Much as we may have warm feelings toward our library, this is about basic math and transparency ingovernance. A puppy dog doesn’t have a million dollar annual budget. The Croton Free Library is emphatically not “free.” Let us set aside emotion and analyze this the same way we would analyze any other tax increase.
On May 19, voters will likely approve a 55 percent increase in the library tax. If the village or the town or the school district imposed a 55 percent increase, there is not enough space in this newspaper to print the letters of outrage. And yet with just four weeks till the vote, many residents have no idea as to the magnitude of the tax increase about to occur.
The library says (in bold face, no less) that “This budget represents a one-time tax cap override. Reading it quickly, you might think that this is a one-time tax increase. The truth is that this will set a high base and future percentage increases will be piled on top of that base.
Let’s assume a base amount, and a 2 percent increase for the following 10 years (11 years total).
The current average library tax per household is $229.81, and that would rise to $356.21. At the existing tax levy, the 11 year cost for a homeowner would be $2,796.49. Under the tax levy that will take effect if this budget is passed on May 19, that 11 year cost per homeowner rises to $4,334.60.
The tax levy for this year totals $985,392. The levy to take effect if this budget is passed is $1,526,158.
Add in the following decade, and the tax levy under existing conditions would total $11,990,955. The proposed increase would mean that cost would rise to $16,852,681.
That is a huge difference, and those numbers just cover the upcoming year and 10 out-years. But this higher tax levy on your house will continue forever. In perpetuity. Till the end of time, or until you get fed up with high taxes and move out of Croton.
Where are all those millions of tax dollars being spent? In a matter of a minute, we can compute to the penny the revenue flowing to the library. It should be just as easy for the library to tell us where that money is going to be spent. Perhaps I have missed it, but I don’t see any such breakdown.
The library gives us soothing babble about how this will “secure the future of our physical infrastructure and transition to a sustainable operational model.” Let us take the second purpose first, because it is a big red flag.
It appears that the library has not been balancing its operating budget for years: despite getting almost a million dollars a year, the library has been living beyond its means. It is true that not-for-profit organizations commonly take a leap of faith that donations will cover the deficit in the operating budget.
But the library is not really a not-for-profit in the common use of the term. The library is a nominally non-governmental body which has governmental powers of taxation. So the library operating budget should never have been balanced with donations in the first place.
The library frames this as self-sacrifice: they have stayed within the 2 percent cap rather than cutting back. But I think that most taxpayers would have preferred honesty, even if it meant a 3 or 4 percent tax increase. Sweeping it under the carpet and springing a 55 percent increase on us is indicative of financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency.
“Secure the future of our physical infrastructure.” Can anyone tell me what that means? I doubt many of us would think this means a major capital expansion project. There is a big difference between putting on a new roof versus a gut renovation of your house, let alone adding an extra bedroom. In the case of the Croton “Free” Library, I suspect we are getting the deluxe gut renovation and expansion.
Times change. I remain fond of print for both books and periodicals. I even drive to Ossining because their library has some print periodicals that are beyond my budget. But increasingly people download e-books or read newspapers online. You don’t need rows of shelves for that. Nor do you need lots of employees for digital procurements that can be centralized by library cooperatives.
The venerable NYPL shipped three million books to an undignified demise in New Jersey(!!) until the Boomers rose up in revolt. Remember Encyclopedia Britannica? It hasn’t been in print since 2016, and the online version has been relegated to obscurity in favor of Wikipedia. The trusty CIA Factbook went digital in 1997 and ceased existence altogether on Feb 4, 2026. The largest bookseller to libraries (Baker & Taylor) went from a multi-billion dollar company to bankruptcy in less than 10 years, leaving behind vast warehouses full of unsold and unwanted books.
Sigh… RIP, life goes on. We adapt, and so do libraries.
The point here is that the role of libraries has changed, and it is legitimate for taxpayers to demand a reasoned business plan before approving a 55 percent tax increase.
Some libraries such as Ossining or Yonkers Riverfront serve as safe afterschool spaces to study and socialize, but that does not seem to be a big need in Croton.
Another role is as a community event space. The Ottinger Room has been visited by all of us over the years, and fills a community need. But we also have The Grand, and we taxpayers continue forking over an endless pile of money to the Ann Gallelli Center at Gouveia Park. Not to mention the event spaces at village houses of worship.
There is an existential conversation which should be held, but we are not going to get that from the Croton Library. So let's talk about the money. The talk has been that this will cost 7-10 million dollars. It appears that the library will be funding this with a regular bank loan. At very least, the dollar amount
and anticipated loan terms should be disclosed. As the ones hit with a 55 percent tax increase, we deserve that.
The library says that the increase will suffice with only a need for 2 percent annual increases (off the higher base year amount). But some have run an amortization calculator and don’t see how this is possible, and I am puzzled as well. Loan repayment is not something to take on faith: back when Village Manager Janine King gave taxpayers the numbers on the Police Palace bond, she only considered interest and ignored repayment of principle.
It matters whether the loan will be self-amortizing, interest-only, adjustable, etc. The ratio of mandatory loan payments to projected tax levy revenue also matters. The library will probably slip this 55 percent increase through, but what happens if there is a taxpayer pushback down the road? Obviously the library can’t default, so how will they operate if the budget is voted down in a future year?
Although the library is vague when discussing their financial plans, they are quite specific about your financial plans. We are told that the tax increase is “the cost of one digital streaming subscription or two cups of coffee.”
We pay for our coffee and digital subscriptions by choice. We see value in those voluntary purchases.
That is not the case with property taxes. If I don’t want to pay for Netflix, I can cancel Netflix. If I don’t want to pay for the library tax, a lien will be placed on my home. Rather than suggest what households can cut back on to pay the 55 percent tax increase, the library should be making the affirmative case as to why the library is worth over a million and a half dollars per year.
Croton has always had an issue with transparency: a small group of people run things, often sitting on multiple boards and committees. The village board has gotten much better in recent years when it comes to transparency. Our school district remains opaque, but the library is over-the-top when it comes to secrecy. The library has been openly and actively hostile to public input over the years, going so far as to having a formal policy of keeping meeting sizes below the level for a quorum and then videotaping the micro-meetings for viewing by the remainder of the board members (see minutes, Nov.4, 2024 at p.3). All this for a library to operate in secrecy—a library! Even Ana Teague would not be so brazen, and that leads us to a key point about the library.
Readers of this newspaper know who Ana Teague is. They know who Brian Pugh is. They can probablyname the village trustees and at least a few of the school board members. When agendas for upcoming meetings are released, people like Maria Cudequest and Michael Balter read them and alert the community of important agenda items.
But think quickly—can you name the library board members? Can you name the library director without looking at the website?
For many years the library has operated with minimal public oversight. No social media debates, no Gazette letters. That is a big part of what has led us to be voting on a 55 percent tax increase.
Does the library need a permanent 55 percent increase? Maybe yes, maybe no. The case hasn’t been made, nor do we know necessary details.
One thing I do know is that if the library went to such lengths to discourage public oversight when they needed support most, they are not going to be more transparent after they get a massive budget increase.
Most of us have an affinity for libraries, but we need to realize that the library is also a million-dollar (soon to be a million-and-a-half dollar) enterprise. We need to start keeping an eye on how all those millions of our tax dollars are spent.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
No comments:
Post a Comment