|Peter Bragdon, Selectman|
I want to chime in on the library budget debate. I will be voting NO on question 2 for the following reasons. These reasons are mine and do not represent the other members of the select board. I have no personal connection to the library or the employees. It’s not a service my family uses on a regular basis. With that said, I feel I need to advocate for the library to be treated fairly.
When elected, I promised to be fair to all involved. The current proposal does not divide cuts evenly across the departments for the town. The library is set to lose the most employee hours per week of any department, 10. It is also set to have the only employee in town that will lose their medical benefits. The assistant librarian has been in this position for 12 years and has worked 36 hours all that time and has had medical benefits.
These proposed cuts save $18,000. This money will not affect your tax rate. The tax rate has been set. As a matter of fact, the board set your tax rate higher than they could have to have extra pad in revenue. I tried to set it at $13.60 per $1,000 as recommended by the assessor (who we pay to advise us on this). The board went with $13.65. A nickel doesn’t seem like much but on a $250,000 house it is an extra $125. It all adds up. By the board making this move to have ‘extra pad’, knowing these cuts will not affect the tax rate and with most all other budget cuts being reinstated it doesn’t seem logical to make the cuts.
Between the public works and the fire and rescue departments, the budget is $1,435,000! The library budget was $106,000 last year. Why are we deducting the most staffing from the library and nothing from staffing of the two largest departments? I have heard many excuses including the library isn’t efficient, the library needs to offer more services, we don’t have the data we need to see how much the library is used and so on. If we feel the library needs improvement and needs to be operated better then we shouldn’t be cutting hours. We have giving that operation the leanest budget possible for years.
By voting No, unfortunately the library will be closed down until another vote can be held– most likely November 3, 2020. This is about 6 weeks. Nowhere have I seen or heard that the select board would not put another proposal to the voters. It’s certainly not an ideal solution to lay off the 2 employees until November. After the last vote failed, the town only had 60 days from that vote to adopt a new budget. If a new budget is not adopted the library will not have funding.
By voting yes, it keeps the library open. Currently curbside service is being offered for 20 hours a week. But even though it stays open, it reduces the hours it is open by up to 10 (still to be determined). It reduces the head librarian by 4 hours, It reduces the assistant librarian by 6 hours and eliminates health insurance for that position. Yes , this option keeps the library open, but it has very significant impact going forward. I still encourage you to Vote NO and fund the library fully in November. Don’t be force fed something or accept an outcome because you feel you have no choice.
It seems to be general consensus to fund the head librarian at 36 hours. This is a reduction in 4 hours a week, the same as planning officer, parks and recreation director and code enforcement officer are being reduced by. Again note that no staffing cuts happened in the biggest two departments. Where the 30 hours a week number comes from for the assistant librarian, I am not sure honestly. There is no real basis that I can see. It wasn’t about what hours the library needed; it wasn’t about what this does to the tax rate. It was simply about cutting the hours. Would this proposal be the same today knowing the library could be closed after the vote?
Does this seem fair and equitable? I encourage you to vote what you feel is best. I highly respect your opinion. I will continue to advocate for fair equitable treatment of all departments and all voters.
Please reach out to me anytime.
pbragdon@newgloucester.com 207-740-7528
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this opinion piece are solely those of the author. Publication does not reflect endorsement by the NGXchange or its volunteers.
