Another contentious library meeting as vote approaches
Opponents of the new library referendum want a new or expanded library but say the proposed location on South Newton street is too big.
A contentious library board meeting Thursday night questioned the Political Action Team Vote No group which includes Library Board President Bill Hewitt.
Mary Ellen Backer informed the board that the current interest rate does not correlate with the interest rates on the referendum question. The referendum information is based on an interest rate of 5.5% and the actual rate at this time is 3.75% and is not expected to rise. This is important as the referendum question is designed around the worst case scenario and is a cap for the cost of the library.
MaryAlice Parks spoke before the board. “When I found out the president of the board was heading the opposition, no wonder the public is confused.” She stated.
After explaining that her family had fought for this country to ensure her right to have one vote she chastised Hewitt. “You are using your position to get lots and lots and lots of votes and I think that is unfair. I would request that as a man of honor, if you are one, you should resign your position on this board and if you want to run a “No” campaign that is your right… You cannot serve two masters and that’s what you are trying to do.”
Attorney Bill Shaneyfelt explained Hewitt has a legal right to be involved in the political action committee.
Parks then stated that she was only concerned about what the reasonable man thinks about the situation, not what anyone’s legal right is in this situation.
Hewitt says he feels justified in his opinion. “I was accused of having a conflict of interest, but I have a first ammendment right to voice my concerns. I think we are spending entirely too much money. I don’t like the location. And I don’t need anymore tax increases.”
Hewitt has been a volunteer on the board for 16 months. He voted in favor of a public referendum for the Bainbridge township because he felt the community should decide how tax money is spent on the library. He says the board has been divided on the issue for many years.
“I truly don’t think we need 30,000 square feet. We need double the current space, not triple,” Hewitt declared. ” The old library can be rennovated by putting in a second floor. I don’t think it would cost more money.”
Downtown businesses have shared this opinion. Greg Kendall owns a barbershop and adjacent property across from the library. He is also party of the Vote No group.
“We are not against a new library,” Kendall says. “We want to do it with less money. My job as county councilman is to save tax dollars. I think $7.5 million is too much.”
Plans for the new library include using $1 million from the library’s “rainy day” fund and $6.5 million from property taxes.
Kendall says the added tax on business property could be as high as 2%, with a 3% tax on rental property.
The owner of Winkler’s Natural Foods, Landy Gabhart, thinks the old library can be rennovated. She says the proposed tax increase will not be conducive to running a small business.
“When you own commercial property you pay the most in property tax,” Gabhart says. “I pay around $9,000 per year in taxes. I can’t afford much more.”
Winkler’s is also in close proximity to the current library. She says hundreds of community members have been talking to her about the proposal each week.
“Few people seem to want the library. It’s very important for people who use the library not to move it,” Landy says.
The group claims that the current library could be rennovated for $5 million. They say the $1 million added costs of rennovating the current library looked at building a comparable structure at the downtown location.
“If we are spending tax dollars extravagantly, it’s not fiscally responsible,” Greg says.
I am a Winkler's customer and a regular library patron. For the record, I am FOR a new library on the South Newton property.
Also, it seems this has been said many times before, but I guess I'll say it again since the President of the current library board hasn't heard it…it is NOT STRUCTURALLY FEASIBLE to build a 2nd floor onto the current library.
Not to mention the problem with asbestos during renovation.
Also, where are they gonna put the stairs AND elevator?
By the time they install a nice wide staircase and an elevator and an upstairs bathroom, they will be eating up a considerable amount of square footage.
Then add to that the cost of more up stair employees, the cost of liability for someone falling down steps, the cost elevator maintenance, and the cost of temporary storage and lost patronage during renovation, I have to ask how much will the VoteNo plan will really reduce the anticipated tax increase?
I don't want to hear an announcement like, "Oh, we saved a $1M dollars." as it isn't the total truth. If this is the scenario, all you will have done was reduce the tax increase by less than $2/$100K while giving us substantially less. (This assumes the current plan results in a $100K home having a $14 tax increase. I am calculating a percentage reduction in the tax increase that is equal to the percentage reduction in the construction ($1M/$7.5 = 13.3%, $14*13.3% = $1.86). This is probably not true but a best case. A reduction in cost would likely yield a smaller percentage reduction in the tax increase.)
No, I want to hear the savings announced like this:
"The JPL-PAC plans would have cost, per $100K of the appraised value of your home, about $14. The VoteNo PAC's plan will cost you $10 per $100K value of your home. We are gonna reduce your tax increase by $4 per $100K per year. So, if you have a $500,000 home, we are gonna reduce your tax increase a whopping $20/yr ($50/yr vs $70/yr) while giving you a library only twice the current size (vs 3X) with worse parking…"
If the person announcing this saving wants to add a little more honesty and mention the increased traffic and how it will become less safe for the local kids that play in the area, I would be fine with that.
I misquoted a resource.
Taxes on residential properties would be $14 for a $100k home, $45 for a $200K home, and $75 for a $300K home. Not $14/$100K, but roughly $15/$50K after the first $100K.
This assumes a homeowner's typical deductions and such. For details, see this: http://www.newjasperlibrary.com/faq/
Just wanted to correct myself.
And finally, the revised tax amount with the lower bond would put that taxes for the $300k home at $66, $39 for a $200k home, and $12 for a $100K home.
Hewitt says he feels justified in his opinion. “I was accused of having a conflict of interest, but I have a first ammendment right to voice my concerns. I think we are spending entirely too much money. I don’t like the location. And I don’t need anymore tax increases.”
I literally laughed when I read him that he doesn't like the location, because it doesn't seem like he likes the current location either. From what I understand, it has been some time since the library board had their meetings at the library. And honestly, I don't blame them. There are only two rooms to have meetings in: the theater and the genealogy room. The theater isn't really made from group discussion, or comfort, and shutting down the genealogy room is preventing the patrons from using a valuable resource.
Maybe they will add a meeting room to the second floor if they end up going that route. They can ride the fancy new elevator that is going to take up footage on both the main and second floors or take the new stairs that will also take up footage on both the main and second floors. They can wave at the librarians at the new desk on the second floor, knowing that more footage was take for that area as well as more librarians on staff to watch the collections on the new floor. Then they can remember the second stairwell, you know, so the library doesn't violate fire code. Hopefully, adding a second floor won't change the building code status, since it was grandfathered in and doesn't have to ADA compliant, otherwise they might have to take away even more space on the first floor to widen aisles for the handicapped.
If we get a new building, or when they shut down the current library and move all its contents to another location (paying rent on the temporary location and the cost of moving the collection twice) while construction is going on, the library board won't be affected for awhile. They don't meet there anyways.
I almost hit 'Post Comment' and then I realized I was probably wrong. If they build on the current location, they will have to move in equipment and supplies. One of the four tiny streets that box in the library will probably be closed. This might make it hard for the board members to get their meeting room at VUJC building across the street.
From the above article: "“I truly don’t think we need 30,000 square feet. We need double the current space, not triple,” Hewitt declared. ” The old library can be rennovated by putting in a second floor. I don’t think it would cost more money.”" and "The owner of Winkler’s Natural Foods, Landy Gabhart, thinks the old library can be rennovated."
JASPER CITIZENS: In the April 2011 public forum extensive documentation was shared with the public by the Jasper Public Library Board, which included Mr. Hewitt. That documentation included a STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT REPORT of the existing library building from Universal Design Associates, Inc. It was 2 1/4 pages long, named numerous deficiencies and concluded, "We have reviewed the reports from Pyramid Architects / Engineers and from Montgomery and concur with the conclusion of their reports tha the existing facility is NOT [emphasis added] suitable to be expanded as a library."
Let's at least base our votes in part on the sound advice of experts in the field of structural design & engineering (not just one expert…but several). Not on rumors and not on what we "think" can be done after the JPL Board rightfully asked for studies to be done on this very topic from experts qualified to do so.