Opinion: The Library District’s arguments aren’t any better than City staff’s

In response to the City staff memo (that I wrote about on Wednesday), Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wallach made some very strong arguments on the city’s Hotline for keeping the library buildings in City ownership. The Library District trustees then responded with their own memo. So as an addendum to my Wednesday piece in the Camera, here’s a response to the district’s points, which are in quotes.

• “Library Districts have every incentive, and are required by law, to maintain library facilities in good condition.”

I certainly agree that the district has the resources to maintain the facilities, but what if they don’t perform? What if they choose to spend their money, for example, providing expensive services to various groups, and neglect to adequately maintain and improve the facilities? Is some citizen going to spend their own money taking the library commissioners to court? I doubt it. Neither the law nor the ballot measure seems specific enough to take on public officials.

• “Library District options to finance major capital improvements and new capital construction. … Raising taxes to issue bonds … (or) Financing major capital improvements without raising taxes.”

The district asserts that it would “never put a ‘mortgage’ on the property.” They claim that, instead, they would “utilize the sale/lease back process,” or “pledge a portion of the district’s tax revenues.” 

But a sale/lease back means that a third party is given legal ownership and in exchange leases it back to the borrower (in this case, the district). But if the district fails to make the required payments according to schedule, this third party could force the district to vacate the building and then sell it off. So for this to be a meaningful way to raise money, the zoning would have to allow for uses like offices, condos, etc., or no one would do such a deal.

The alternative, which, per their memo, the district seems to prefer, would be to commit a portion of the district’s property tax mill levy to paying back the loan, whether a direct loan or a bond. The Memo then asserts that ownership of buildings enables the Library District to finance major capital maintenance projects and new construction using existing revenues and without raising tax levies. But that assertion is illogical and inaccurate. This process does not require that the district actually own the buildings; the district could lease them from the City and it would work exactly the same.

• “Short term leases of Library Facilities inhibits the Library District’s ability to plan and evolve to meet community needs over time.”

The district trustees asserted in their memo that the City can only lease property for a period of 20 years. But they didn’t read the Charter carefully. The City Charter, in Sec. 111, allows leases of 30 years “if the tenant makes significant improvements to the property that the council finds provide a public benefit.”

Also note that the City has leased the 80-acre area to the Colorado Chautauqua Association for over 100 years, and also has a long-term lease with the Dairy Arts Center; both work fine. Also, the City could allow the district to renew the lease after five years so that they would always have at least 25 years. Besides, right now no one knows how the district will really work.

• “The Colorado Library Law has significant built-in safeguards against mismanagement of facilities by a Board of Trustees.”

The problem here is that such requirements that the district quotes (open meetings, notice on budgets, certification of the mill levy, and end-of-year reports) are all procedural and guarantee nothing substantive

In summary, my biggest objection is that, if the district folks wanted to take possession of these many tens of millions of dollars of buildings right away, then they should have put it on the ballot as part of the initial vote on forming the district and imposing the mill levy. Having it magically appear now, before the district has any operating history whatsoever, smells of manipulation and makes me highly suspicious of the whole enterprise. 

It would be far better for the district to accept a lease arrangement, get some practice running the libraries, do some maintenance catch-up and detail its future plans. Then come back in, say, 2029 and, if justified, put it on the ballot so that the citizens of Boulder, who own these buildings, can have an informed say. Or take the very workable Chautauqua approach for the next century.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more