Don't need higher library tax levy

A Dundee-area library referendum "yes" vote could double your library taxes for two full service libraries. A "no" vote could mean you oppose expansion or its costs.

As a member of the library's citizens task force and as a financial professional, I believe there is a more affordable solution. Consider the following.

Do we really need to construct a new 40,000 square foot building? Why acquire 11 acres for that size building? Why spend $4,279,000 to remodel an old building and then spend 25 years on debt service costs? Will another 10,000 or 20,000 square feet in a central location in the district be more prudent? Why not consider a 45,000-55,000 square foot central full service library rather than two?

Are district population and circulation growth projections realistic? Is the district immune to the state's out migration? Will area employment uncertainties, such as Sears, stymie local growth? Will circulation growth of 22 percent yearly continue when it's been driven by video material? Will technology impact the square foot per capita needs of libraries like the retail industry? Have you visited another library and compared patron traffic with Dundee and Randall Oaks?

Why not consider a more efficient central full service library? Why not do a cost/benefit analysis considering one versus two full service libraries?

Why didn't the tax rate analysis adjust the current rate for nonrecurring consulting costs? Why should Fox River Valley Public Library District taxpayers pay 42 cents per $100 for library services? Should we pay more for library services than the 35 cent rate for Geneva and St. Charles? How does Barrington and Huntley manage rates of 23 cents and 28 cents, respectively? Do we really need to "catch up" to the high library tax levies of other districts like Elgin?

In summary, I advocate further study and a "no" vote.

Mike Tennis

Sleepy Hollow