property tax to fund the library. Library taxes are not layered, taxpayers pay only one library tax to a single library district no matter however many library districts might be in a county. Library tax levies (property tax collections) have been controlled by the state since 1973, allowing only small increases each year. New controls approved in 2008 will further, greatly limit property tax collections in Indiana. Indiana’s public libraries account for only 3.33% of all property taxes collected per year. Public library budgets must be approved by the Department of Local Government Finance and audited by the State Board of Accounts.

Public libraries do not have access to all of the funding sources available to other local units of government. Libraries do not usually benefit from gambling revenues, funds generated by the lease of the toll road, and the Community Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT). Cities, towns and counties may also capture revenue from new developments for their own purposes at the expense of schools and public libraries through the establishment of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts.

Nationally, libraries are a great American bargain. “More than three-quarters of library users believe libraries spend tax dollars well. Even among non-users, 6 in 10 say they believe libraries use their funds wisely.” (source: Americans for Libraries Council)

What Library Services Do Indiana Libraries Provide?

The Indiana State Library reported the following statistics for 2006:
Total population of Indiana 6,080,485
Residents taxed for library service 5,690,040
Number of independent Indiana library systems 238
Individual and family resident registered borrowers 3,773,171
Individual & family borrowers as % of total pop. taxed for libraries 62.06%
Annual library visits by Indiana residents 37,371,757
Total state circulation of library materials 72,897,834
Circulation per capita 12.81
Annual reference transactions 5,463,901
Number of public libraries with Internet access 235
Number of public computers connected to Internet 6,311
Indiana users of public library internet terminals 8,564,650
Number of children’s library programs 65,834
Attendance at children’s programs 1,650,685
Number of adult and children’s library programs 107,450
Attendance at all adult and children’s library programs 2,537,951
Number of libraries that agree to participate in free reciprocal borrowing 155

Statistics are not the whole story. Because each library system is governed by an appointed board of seven local residents, individual libraries are able to respond to the needs and preferences of their communities with a wide variety of unique and special services, programs and collections. Examples are libraries that house an adult learning center, that schedule evening story hours for working parents of young children, that provide homebound delivery for those who are not able to come to the library, that operate local history museums and genealogical departments, and that provide public meeting rooms and kitchens.

How Do Indiana Libraries Rank Nationally?*

Library visits per capita: Indiana ranks 2nd in the United States
Circulation per capita: Indiana ranks 4th “
Reference transactions per capita: Indiana ranks 8th “
Computer terminals per 5,000 pop Indiana ranks 7th “
Audio materials per 1,000 pop. Indiana ranks 2nd “
Video/DVD materials per capita Indiana ranks 3rd “
Books and magazines per capita Indiana ranks 12th “
ALA-MLS librarians per 25,000 pop. ** Indiana ranks 8th “
Operating expenses per capita Indiana ranks 5th “
Number of public libraries Indiana ranks 14th “
Number of public libraries per capita Indiana ranks 22nd “
Collection expenditures per capita Indiana ranks 3rd “

*Statistics from the 2007 edition of The Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac and from the National Council on Educational Statistics

**American Library Association approved Masters Degree in Library Science

Indiana Libraries, small vs. large -- bigger isn't necessarily better -- it's just different

2008-06-10T18:01:00.000-04:00

A study of the 2006 statistics of Indiana’s 239* public libraries illustrate that when the largest public libraries are compared to the smallest, there is no evidence that larger libraries are more efficient than smaller or that they are a much better bargain for taxpayers.

1. The tax rates for larger libraries are slightly greater than for the smaller – The average tax rate for the larger 117 libraries that collect property taxes is $.1066 per $100 of assessed valuation and the average tax rate for the smaller 117 libraries is $.1050. The slightly higher rate for larger libraries appears to refute the assumption that there would automatically be savings if smaller libraries were consolidated into larger units of service.

2. The average operating expenditures per person for the larger libraries and the smaller libraries are very nearly the same - The average operating expenditure for larger libraries is $47.59 per capita and the average operating expenditure for smaller libraries is $47.44 per capita. The difference is less than 1%.

3. Larger libraries spend slightly more on library staff than smaller libraries – Larger libraries spend an average $28.90 per capita for personnel services representing an average 62% of their total operating budgets. Smaller libraries spend an average $26.74 per capita for personnel representing 56% of their total operating budget. Larger library average personnel expenditures are 8% greater than for smaller libraries.

4. Smaller libraries spend slightly more on books and other materials than larger libraries – Smaller libraries spend an average $6.86 per capita for books and other library materials representing an average 15% of their total operating budget. Larger libraries spend an average $6.15 per capita for library materials representing 13% of their total operating budget. Smaller library average material expenditures are 12% greater than for larger libraries.

5. Many more larger libraries have bonded indebtedness than smaller libraries – 65% (75 of 119) of larger libraries have a tax levy for a bond and interest redemption fund compared to 32% (38 of 119) of the smaller libraries.

6. Many more larger libraries collect extra tax levies for capital projects than smaller libraries – 51% (60 of 119) of larger libraries have a tax levy for a library capital projects fund compared to 24% (28 of 119) of the smaller libraries.

Methodology - There are 239 library districts in the State of Indiana. The Joyce Public Library, Tyson Library Association, and the Fortville-Vernon Township Public Library do not collect a property tax levy to fund their operations so their tax rates are excluded from this study. The Willard Library and the Evansville –Vanderburgh Public Library share the tax collections in the library district so their taxing totals are combined and factored as a single library. Larger libraries versus smaller libraries were ranked according to the population served. The division of 117 was made between the Winchester Community Library with a population of 8,879 and the Garrett Public Library of 8,834.

Indiana Public Library Consolidation Fact Sheet

2008-06-10T18:00:00.000-04:00

Public Library Consolidation in Indiana
Fact Sheet

What is library consolidation?
Consolidation refers to the combining or merging of smaller independent libraries into a larger library system, such as a county library system. Last year, a commission appointed by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels recommended that all public libraries be reorganized by county even though extensive comments provided by the public overwhelmingly opposed any proposed library consolidation and the commission’s report provided no documented evidence that library consolidation would be economically beneficial. Statistically, Indiana’s larger public libraries cost proportionally more to operate than smaller libraries.

What are the dangers of library consolidation?
If an independent library is merged with a larger library system, the residents of the independent library district would lose all local control over their library. Their library board, composed of trustees appointed by school boards and other local elected bodies, would be dissolved and the library system would cease to exist. The larger library system would then make all decisions about the budget, staffing, facilities, programs, collections and services for the residents of the previously independent library district. Cuts would be likely in all areas at the local level as the larger library board would seek ways to maintain their large, centralized facilities.

Are there any benefits to library consolidation?
Many proponents of library consolidation frequently cite the number of citizens in Indiana who live in areas not served by public libraries. Consolidation and unserved areas are two distinctly separate issues. Unserved citizens are not taxed for library service and the consolidation of existing libraries will not automatically provide them with service. Currently these citizens can voluntarily consent to be taxed for a library and establish a new library district, contract for service with an existing library district, or voluntarily join an existing library. If Indiana wants universal library service, it will probably have to be imposed by state mandate.

Proponents of consolidation also like to cite that larger libraries would generate “economies of scale” and lead to less cost. A recent study by the Indiana Policy Review noted that 90% of expert researchers familiar with the effects of consolidation in the past do not believe consolidation would lead to reduced taxes. In fact, the survey reports consolidation would most likely increase expenditures while reducing citizens’ access to services.

In some cases, the residents of a very small library system might benefit from consolidating with a larger system having greater resources, but this might come at the cost of losing their own local library building, requiring them to travel a much further distance to visit a library. This could be a quite a hardship some for the patrons who need library service the most such as seniors and the very young. Library boards should continue to have the right to voluntarily merge if they feel it is best for their residents, but consolidation should not be mandated by the state.

Aren’t public libraries responsible for the recent large increases in Indiana property taxes?

No! , Indiana libraries account for only 3.33% of all property taxes collected in Indiana. (source: the Blue Ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform: http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.ed ).

Second, the recent 24% increase in property taxes for Indiana homeowners is due to the elimination of the inventory tax on businesses (+4%), the cap on state tax relief (+4%), trending and changes to fair market assessing (+ 10%) , and is only partially due to increases in local government tax collections (+6%). (source: July 23, 2007, “Indiana Property Taxes: How We Got Here,” a report by Larry DeBoer,Ph.D., Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, to the Indiana Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy)

Third, public library tax levies (property tax collections) have been controlled in some manner by the state since 1973, allowing only small increases each year. Legislation approved last year will greatly limit property tax collections far into the future and many library budgets will be slashed due to the new “circuit breaker” legislation. Other new controls will greatly limit the ability of libraries to bond for new buildings or to take advantage of alternate sources of income without reducing property taxes.

Fourth, the public library world has drastically changed over the past decades, necessitating new expenditures for computer automation, public Internet service, and for the purchase of many new types of informational resources (DVDs, CDs, CD ROMs, subscriptions to online databases, etc.). Growing populations in some areas have also required the construction of new buildings and the remodeling of older buildings, often requiring more staff and public demands for a wider range of library services.

Fifth, public libraries do not have access to all of the various revenue sources available to other local governmental units such as schools, cities, towns, and counties. A county economic development income tax, etc. (CEDIT), county optional income tax (COIT) and a county adjusted gross income tax (CAGIT) do not benefit public libraries. Tax increment financing districts capture new assessment values and the revenue stream they produce for the benefit of other taxing units.

Schools receive the majority of their funding from the state. Libraries receive no direct funding from the state. The public library state distribution ($600,000 for all Indiana libraries in 2006), was eliminated last year when the governor transferred those funds to the state library instead.

Are there many libraries in Indiana that could be affected by this change or are most of them part of larger library systems?
There are 239 independent library systems serving Indiana towns, cities, townships and counties. Most Indiana libraries are either small or mid-size libraries with only 10 libraries serving populations of over 100,000. Libraries in these communities were established by local residents and stand as proud reflections of their community’s history. The choices their library boards have made in programming, services, and material collections reflect the needs and desires of each unique community having a library.

What can I do to stop mandatory consolidation of Indiana’s Libraries?
Educate yourself about the issue and contact your local legislators to urge them to oppose library consolidation. Tell them the personal stories about how having a local, independent library have improved your life and your community.

Article from The Farmer's Exchange 4/25/08

2008-05-12T13:18:00.002-04:00

Article appeared on page 4, of the April 25, 2008 issue of the Farmer's Exchange. Article is entitled "Consolidation Is No Way to Streamline State Government."

Click link to view article

Public Forum on Property Tax "reform"

2008-05-12T11:05:00.001-04:00

Direct Link to Article

Article published May 12, 2008
If you go
The Common Council's public meeting on House Bill 1001 will be at 4 p.m. Thursday in the Recital Hall of Century Center, 120 S. St. Joseph St., South Bend.
For more information, contact the city clerk's office at (574) 235-9221.

Public forum on Indiana property tax reform scheduled
Ripple effects of House Bill 1001 starting to show.

JAMIE LOO
Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND -- Property tax bills may be lower and sales tax is up, but those aren't the only things that will change in the future because of the Indiana General Assembly.

On Thursday, the public will have a chance to find out the full effects of House Bill 1001 and talk to government officials about the impact. House Bill 1001 is the property tax relief legislation passed by the General Assembly during the last session.

South Bend Common Council will host the meeting at Century Center, and the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns will give the presentation. A question-and-answer period will follow. Officials from South Bend, St. Joseph County, Mishawaka and the county townships have been invited.

The ripple effects of House Bill 1001 are starting to show, as local officials look for ways to trim budgets and comply with the roughly 550-page law. Here are a few ways the law has affected the community so far:

# The state sales tax increased 1 percent at the beginning of April. The money from the increase is meant to be used for property tax relief.
# The St. Joseph County Public Library is closing all of its branches on Saturdays this summer. The library board also has approved a $300,000 reduction in purchases of new books and other materials in its 2008-2009 budget.

# The St. Joseph County assessor's office has been busy preparing to take on township assessing duties. Most of the township assessors in St. Joseph County will be eliminated by July 1. Voters will get to decide whether to keep the Portage and Penn assessors in a referendum in November, because both townships have at least 15,000 parcels.

Local officials say that House Bill 1001 will severely affect services such as public safety, schools and libraries. All of the taxing units combined in St. Joseph County could lose an estimated $34.6 million over the next two years.

Staff writer Jamie Loo:
jloo@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6337

Indiana Libraries not alone regarding Public Library Consolidation

2008-05-02T11:47:00.001-04:00

I am preparing to meet with State Senators and Representatives regarding my opinion about library consolidation.

It seems that a few of our friends in New York are also gearing up to retain local control of their public libraries. In my research I have found that they have some excellent ideas about inter-library cooperation that deserve serious investigation.

http://www.nassaulibrary.org/baldwin/consolidation.htm

http://www.nassaulibrary.org/pobblog/2007/11/library_consolidation.html

Good article on property taxes from Indiana Business Review

2008-05-01T15:37:00.002-04:00

I read the article, though I must admit I'll have to re-read it a few times to understand it. So far, in my opinion, all of the work done on property taxes might just be a wash once the "dust has settled."

Read the article here: http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2008/spring/property-tax-policy-questions-answered.pdf

Normal "SNAFU" for property taxes for Indiana

2008-04-28T14:06:00.001-04:00

The South Bend Tribune reported in an article dated April 23, 2008 that tax bills for a majority of Indiana Counties will be delayed due to reassessment and the carry-over from last year. The article reported this will cost Marion County between $30 and $50 million.

At the moment NCPL is on okay financial ground. Just how long this last is anyone's guess. We have yet to receive our approval for our 2008 budgets (we received approval for our 2007 budgets late in 2007). We have enough for our June mortgage payment, but paying the December payment could be dicey. Article is here (archived after 7 days): http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/NEWS01/762493560

Engrossed version of HB 1001

2008-03-03T15:09:00.002-05:00

Found here: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/EH/EH1001.2.html

Contains many references to public libraries in Indiana, but two stand out (document is more than 600+ pages) so far in my reading.

First is the potential for fiscal body review for library budgets. The DLGF can't get to us information for publicizing our budgets by the required time as it is. If we need to lengthen the time required for additional review we will be lucky to have budget approval until two years after the initial budget year. NCPL still hasn't received anything from DLGF about our 2008 budget and it's March 3. For the 2007 budget year we didn't receive anything until after September 12, 2007.

Secondly is the moving of the tax rate for LCPF to within the controlled levy limit.

I view both of these as treacherous for public libraries in Indiana.

Potential Circuit Breaker Tax Credits

2008-03-03T14:22:00.002-05:00

Following is a link back to the New Carlisle Public Library's website with information from the Indiana Legislative Services Agency. It is a table noting potential circuit breaker tax credits as of 2/19/08

Senate Fiscal Policy Committee

Meeting with Senator Arnold (D) Indiana Senate District 8

2008-03-03T14:09:00.002-05:00

Senator held an informational meeting at the New Carlisle Public Library on Saturday, March 1. Most of the information he relayed pertained to HB 1001 and his reasons for voting against it. Senator arnold re-affirmed his stand on keeping public libraries as they are and not consolidating them into county-wide units. Arnold distributed information to attendees and on the back of one of these handouts was the result of one of the survey questions: "Do you support or oppose allowing countywide library districts to consolidate local libraries?" Per Senator Arnold over 1,000 people responded to the survey and 62% OPPOSED CONSOLIDATING LIBRARIES AND 38% supported consolidation.

Those of us receiving the Legislative Information through the Indiana Library Federation are well aware of the implications of HB 1001 and we are actively attempting to minimize the negative effects that it will have on public library budgets here in Indiana.

Here are two .pdf documents that were handed out during Senator Arnold's meeting.

http://www.ncpl.info/publicity/Session%20highlights%20Feb%2025%20to%2029%202008.pdf

http://www.ncpl.info/publicity/Session%20Preview%20Survey%20Results.pdf

The Economic impact of libraries in Indiana

2008-01-04T10:11:00.000-05:00

Link: http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2007/december/6.html

When contacting Legislators or the Governor about Library Issues

2007-12-18T17:42:00.001-05:00

Guidelines for Writing to Indiana Legislators and

Governor Daniels about Library Issues

Handwritten letters are most effective. If you type your letter, sign your name above your typed signature. In either case, if available, use your personal or business letterhead. You may also email or call your legislator or the Governor, but these communications are considered to be less effective than regular written letters.
Write to all legislators serving your library district (see below) and to Governor Daniels.
Avoid word-for word copying of provided information.
Be polite - Ask for support for your position, don’t demand or be disrespectful.
Be poignant - Letter should be personal, brief (one page) and concise.
Be direct - State your purpose for writing in the first paragraph. If you are a voter in his/her district, state this as well.
Support your position - Include personal information about how consolidation could affect you and your library. Illustrate potential impacts or your concerns with factual data or examples.
Be timely - Make sure you are up-to-date on the issue and mail your response as soon as possible.
Be open - Be sure to include your contact information and feel free to ask for a written response. You can offer to talk more about the issue by phone or in person.
State your appreciation - Thank the legislator/governor for his/her time, consideration or support.
Addressing your letter - Address your letters to legislators to The Honorable (full name of senator or representative), and to the Governor to The Honorable Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. The salutation is Dear Senator (last name), Dear Representative (last name) or Dear Governor Daniels.

Email addresses for House members are “h” and then the number of the district followed by @in.gov. For example, the address for House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer from House District 6 is h6@in.gov. You can find out the district of your legislators by visiting http://www.in.gov/legislative.

Email addresses for Senators follow the same pattern, substituting an “s” for the “h”. For example, the address for Senate President David Long from Senate District 16 is s16@in.gov.

Regular mail for the House can be sent to: Indiana House of Representatives, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800-382-9842 or 800-382-9841)

Regular mail to the Senate can be sent to: Indiana State Senate, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or her district office: 6195 Central Avenue, Portage, IN 46368 (800-383-946)7 or (219-764-0434)

Governor Mitch Daniels, Office of the Governor, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797 (email: mdaniels@gov.in.gov)

Share your letter with your library – Please drop off a copy

From the Alexandria-Monroe Public Library

2007-12-18T16:57:00.000-05:00

I agree that not having to compete with police, fire, etc. in front of
an elected body for a piece of the pie is one reason libraries in
Indiana rank high when compared to libraries elsewhere. In Louisville,
it was excruciating to sit through budget hearings each year while
department directors begged and pleaded the Metro Council for their
budgets, which were already at bare minimal levels to begin with. Not a
fun time in the least. 

Montie L. Manning
Director
Alexandria-Monroe Public Library
117 E. Church St.
Alexandria, IN 46001-2005
Phone: 765-724-2196
Fax: 765-724-2204

From the Indiana Library Federation

2007-12-18T16:55:00.000-05:00

The position document that recently appeared on the listserv (see below) is a working draft of the Indiana Library Federation's Legislative Committee. Further input is coming in from committee members and not only is this document not in its final form, it has not received approval from the ILF Executive Committee. All ILF members are welcome to contact members of the Legislative Committee to provide input as we work diligently to finalize our legislative position.

Recommendations made in the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report “Streamlining Local Government” would have impact on all libraries in the State of Indiana. The Indiana Library Federation feels that the recommendations contained in the report do not provide mechanisms for implementation. Furthermore, the complexity of the issue may deem it inappropriate for some libraries and/or library districts.

The Indiana Library Federation supports a thorough evaluation of the cost-savings of the recommendations and an approach that allows each library and or library district input into the determination as to what is the best approach for it and its patrons. The Federation will oppose any legislation that proposes a “cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all” mentality towards public libraries.

The Federation believes that library service is a primary function of good government and, in keeping with that belief, supports legislation that will provide additional options for unserved areas to receive quality library service.

Furthermore, the Federation believes that it is in the educational interest of all students K through 12^th grade in the State of Indiana to have a school media center located in each building within the school system as well as a certified School Media Specialist in charge of each media center. The Federation will oppose any legislative changes that would propose the elimination of any school media centers or school media specialists.

From Evan Davis at Allen County PL

2007-12-18T16:54:00.000-05:00

Admitting I have not followed the issue closely, and realizing that local leaders could be helpful in developing libraries in the many Indiana communities that do not have library service, I still feel compelled to suggest that one reason so many of Indiana's public libraries are of high quality is that they are independent of city and county governments. It seems that every month I read about libraries in other states that are having their budgets slashed by municipal or county governments. I'm glad we don't have to deal with that here.

Evan Davis
Allen County Public Library
Fort Wayne

Information forwarded by Roberta Brooker, Director ISL

2007-12-18T16:46:00.000-05:00

**SB NOTE** Blogger doesn't allow for attachments etc., please find the information referenced below at the following web address www.ncpl.info/listserve/ICMAMGTPERSPECTIVE.pdf

I wanted to provide Indiana librarians with this article - Local
Government Managers and Public Libraries: Partners for a Better
Community.

It is good know that others are studying similar initiatives and their
results may be helpful to Indiana.

Thanks,
Roberta Brooker

As posted by Nick Schenkel at the West Lafayette Public Library

2007-12-18T16:44:00.000-05:00

12/14/2007

Good afternoon!

I’ve been reading the comments far and wide that have been generated by the Blue Ribbon Commission report and I’d like to offer my own thoughts to the discussion.

In response to Connie Ozinga’s recent comments on this listserv, I. for one am not automatically opposed to the “streamlining local government” report or even those parts that address public libraries in particular.

But - let’s not destroy our strong public library system in Indiana in hopes of “re-forming” it.

What I am opposed to is the “one-size-fits-all” attitude the report takes when addressing local public libraries in our State.

Indiana’s public libraries work hard now to both provide nationally recognized library service and maintain tight budgets.*

Here is what concerns me about the report. Let’s look at the supposed “cost-savings” achieved by forcing all libraries into county-wide districts. The State Library’s own statistics show that the difference in cost-per-capita among large, medium, and small library districts is minor – and probably for good reason. All of us already strive to provide the best collections and services for the least cost to our communities.

How then, does the “streamlining local government” report get from that statistical fact to the facile presumption that eliminating our current system of co-existing smaller and larger library districts in favor of county-wide libraries will be more cost-saving?

I fear that there is only one real cost-saving way county-wide libraries could operate: given the tight library budgets that already exist and the tremendous amount of shared purchasing, continuing education, and computer services that already go on among almost all Indiana public libraries, to save any REAL library costs, the State government will have to demand that we close existing library buildings and eliminate existing library staff.**

That is NOT the way to build strong and responsive libraries for Hoosiers!

So, instead of the draconian, one-size-fits-all-communities called for in the “streamlining of local government report” – I recommend all of us in the Indiana library community respond POSITIVELY and say yes this report is worthwhile – then take the lead ourselves in bringing cost-savings to local public libraries.

Here are some ideas to move us forward as we work to bring cost-savings to our public libraries:

· INCREASE the size of public library boards to provide broader local representation in taxing and policy making,

· Allow communities to choose to elect their library board members – again, to increase local control of taxing and policy making,

· Develop regional “goal setting” library boards to set long range goals – and budget parameters that fit those goals - for libraries in a multi-county area.

· Expand regional and State level cost-saving programs through INCOLSA and the State Library – put significant State money behind efforts to encourage regional sharing of staff, computer and other administrative services as determined by regional agreements,

· Develop groups of local libraries and give these groups significant (not paper thin) financial and governing incentives to work with each other based on local needs.

To my mind some Indiana libraries already pursue many of these possibly cost-saving initiatives right now – let’s take the lead in crafting thoughtful and wide-ranging expansion of these – and other – possibly cost-saving efforts.

Will this cost the State some money to get such initiatives started? Probably yes.

Will it save our local communities money in the long run? It seems to me that those who say “larger library districts” are “less expensive” would say yes – so let’s take that idea seriously and try “larger is better” through real-world programs that respect local autonomy but demand regional effort.

Let’s test these ideas in Indiana! We’ll be taking the cost-saving aspects of the “streamlining local government” report seriously –as we ought to - and, if “larger is better” DOES serve to reduce costs AND expand library services and collections; we can proceed to take the lead in crafting the next steps for public libraries in our State.

Respectfully submitted,

Nick Schenkel, West Lafayette Public Library

*Let’s remember that those local library budgets are ultimately approved by the State’s Department of Local Government Finance annually – now.

** I am – and I hope others are - certainly open to reading/hearing other real-world means to achieve significant cost savings by Indiana libraries short of closing buildings and eliminating staff!

Excellent points from Connie Jo Ozinga

2007-12-18T16:41:00.000-05:00

My comment, published in the Elkhart Truth the other day, http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?id=432343 (free registration may be required.) :

At the Elkhart Public Library, director Connie Jo Ozinga said the report's proposal to create countywide library districts is intriguing but probably unattainable.

Elkhart County has six library districts, though four townships remain unserved by library service.

"I just can't imagine how we'd get from here to there," Ozinga said of consolidating the districts. "The cost to merge all those different databases and systems would be huge.

So is everybody in the Indiana public library opposed to this? Will ILF legislative be formally opposed? What little has been said on the email lists has made me think so. If so, I am dismayed. Are we automatically against change? Can we not see the “big picture”?

I do understand the small library’s concerns about the potential loss of service in their communities. I am the Director of the largest of the 6 libraries in Elkhart County, and I have no desire to be responsible for the logistics of creating a county library. Nor do I assume that I would be the Director of any such institution.

So this is my official announcement that I am neutral on the recommendations of the report. There are some positive things in the recommendations: this proposal would finally address the unserved areas issue, and address the regular accusations regarding non-elected boards with taxing authority.

I would like to see some discussion on this list about the recommendations.

I’ve also seen several statements that smaller communities would end up paying the larger library’s debt service after consolidation. This topic came up at our recent bond hearing in Indianapolis, and the DLGF made it very clear that the residents of geographic area that originally issued the bonds would continue to be the only taxpayers levied the bond rate. Potentially you could have a county library where the tax rate is different in every city/township due to the debt still owed by the now consolidated local library.

My comment about probably unattainable refers to my lack of faith that our legislature could or would ever actually implement these recommendations.

So flame me if you wish, but I am dismayed that our profession seems to have immediately acted in opposition to the recommendations.

Connie

Connie Jo Ozinga, Director cjo@elkhart.lib.in.us

(574)522-3333 www.elkhart.lib.in.us
Elkhart Public Library Elkhart, IN 46516

The Elkhart Public Library provides access to resources which inform, educate, enlighten and entertain our diverse community.....Books are just the beginning.

A suggestion worth merit.

2007-12-18T16:38:00.000-05:00

Originally viewed in the Indianapolis Star

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012

Below is one of the few comments that really had merit. It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities. Biggest difference for us would be fighting for budget dollars and one entity fighting and plotting against another entity for those tax dollars

Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.

So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.

Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.

From Phil Baugher at the Westchester Public Library

2007-12-18T16:17:00.000-05:00

**Note: Mr. Baugher's "Talking Points" appear at the end of this post.

Greetings again,

It’s been a while since I’ve written concerning library consolidation, but now that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report has been released I’d thought I’d share some thoughts and talking points I threw together. Please feel free to use the document any way you may see fit, adding, correcting, or deleting anything you may like.

Please contact me directly if you want me to resend anything I’ve previously sent.

My trustees and I have a meeting scheduled with 3 of our 4 legislators this evening to talk with them about the report, and I encourage you to reach out to your local representatives too.

As I wrote in an earlier message, please feel free to use this mailing list to communicate with your colleagues by posting a message in a reply to all. You can strip out the content of any of my messages, sending a communication to the group and share your observations, and/or any other documents you might believe might be of use to our public library community in this campaign to preserve the independence of our libraries.

Please remember to visit Steve Boggs’ blog at http://sospl.blogspot.com/ for additional resources related to the topic.

We’re all in this together.

Phil

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
— John F. KENNEDY

Phil Baugher, Director

Westchester Public Library

200 West Indiana Ave.

Chesterton, IN 46304

phone - 1-219-926-7696

Westchester Public Library

December 12, 2007

Talking Points and Responses to

“Streamlining Local Government”

Some General Observations

The report, “Streamlining Local Government” speculates about how local government might be altered to reduce property taxes for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the recommendations appear to be based largely on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions and leaps in logic. The report lacks concrete examples and data calculations of how much might be saved for each recommendation. The recommendations also do not address the negative impact the recommendations might have on the delivery of local government services if enacted.

The web site for the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform contains extensive summarized comments received from the public through the commission’s web site, e-mail address or by regular mail. The comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the consolidation of libraries. Unfortunately, the report fails to acknowledge these comments and cherry picks only the comments supporting their recommendations to be included in the text of the report.

Recommendation #18 - Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.

The report acknowledges the high ranking of Indiana’s public libraries in all benchmarks.

Small libraries obviously contribute greatly to the overall high ranking.

Consolidation and addressing areas not served by a public library are two separate issues.

Bigger is not necessarily better especially if library facilities are centralized and are not conveniently located in the communities served.

There are already legal mechanisms in place that would allow libraries to merge together and form larger library districts if desired by their library boards. Permissive legislation might be considered that would allow residents to merge library districts through a referendum without relying on library boards to approve the issue.

Larger libraries tend to incur more debt through bonding and building.

The remodeled and expanded central library of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library was 2 years overdue, cost over $103 million, was $50 million over budget, and a library trustee plead guilty of a felony related to the building project. Larger libraries have a greater concentration of resources that could be lost through theft, mismanagement, or the simple fiscal or operational ineptitude of library officials.

The issue of un-served areas can only be resolved by mandating all citizens be taxed for library service and by allowing townships to either create their own library district, contract for service with an existing district for a negotiated price, or to merge permanently with an existing district would allow a township to chose the best and most economical option for their citizens.

Forcing un-served areas into the larger libraries would be more expensive and in some cases, citizens would be responsible for paying off the old debt incurred by the larger unit.

Consolidation would not guarantee that existing library buildings in merged units would continue to be operated, or that the un-served areas would receive library building of their own in return for the new taxes they would be required to pay. Larger units tend to build and operate larger buildings.

Consolidation of libraries would reduce the number of library trustees who are available throughout the state to respond to the concerns of their citizens, reducing accountability. Fewer trustees would also reduce public oversight of libraries and could lead to increased corruption and mismanagement.

Library trustees are volunteers and are not paid for their service.

Most library directors serving in small libraries are not full-time administrators, serving more as professional librarians than as bureaucrats.

Consolidation would reduce the number of library directors in the state, but the library buildings they operate would still need professional supervision and guidance.

New, proposed certification standards for library employees recently proposed by the Indiana State Library require public libraries to employ many more trained professional librarians throughout the state, not fewer.

Merging the various automated systems in libraries in the state would take a long time and cost millions of dollars.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the quality of their library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

Recommendation #19 – Require that the budgets and bonds of library and all other special districts be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval.

Libraries only account for 3.33% of total property tax expenditures.

Public library property tax collections are limited by the same state regulations and annual multipliers as other local units of government.

Public libraries and other local units of government are not responsible for the recent and dramatic increases in property taxes due to the elimination of the inventory tax and changes in the method of property assessment. Public libraries should not be singled out for blame. Any new property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government to insure no one area of service suffers dramatically.

Public libraries are usually very conservative and if their recent expenditures have been high in comparison with other local units of government, it has been because public libraries have been required to provide their public with many new technologies. If we want our citizens to continue to be competitive in the modern world, we should consider how we can improve the information services provided by our public libraries, not how these services can be reduced.

A recent study of Indiana’s public libraries concluded that for every $1 spent on public libraries, a direct value of $2.38 was returned to the public.

Recent, new regulations already require that bond issues in excess of $7 million be approved by the county board of tax and capital review. A referendum might also be considered to determine the success or failure of a bond issue. Let the voters decide.

This proposal could disenfranchise all of the citizens who don’t reside in the municipal or county unit not having the greatest proportion of assessed valuation.

The proposal would give a body the authority to reduce the budget of another local unit of government without having any real responsibility for providing the public service of the second unit. This would greatly reduce accountability to the public.

The existing and proposed “circuit breaker” legislation limits the total amount of taxes that can be collected in a county. If the larger fiscal body in the county found its property tax collections being limited by the circuit breaker ceiling, it would very likely slash the library’s budget or could even conceivably close the public library to reduce their loss. Again, property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government.

If the issue is really one objecting to appointed boards having the ability to levy taxes, then the obvious solution is to change the law and require public library boards be elected and to not jeopardize the public libraries they serve.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the cost of library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

Miscellaneous Points

Public libraries operate very efficiently and cooperatively. Many libraries already participate in a variety of cooperative purchasing programs. Some libraries share automated systems and are working towards establishing shared bibliographic catalogs. Libraries also participate in interlibrary loan programs, arranging for the loan of and borrowing of materials between libraries on behalf of their patrons upon request. There are also a variety of reciprocal borrowing agreements throughout the state that allow library patrons to travel to a neighboring library district to borrow materials directly.

Initial post of information from the Indiana Library Federation

2007-12-18T16:15:00.000-05:00

FROM: John V. Barnett, Jr.

Hopefully by now you have had an opportunity to thoughtfully consider Recommendations 18, 19 and 20 in the Shepard-Kernan Commission report released Tuesday, December 11. The website is: http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/.

Clearly, every library district would be impacted if these recommendations were to be implemented. You are urged to immediately communicate your thoughts to the legislators that represent your district as well as local media outlets. Key point – “The devil is in the details.” If the details of implementing these recommendations have been discussed, none have been disclosed. Implementing Recommendation 18 will be very complicated since, as the Commission itself has acknowledged, “one size does not fit all”. Much more serious thought must be given to each of these recommendations. And, that can’t possibly happen between now and January 8 when the legislature reconvenes. If you have more specific thoughts or concerns about the impact locally, mention them.

Library directors, trustees, and appointing authorities should be involved in this effort.

Your immediate attention to this request is very important.

Thanks for your follow-through.

From South Bend Tribune...SB comments in Bold/Italic

2007-12-13T07:29:00.000-05:00

From: http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/News01/712130318/1130/Sports01

Kernan offers insights on reform report
Former governor tells what went into effort, what he hopes it accomplishes.

JAMES WENSITS
Tribune Political Writer

SOUTH BEND -- The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report on streamlining local government came with a message just short of a warning:

"We've got to stop governing like this," it said.

Former Indiana Gov. Joe Kernan, who co-chaired the commission, met with the Tribune's editorial board Wednesday in an effort to explain what went into the nearly six-months-long commission effort and what he hopes the state will get out of it.

In all, the commission made 27 recommendations for streamlining local government, each of which was unanimously approved by Kernan, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who was the other co-chair, and the remaining five commission members.

The findings were not intended as a criticism of local government officials, Kernan said, but rather as an indictment of a structure that is more than 150 years old and which "doesn't make sense" today.

One of the commission recommendations would create a single-person elected county chief executive who would become responsible for administering the duties of what are now elected officials, such as the county auditor, treasurer, sheriff, assessor, recorder, surveyor and coroner.

Another would do away with township-level government by transferring those responsibilities, which include assessment, fire protection and poor relief, to the county executive.

What follows are excerpts from that conversation, abridged for the sake of brevity. The full text will be made available on The Tribune's Web site.

Q. If you do away with township government, how would persons in rural areas receive poor relief?

A. Doing away with township government does not mean that we would necessarily do away with convenient locations for some services to be delivered. We are not telling communities that the delivery of those services has to be centralized.

We recommend the reorganization of libraries on a countywide basis. We don't say and do not recommend that local libraries be closed. We've got Madison Township that has no library service at all. There are 400,000 people in Indiana that don't have any service. We are certainly not recommending that we close libraries. Nor are we recommending closing schools.

Q. Would there be one library system for St. Joseph County that would combine the Mishawaka-Penn-Harris, St. Joseph County, New Carlisle-Olive Township and Walkerton public libraries?

A. That's what we propose.

Q. Would it be under the St. Joseph County Library System?

A. It would be a countywide system. The local community would make the decision as to what that looked like and what it was called ... With four different administrations for the four different libraries, there has to be some economies of scale in having one administration and delivering those services countywide.

Even Don Napoli at SJCPL noted that there probably wouldn't be much if any cost savings in consolidating libraries (South Bend Tribune article12/1/07 "Smaller Libraries Worried.") What we need is to have all Townships in the state to be fully served by a library or library district.

Q. One of the most striking aspects of the commission's report is the amount of power and responsibility that is placed in the hands of the county executive for functions that are now the responsibility of many different people in county government. Is there any thought that might be too much responsibility to concentrate in one individual?

A. If you look at the responsibilities that the mayors of South Bend and Mishawaka have, I would argue that it's not that much different in terms of responsibility. ... It makes sense to have one executive that is responsible for the administration of all of those offices, with qualified staff.

Q. Do you think there could be a reduction in the county work force?

A. I would anticipate that you will be able to do things more efficiently, which will probably mean less people. It certainly will mean less elected officials.

Q. What do you think can realistically be accomplished in the General Assembly, given the resistance to some aspects of this?

A. You won't have any trouble finding people who are opposed to any or all of the things that we have proposed. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo. ... We make these recommendations with the idea that they all be implemented. Will that happen? Probably not.

Q. With the amount of power the county executive will have in appointing individuals to the various offices, it could be construed as a return to the political patronage system, with all the possibilities for corruption that that implies. How do you keep that from happening?

A. I would venture to say that I am not aware of any evidence that having officials appointed makes any difference one way or the other, from a corruption standpoint, than having officials elected. What I do know is that it would be very clear as to whose responsibility it was.

HELLO!!! EARTH CALLING!!! IT'S CALLED A POLITICAL MACHINE.

... If there are tendencies in that direction, it will not be long before the community figures it out, elected or appointed.

Staff writer James Wensits:
jwensits@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6353

A County Czar?

2007-12-13T07:22:00.000-05:00

Makes me cringe. I'd rather a seven member elected County Board with a County Manager.

Related story at wsbt.com: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12446856.html

Good points from the Chesterton Tribune

2007-12-12T21:00:00.000-05:00

A point here is the lack of library service throughout the state and more than 300,000 are living in areas not served by libraries. This point desperately needs to be addressed.

Link: http://chestertontribune.com/Library/121210%20reform_report_takes_aim_at_state.htm

Text: Reform report takes aim at state's 'excellent' library system

By VICKI URBANIK

In its report for reforming local government, a state commission applauds the work of public libraries, saying that whether large or small, Indiana libraries provide “excellent” service.

The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report notes that Indiana libraries ranked second overall in the National Center for Education Statistics’ national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures.

With such a record, one may think that Indiana’s library system isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing. But the commission thinks otherwise, recommending that Indiana’s 239 library districts consolidate into 92 single county districts or even multi-county districts.

If carried out, the recommendation would bring an end to the Westchester Public Library system, which would be melded in with the county library system and controlled largely by the county council and a new county executive.

The commission’s report said the library consolidation would help expand library services to all areas of the state. Its report states: “Indiana has too many library districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many libraries. We recommend maintaining the current mix of geographically dispersed facilities to allow districts to serve local populations and needs.”

But would consolidation of libraries guarantee library services for, say, residents of Adams or Clay counties, two counties with limited library service?

Ironically, no, said Westchester Public Library Director Phil Baugher.

“They would be taxed for a library,” he said of the residents in the new countywide library system. But in order to be guaranteed library services, he said, lawmakers “would have to mandate library services.”

Baugher said he’s disturbed that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform tied the issue of library consolidation with the goal of expanding library services to unserved areas. He said he and other WPL supporters believe that the two issues are separate.

If, Baugher said, the true goal is to expand library services, the state could require, or encourage, communities to contract with the larger library systems in their area, or use a township by township approach and have township trustees negotiate with a library provider.

“Why not address the unserved areas?” he said.

The report states that an estimated 395,000 Indiana residents in 38 counties do not have access to library services, and that 29 counties have areas that are “underserved” by contractual library services. The report also states that Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff per 10,000 people than the national average.

“By reducing the number of (library) districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures,” the report states.

The recommendation for consolidating small library systems like WPL comes despite ample public support for smaller libraries, judging by all the comments posted on the commission’s webpage in support of keeping local library systems.

“I think that’s pretty obvious that they ignored the public’s comments,” Baugher said, speculating if the report was predetermined even before the public input was received. “To me, it shows they weren’t responsive to public.”

The report overall focuses largely on consolidation of government services. But Baugher said bigger isn’t always better and often can be more expensive.

He cited as one example the new $100 million Marion County public library that came in $50 million over budget.

In addition to consolidation of libraries, the report recommends that the taxing unit with the largest assessed value would be given the authority to approve the library system’s budget and bond issues. That could mean that this responsibility would fall to the Porter County Council; the report also calls for having a new county executive -- an elected post that would replace the three county commissioners --- oversee the new consolidated library.

Baugher said that with the move toward capping property taxes, “it’s very easy to predict what would happen.”

If the county government was in danger of hitting its property tax cap, it could offset that budget loss by cutting the library budget.

“It could be devastating to the libraries,” he said.

WPL supporters have waged a visible campaign aimed at drumming up public support for keeping WPL a local library system independent of the Porter County library system. Baugher said WPL will continue to make its position known to state legislators.

He said he finds it disturbing that local government, including libraries, seem to be getting blamed for property tax problems over which they have no control. He said local government has been forced to spend millions of dollars in interest due to the lack of property tax revenues, even though they had nothing to do with the late tax bills.

Baugher said he fears what might happen in the upcoming session of the Indiana Legislature, since state legislators are under so much pressure to pass tax reform legislation and that they might “look at libraries as scapegoats.”

Posted 12/12/2007

A comment from the Indianapolis Star that may have merit for further study

2007-12-12T20:43:00.000-05:00

From the Indianapolis Star: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012

Below is one of the few comments that really had merit (I am unsure as to why the link points toward topix.net). It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities.

The author of this blog certainly encourages ideas.

Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.

So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.

Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.

Superb FACTS from the Westchester Public Library

2007-12-12T19:02:00.000-05:00

Mr. Baugher, Director of the Westchester Public Library, has noted an extremely IMPORTANT fact. Namely that in the report (as published) the only opinions noted were the ones for Library Consolidation. There were MANY who opposed consolidation, but those opinions were not shared. In my opinion this makes the report skewed to what the Governor may have been looking for. I want facts, not conjecture. We dare not let those who "think" they know better decide what is best for us. WE must educate our State Administration and Legislators and prove to them that for many of us consolidation would be a death knell for small rural communities.

MANY have the sentiment that if a problem exists in Indianapolis, it must be a problem statewide. Though if a problem exists outside of Indianapolis that needs to be addressed and the problem doesn't exist in Indianapolis, then there is no problem.

Below is a note I received from Mr. Baugher:

Westchester Public Library

December 12, 2007

Talking Points and Responses to

“Streamlining Local Government”