As more and more Park Ridge residents are now realizing, our community is in big financial trouble. In that respect it may be like a lot of other Illinois communities, but that shouldn’t provide us any consolation.
As the City Council stumbles around trying to figure out whether to spit or go blind, it appears to us that some of the City’s financial issues are easier to address than others.
Take the Park Ridge Library, for example.
According to yesterday’s article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“Library looking to cut $300K from its budget,” March 2), the Library’s executive director, Janet Van De Carr, is troubled by the cuts required from the Library’s budget. The source of her consternation and woe: circulation and visits that are expected to reach an all-time high this year, allegedly because of the bad economy.
“At a time when we are having more and more need for our services, we have to look at cutting back,” said Van De Carr.
While we’re big fans of libraries generally, the bottom line – literally and figuratively – is that library services are an amenity, especially in this day and age when so much information is readily available over the Internet. Although the Library’s services may be desirable to certain segments of our community who are regular users, there is little-to-no actual “need” for them. Or at least not anywhere close to the degree that water, sewers, police and fire protection are needed.
But if Janet and The Librarians don’t want to cut their budget by that full $300,000, they should try raising some additional revenues.
They can start by charging for all those free programs they run – programs for which attendance also appears to help inflate the Library’s usage numbers. Judging from just the Library’s most recent four-color glossy mailing (that’s a cost that can be saved right off the bat), a reasonable charge for all of those programs might generate some decent revenue; e.g., 30 program attendees at $10 apiece = $300. Do that 20 times per month and you have $72,000 a year – not a king’s ransom, to be sure, but a lot better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Of course, we expect this suggestion to create howls of outrage from the freeloaders who flock to such programs so long as somebody else (a/k/a, the non-user taxpayers) is paying the lion’s share of the costs. That usually includes parents of young children for whom these programs – along with many of the programs offered by the Park Ridge Park District – effectively serve as no-cost/low-cost babysitting.
Sorry, folks, but it’s way past time you learned that our taxes pay for the Library building, basic operations and basic staffing. Entertainment should cost extra, just like it does for cable television, at the movie theater, etc.
In addition to looking at ways to increase revenues, we suggest that the Library staff try finding a less expensive alternative to the $96,000 that is being allocated for “improvements” to the outdoor seating area and lawns south of the Library’s main entrance. They should make do for the time being with a grand or two worth of topsoil and sod.
In only a few paragraphs we just took care of more than half of what the Library is expected to cut out of its 2010-11 budget, and we didn’t even break a sweat. But that’s because the Library budget isn’t that big a challenge; and because we took the essential first step of distinguishing true “needs” from mere “wants.”
Until the City Council is willing to do the same, Park Ridge will continue to slide down the increasingly slippery financial slope.
8 comments so far
Figure it out, people. Either you find the “fat” in city government and trim it, or the only choice is between more taxes and less services.
Those O’Hare people don’t get it. $350K for attorneys who have never won a suit like this? What are THEY thinking?
In an avalanche every snowflake claims innocence.
I think somebody needs to start re-thinking the entire concept of a library. The book warehouse is wasteful, as is a staff of librarians sitting around waiting to answer questions.
This mayor and city manager are turning Park Ridge into a second-rate community. Schmidt was supposed to be the savior and all we have heard since he was elected is bad news.
The library is a jewel of Uptown and is not only a resource center but a gathering place for residents young and old. To talk about cutting back on services is ridiculous.
239…you are a clown. The bad news is the result of the utter incompetence of the prior city manager and mayor. And the library is the jewel of Uptown? Please. A library is supposed to be a place where you go to get books and do research. It was never intended to be a gathering place or an alternative to Blockbuster video or to be your own personal oasis. What a moron.
To Anon 3:29 who resorts to name calling just because they don’t agree with someone else’s opinion: your behavior is just plain sad and pathetic. “In my opinion” (as a taxpayer and 3x per week user of the library), my young son and I enjoy many of the PR library resources, both educational and entertaining. We too consider it a “jewel” compared to other city amenities, such as the park district, which we have found disappointing in many respects. We see a fair number of folks at all times, young and old. I don’t agree with charging fees for events (not fair for seniors, who are avid participants)but would agree to higher penalties for late fees, and a delay to “fix” the outdoor seating mess. In this economy, our location is well utilized and serves a great purpose for all. Cuts should be reasonable. While the services are certainly not needs, I think they should be considered “bottom of the list” priorities before all other options.
AIA:
Here is the way they play the game. The never think for a moment about tax supported programs that they may use and others do not. They have no problem with that! But god forbid others find some value in tax supported services that they do not use!!! They label it unnecessary crap. Apparently 3:29 thinks he has the sole right to determine what the library was “intended to be”.
Everyone seems to be looking for a cafeteria tax system where they can direct their money to only things they use. Sorry, it does not work that way. I would ask 3:29 why he is not up in arms about how much of his dollars go to support the park district. The Park District is far from self supporting and is often used as a gathering place.
As a matter of public policy – in good economies and bad – we believe that public amenities like libraries and parks should be provided “free of charge”; i.e, a person should be able to gain access to those facilities for the price of his/her property tax.
But when it comes to programs that artificially create usage and expense above the basic threshold level at something more than the basic threshold cost, those programs should be “cafeteria”-style, with an additional cost that, at minimum, recovers all of the expenses of putting them on.
We suspect that “cafeteria”-style, pay-as-you-go programs would get rid of those freeloaders who will sign up for almost anything if it’s free. And such an arrangement might also cause the program users to be more discriminating and more demanding, thereby forcing the Library and the Park District to be more value-conscious in what programs they offer.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>