Superb FACTS from the Westchester Public Library

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”

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.

Good comments about ICLGR report...

Go to: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12379986.html

From a fellow librarian (unedited)

Steve,
Consolidation my left foot! This is going to cost the
tax payers of Lincoln Twp and the Town of Walkerton
over 5 million dollars! We had a donor who wanted to
GIVE us a parcel of land worth 1/2 million dollars and
then BUILD us the building of our choice and design
for another 2.5 million dollars. We are in the middle
of a fund-raising campaign to raise 1.5 million
dollars(or more). Needless to say, this mess that has
been conjured up by this "Blue Ribbon" commission is
going to cost the people of Walkerton in a BIG way.
Not only do we loose a new building (at no cost to the
tax payers!!) we are now going to have to absorb all
the debt service from South Bend (sorry I just can't
stand to call them St. Joseph County Public Library),
Mishawaka PL and you (New Carlisle-Olive Twp). We are
talking debt service of 33 million from SJCPL,
probably 15 million from Mishawaka, and whatever you
have on yours(10-12 million??). Our tax rate is LOW,
very low. SJCPL is over 3 times as much as Walkerton
rate. So the people of Walkerton get screwed out of a
NEW cost-free, no debt service library AND get their
tax rates tripled!! Somehow I fail to see the cost
savings in that!!But then again, I am just a little
hick, from a little town, with a little library and
according to the "powers that be" I should just stop
breathing and go meekly into that good night. I don't
think so bubba! You got voted in and we can damn sure
vote you out! I am still smarting from the sale of the
Toll Road, so don't get me started here!! God knows
the Walkerton Public Library saw no monies from the
sale of the Toll Road, yet the funds were supposed to
be paid to the "infrastructure" of the various
counties adjacent to the Toll Road. If Libraries
aren't infrastructure, then I sure don't know what
infrastructure is!!

And don't get me started on school consolidation!
Walkerton Schools are a consolidation of Polk(Marshall
Co), Lincoln and Liberty Twps(St. Joseph Co.)& Johnson
Twp ( LaPorte Co). There are approximately 6,000
students in all the schools. Oregon-Davis (Starke Co)
is also a consolidated school, but has a very small
enrollment (less than 3000). The were the State
champions in both boys AND girls basketball last year.
If the rules apply again to small schools, then OD
will close and all the kids will be bussed to Knox.
South Central is also small and would be closed also.
And don't forget Union-North Schools(both St Joe
County and Marshall County)which has a small
enrollment. All this will cease and the kids will be
bussed to either South Bend ( which has a 42%
graduation rate!!) or Plymouth.

According to this formula,there will be only ONE town
allowed in each county in the near future, and all the
rest of the areas will be designated as Area A, Area B
and Area C. Walkerton is already treated like we are
Area Z, so it would be nothing new for us. I once
actually got a phone call from someone at the
City-County Building who asked if Walkerton was
actually IN St. Joe County!! I was appalled!!

Needless to say, I am IRATE about all this. I
certainly see no cost savings, nor do I see how this
will improve services for my patrons. I only see this
as an excuse to disenfranchise everyone who lives
"outside the by-pass" and burden them with more taxes
and give them less for those tax dollars.
I, for one, plan on giving them hell until they drag
me out of my building kicking and screaming.

Connie Swanson
Director
Walkerton-Lincoln Twp. Public Library

Some said that...

I was providing incorrect information regarding the consolidation of public libraries here in Indiana. They particularly pointed out that there was nothing written down about it at all regardless of the links that were later provided to them.

Now it is in print as the Indiana Commission on Local government Reform: Streamlining Local Government.

To the dismay of some I do not consider myself to be a Rabble Rouser or a Trouble Maker. I simply want for Librarians and Taxpayers in our fine state to be aware of the issues and what the consequences could be, that's all. Comments are always welcome!

The document is 46 pages long and does provide for good reading. My initial complaint is that the recommendations are totally pointed at Local Government. I think the Governor needs to take ownership of quite a bit of what isn't working (tax related) here in Indiana. It isn't just the fault of Local Government.

Following is information regarding the elements of the recommendations that directly concern Indiana Public Libraries (my comments should appear in bold italic print):

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform’s report is now available at http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf. Recommendations 18-20 (of 26) specifically address public libraries. The State Library is reviewing each recommendation and encourages others to do the same.

Recommendations 18-20 read as follows:

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

Indiana has 239 library districts serving communities ranging from approximately 250 to 833,000 in population. Many library districts, large and small, provide excellent library service. In fact, in 2004, Indiana libraries ranked second overall, and at or near the top 20 in 22 national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures published by the National Center for Education Statistics. Libraries are important community assets that provide a variety of specific services based on local needs.

The overarching goal of libraries should be to maximize access to services, materials and other information resources at the lowest possible cost. The use of aggregated statistics alone masks a number of access, performance and cost-inefficiency issues. Currently, an estimated 395,000 citizens in 38 counties do not have access to library services in the communities in which they live; 29 counties contain territory that is ―underserved by contractual library service. Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff (full-time equivalents) per 10,000 population than the national average.

In recent years, the General Assembly prohibited the creation of new library districts serving less than 10,000 people. Almost three-fifths (136) of all districts serve populations of less than 10,000. These small districts serve less than 9 percent of the population and account for only 8 percent of total statewide circulation. Small districts make up large proportions of those exceeding the state average for operating expenditures and staffing per 1,000 population and for cost per circulation. In 2006, 15 library districts serving populations of 5,050 or less were cited for failing to meet minimal state standards.

A better balance between cost and service can be achieved. We recommend the mandated reorganization of library districts across the state into 92 countywide systems, with the option to reorganize into multi-county districts when prudent. By reducing the number of districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures.

This responsibility should be assigned to the county executive. In Marion County, this responsibility should be assigned to the mayor. We further recommend the establishment 34 of grant funding to offset the significant technology costs that may accrue in converting and merging current systems.

The significant costs regarding technology are only a small part of what consolidation is really going to cost. The taxpayers in my district will expect to be paid for the building and its fixed assets which will include both the books and computers. Additional costs will be incurred when the Leasing Corporation for the library is dissolved and the bonds resold. Costs for this alone will be in the tens of thousands.

There is also little mention of just when the payback could (if ever) begin...decades? Even in a recent article by the South Bend Tribune it was stated that consolidation could save money regarding ordering and processing, but not administrative costs.

I would much rather form a local cooperative purchasing group for materials and processing rather than consolidate, but even doing this I fear the savings would still be minimal.

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 and other special districts are independent local governments governed by ex-officio and appointed members, rather than by officials elected directly by the voters. Many, although not all, have the power to levy property taxes and issue debt. Taxpayers have indicated frustration with the gap in accountability created by such enormous fiscal powers in the hands of non-elected officials.

We believe that the most direct way to address taxpayer frustration is to create an external local approval process for the budgets and debt for these local governments. We recommend that the fiscal body of the county (in the case of unincorporated areas) or municipality containing the most assessed value within the unit boundaries approve all budgets and the issuance of all bonds with input from citizens and taxpayers. We note that our proposed solution is different in kind but not in principle from the powers designed for the county board of tax and capital projects review. We conclude that fiscal restraint may work best in the hands of existing city and county councils that already are known to the public.

I honestly thought this was part of the job by the DLGF?

Recommendation #20: Strengthen the current joint purchasing infrastructure for libraries.

Indiana libraries have a number of longstanding statewide, regional and local arrangements for the provision of joint training, purchasing and services. While much attention has been focused on the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority as the result of the PROBE study conducted by Indiana Office of Management and Budget, there are additional joint resources and service arrangements that deserve review regarding effectiveness and cost.

As I have stated in previous posts, Libraries have the opportunity to really show both the State and other Municipalities how well we cooperate with each other and the EXTREME cost savings that can be realized. It's time we train them!!

We recommend that the Indiana State Library continue its work to review, update and expand statewide purchasing and service arrangements to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of library services across the state.

The latest news on library consolidation

This just in and to all of those who said it was not being considered please read on.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform's report is now available at http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf. Recommendations 18-20 (of 26) specifically address public libraries. The State Library is reviewing each recommendation and encourages others to do the same.





Recommendations 18-20 read as follows:



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



Indiana has 239 library districts serving communities ranging from approximately 250 to 833,000 in population. Many library districts, large and small, provide excellent library service. In fact, in 2004, Indiana libraries ranked second overall, and at or near the top 20 in 22 national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures published by the National Center for Education Statistics. Libraries are important community assets that provide a variety of specific services based on local needs.



The overarching goal of libraries should be to maximize access to services, materials and other information resources at the lowest possible cost. The use of aggregated statistics alone masks a number of access, performance and cost-inefficiency issues. Currently, an estimated 395,000 citizens in 38 counties do not have access to library services in the communities in which they live; 29 counties contain territory that is ―underserved by contractual library service. Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff (full-time equivalents) per 10,000 population than the national average.



In recent years, the General Assembly prohibited the creation of new library districts serving less than 10,000 people. Almost three-fifths (136) of all districts serve populations of less than 10,000. These small districts serve less than 9 percent of the population and account for only 8 percent of total statewide circulation. Small districts make up large proportions of those exceeding the state average for operating expenditures and staffing per 1,000 population and for cost per circulation. In 2006, 15 library districts serving populations of 5,050 or less were cited for failing to meet minimal state standards.



A better balance between cost and service can be achieved. We recommend the mandated reorganization of library districts across the state into 92 countywide systems, with the option to reorganize into multi-county districts when prudent. By reducing the number of districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures.



This responsibility should be assigned to the county executive. In Marion County, this responsibility should be assigned to the mayor. We further recommend the establishment 34 of grant funding to offset the significant technology costs that may accrue in converting and merging current systems.



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. We recommend that the process begin immediately.





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 and other special districts are independent local governments governed by ex-officio and appointed members, rather than by officials elected directly by the voters. Many, although not all, have the power to levy property taxes and issue debt. Taxpayers have indicated frustration with the gap in accountability created by such enormous fiscal powers in the hands of non-elected officials.



We believe that the most direct way to address taxpayer frustration is to create an external local approval process for the budgets and debt for these local governments. We recommend that the fiscal body of the county (in the case of unincorporated areas) or municipality containing the most assessed value within the unit boundaries approve all budgets and the issuance of all bonds with input from citizens and taxpayers. We note that our proposed solution is different in kind but not in principle from the powers designed for the county board of tax and capital projects review. We conclude that fiscal restraint may work best in the hands of existing city and county councils that already are known to the public.



Recommendation #20: Strengthen the current joint purchasing infrastructure for libraries.



Indiana libraries have a number of longstanding statewide, regional and local arrangements for the provision of joint training, purchasing and services. While much attention has been focused on the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority as the result of the PROBE study conducted by Indiana Office of Management and Budget, there are additional joint resources and service arrangements that deserve review regarding effectiveness and cost.



We recommend that the Indiana State Library continue its work to review, update and expand statewide purchasing and service arrangements to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of library services across the state.

Property Tax increase not just the fault of local governments!

It seems to me that the Governor has made it his mission to blame all of Indiana's property tax problems on Local Government. Not So!

In an online article from Umbaugh and Associates it is stated, "The results of our report, titled Indiana's 2007 Property Tax Crisis, show that there is no one culprit for tax bill increases in 2007. Instead, many issues already present in our tax system combined in 2007 to create substantial increases in the average residential tax bill. Due to these multiple causes, any successful solution to the 2007 Property Tax Crisis must address all components of the tax bill, including tax levy, base, and credits."

The link to the entire article is here: http://www.bizactions.com/index.cfm/ba/e105/fa/73751267G1424J1063652P0P10065383T0/

Fantastic article in the 12/1/07 South Bend Tribune

You will note in the article that even those who endorse consolidation that it will not save much if any money. Link Follows: http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/News01/712010396/1129/News