We need a Mahomet-focused blogger on here, for stories like this:
The Mahomet Library Board made a final decision about the location of the proposed new library on Monday.
Trustees voted 5-0 that the library would be built in Hunter's Ridge subdivision on U.S. 150, if voters approve a bond issue and tax rate increase on the Feb. 5 ballot.
Maybe this guy would like to comment www.savemahomet.org
Just sent him an email.
Thanks!
I would be happy to fill that role or at least part of that role. I am currently on the Mahomet Library Board, serving as a trustee and the treasurer. The decision at last night's meeting came after several months of hard work by the board, listening and talking to anyone that had interest in talking to us. While the board wanted to keep the Mahomet Library downtown as a first perference, we had great difficulty in finding a suitable location. In order to be viable now and in the future, the building site needs at least 3 acres. Very few of the downtown sites met that criteria. There were other problems we saw with downtown sites, such as lack of parking or added traffic congestion. We envision, and were often told, that the library needs to be a community-centered building and while having that downtown would have been ideal, the lack of available- and affordable- property caused us to view the Hunters Ridge property on Route 150 east of the village center, as the best site available. The library already holds a mortgage on that property, having purchased it last year in anticipation of a building project. Unfortunately, that referendum failed (by a slim margin) and that brought us to where we are today. The board scaled back the size of the building, and removed several of the proposed "amenities" that were identified by the Mahomet community as frills that were not needed. The board and the Friends of the Library are embarking on a publicity drive that will serve to provide as much information as possible to the voters in the district before the February 5 election. Thanks for posting this so that I could have a place to comment. I will check back to see what other information might be useful to people.
Thanks for commenting.
I hope you will register and post a blog entry every now and then so that people can discuss the library referendum effort, and Mahomet politics in general.
As Johnny Carson used to say: If you buy the premise, you buy the bit". By determining that: "in order to be viable now and in the future, the building site needs at least 3 acres.' the mostly appointed Library Board set on a course to justify the secret land purchase decision made in 2006. They set on a course of a fake fact finding mission, making up stories about how he old Methodist church was unavailable, only to be told that it could be available. The Trustees then called for more public input on that site, only to close the meeting scheduled to discuss that building after about 30 seconds after opening the meeting. The Trustees dismissd the very viable option of adding onto the north of the existing building without any cost analysis. The people who run the Library are not responsible to the voters, hide under the shield of exemptions to the Open Meetings Act and in general act with disregard for the will of the residents of the Township.
hank
I heard that there was a last minute offer to possibly sell the downtown church. I'd like to know more about the specifics as to why that didn't work.
I would also love to see laid out: the current tax rate, and the proposed new tax rate for the next few years. I saw the proposal on a sample ballot, and it was much more complicated than just asking for a 1-time rate increase. I'd love to hear that explained.
The downtown church property that we looked at is located in downtown Mahomet and is currently called the Mahomet Bible Church, many know it as the former location of the United Mehodist Church. The owners of the church did speak with the Mahomet Library Board about a possible sale and the board toured the church building. While the building makes a beautiful church, the board did not think that the transition to a useable library building was feasible. Additionally, the property sits on less than 1 acre which was also a negative factor in our deliberations. We also considered the matter of demoltion of a portion of the building and then ever-expensive "unknowns" that we would have faced when trying to retro-fit a building as old as that one for a facility with very specific needs, such as a library. More information about the places we looked at and the questions that we answered can be found at www.mahometpubliclibrary.org
The idea of 2 questions on the ballot was a difficult one to work though. Much of the oppositon to the idea during the last election seemed to center around the fact that the proposed increase was too much and would last forever. The board spent a lot of time looking at the impact of an increase on the taxpayers and looking at how to better present the information to the voters. We decided on 2 questions, the bond question is intended to fund the building and the land and has a 20 year pay-off. The other question is an operating increase, intended to provide operating funds for the new facility. Our hope is that the citizens of the district will be able to support both of these questions and vote yes. The proposed increase is a total of 17 cents, with 9 cents of that going towards the bond question and 8 cents going towards the operating question. The wording on the ballot, as I understand it, is required language and could not be changed. The estimated impact on a homeowner with a $100,000 home will be $48.17 cents a year increase. The board feels that this is a reasonable request, and a long overdue initiative. If you have never been to the current Mahomet Library please take a moment to drop by and visit. Our next meeting is on February 11, 2008 at 6pm in the basement of the Mahomet Public Library. The public is encouraged to attend. I can be reached directly by email at panthen@mahometpubliclibrary.org. I hope I was able to answer your questions.
what is the current rate?
The current rate is .2054
thank you for the info Ann.
I personally am still on the fence on this one. An increase of .17 to a current rate of .2054 is pretty hefty - over 80%.
Still, I know that this .17 is much lower than the last proposal. And I don't have a huge issue with the proposed location, although I know many do. And, it sure does look like we are mooching off of the Lincoln Trail system, which doesn't make me feel good.
I am open to persuasion.
"And, it sure does look like we are mooching off of the Lincoln Trail system, which doesn't make me feel good."
I disagree about mooching off Lincoln Trail Library System, Mahomet is a member of LTLS as are most of the public and many academic libraries in central Illinois, These smaller libraries are partners in the exchange of books, DVD's CD's that would normally not be in the budget of many small libraries. I know of a few libraries that are in the LTLS service area that are both school, and public libraries , The Central Citizens library in Clifton is one that is housed in the Central High Building. Has Mahomet considered doing the same at one of their schools? Last year LTLS delivered over 900000 items in central Illinois. I hope the citizens of Mahomet's continue to use all the services offered by all the libraries in the state, Get your books at any library and return them to any library, LTLS will get them back home.
And, it sure does look like we are mooching off of the Lincoln Trail system, which doesn't make me feel good.
This is scary. Bill Volk has taken over RSW's mind!
OK, maybe I don't understand the how that whole thing works then. My impression was that if your library joined this network, you have access to the networks materials and all the network has access to yours. Is that not right?
If it is right, then Mahomet residents are getting access to bunches of material, and providing very little to others.
Mahomet ships out a tremendous amout of books and other materials, All libriares can not have all the books and other materials that everyone needs, that's why Lincoln Trail and the other regional systems were created.
so I shouldn't let guilt effect my decision then? Because I would hate to think that I am asking Champaign residents to subsidize my reading habits :-)
Well, I feel guilty. While it's true that all libraries cannot have all the books that everyone needs, as I understand it, the LTLS was created to augment, not replace, a local town's library. I don't think that other towns want to subsidize the majority of Mahomet's residents' library needs if it negatively impacts their ability to deliver services to their own taxpayers; in fact, restrictions have already begun to be placed on borrowing so that libraries can keep certain parts of their collections for their residents. And, of course, this doesn't even take into account the issue of computer access and study opportunities for students that we can't "borrow in a bag" from LTLS.
The statement that Mahomet residents are getting access to bunches and providing very little to others is right on, in my opinion.
As director of the Mahomet Public Library, I would like to reply to the comments about “mooching” off the other Lincoln Trail Library System member libraries. The Lincoln Trail Libraries System is a consortium of 122 libraries of different types: public, school, college and special. The strength of the consortium is the enormous and endless variety of materials we may borrow from each other. We are not “branches” of one big library, however. Each of the member libraries is “owned” and supported by their tax payers.
Although other libraries have graciously worked with Mahomet to help meet our residents’ needs, it has come at a cost to their own constituents. Recent changes in interlibrary borrowing privileges for new materials, for example, give priority to the library’s own patrons, which is understandable. What this means for Mahomet residents is less accessibility to materials, a situation that probably won’t improve and could become even more restrictive in the future as the other libraries struggle to meet their own patrons needs.
Interlibrary loan is a tremendous benefit of library system membership, and we encourage our patrons to take advantage of it. To meet the responsibilities of consortia membership, however, we must have a collection that enables us to share with others in return. We cannot "grow" our collection in our current building.
I would like to reply to the question about the library’s tax rate. Our current tax rate is .2016 (slightly more than 20 cents on $100 equalized assessed valuation). Our rate had been stated in another post as being .2054, but that was last year’s rate. Our rate is declining every year due to tax caps.
The April 2007 referendum had one proposition requesting a 33 cent increase in the tax limiting rate. This included a bond for a new building and money for operating expenses. Many people objected because they thought the bond would not expire (it would) and because the question was confusing. The board absolutely agrees and thus decided to have two propositions on this ballot.
The February 2008 ballot requests a 17 cents total increase in the tax rate, which is a 49% reduction over the prior year’s request. The first proposition is for a bond of $3,325,000 for a new building. (The board shaved over $1.1 million off the project cost.) The second is for a limiting rate increase to operate the building. Of the .17 request, 9 cents is for the 20 year building bond and 8 cents is for operating the building. Please see the Sample Ballots, Project Comparison, and Q & A on our web site www.mahometpubliclibrary.org. The trustees and I will be happy to respond to your questions.
Lynn, thanks for answering questions on this board.
What is the purpose/reason for the language:
Does this keep the tax caps from lowering the rate for 4 years? If so, why was that deemed necessary?
The proposition is requesting that the limiting rate (8 cents), once approved, remain the same for the next four years. The bond (9 cents) is not subject to tax caps. As of 2012, the limiting rate would be subject to tax caps and would likely decline annually.
The reason for the decision to maintain the limiting rate at 8 cents for four years, as stated by the trustees at their November 19 open meeting, was because we had lost so much ground in collection building over the prior 15 years. In addition, more than $1 million was cut from the building project, including some funding for materials. The 8 cent limiting rate for the next four years will help us to catch up so we can develop a broader collection and meet patron demand.
Building up the collection seems like a reasonable reason. Thank you for your response.
(Let me request that these purchases be books, and not videos. Personal pet peeve of mine - we have places that rent videos, we don't need a taxpayer-funded library providing free movie rentals to people. Ok, rant over.)