Letter to the Editor: Understand the Library Facts

I am writing to respond to the various letters opposing the expansion. I respectfully disagree with many of the points featured in those letters and ask you to consider these thoughts:

1. The Dec. 13 vote is whether to approve a debt exclusion for the bond to pay for the Town’s share of the project. It is not a Proposition 2½ override vote. The town commonly debt excludes the borrowing for major projects.

2. The $40+ million for other projects mentioned by two letters refers to projects that may come before Town Meeting at some point down the road. There are many steps that must occur before any of these projects reach that point. None of these projects will impact our tax bills until they are approved at Town Meeting. In contrast, the library project has been approved at Town Meeting. Implying that voters have to choose between the library and a list of potential projects is unfair.

3. The Town’s share of the Library project is $6.7 million, not $11 million as stated by Mr. [Peter] Adams. The total project cost is $11.7 million, with the state paying $5 million.

4. The borrowing period for the library bond will be determined by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Adams refers to a Finance Committee memo recommending that shorter periods be used for smaller projects. That memo was a response to BOS’s request for Finance Committee input on the Energy Committee proposal that included a 20-year borrowing. The Finance Committee and the BOS, including Mr. Adams, know that the BOS decides how long to borrow for each bond-funded project. The BOS must balance the desire to quickly pay off debt against the taxpayers’ ability to pay more per year for shorter bonds. Longer periods increase total cost but lessen the impact on a year-by-year basis as we are repaying less principle. It’s important to understand the historical practice of funding project for 10 years, but there is no reason to not consider longer periods if the circumstances warrant doing so. In any case, the Finance Committee was well aware that the library bonding period might be shorter than 20 years when it supported passage of Article 5 at the October Town Meeting.

5. The average tax impact for a 10-year bond is not twice that for a 20-year bond because the total interest cost is much less. The 10-year average cost might be about $123, not $150+ as suggested in two of the letters. A 15-year bond might cost about $93 a year on average and might well be a workable solution.

6. One letter claims that “…libraries are dinosaurs….” If that’s true, why is circulation, number of library cards issued and patronage increasing year after year here in Grafton, in the state and across the country? Libraries are increasingly relevant, especially when they are allowed to provide a full range of services. This would be the impact of approving our library project.

7. Nelson Park would not be lost to Grafton if the Nelson Memorial Library building is put to another use. Mr. Nelson’s will left his estate (land and buildings) to the town. It clearly states that the park would be lost if the town stops using it as a park. His will separately gave $20,000 to the town to build a library. It imposed no requirement that the building be used as a library forever. And it gives the Nelson Park Trustees total discretion as to how the park’s facilities will be used. The Trustees relied on a similar reading of Mr. Nelson’s will by Town Counsel when closing the branches several years ago. [See “Nelson Park and Memorial Library, North Grafton, Mass. Its History and Purpose” written by its Board of Trustees in 1963, pp4-6. This is on the Town website: http://www.town.grafton.ma.us/Public_Documents/GraftonMA_Committees/Library%20Trustees/TrusteesNelson/Nelson%20Trust_History.PDF]

8. Various letters urge that we reopen the Nelson Library; others assert that “nothing has changed at the main library” as a result of closing the branches. Reopening one or both former branch libraries would take us back to the position that led to their closing several years ago: inefficient use of staff and costly repetition and separation of services, in addition to cost of heat, lights and maintenance. The total space available among the three buildings might come to 10,000 square feet, about 1/3 of the space in the proposed library.

The staff (and budget dollars) released to be used at the main library when the branches were closed has enabled significant improvement of services at the library. Hours of operation have been standardized and expanded. The library’s collection has grown faster than would have been possible. More technology is available. Much has changed at our library. But the current size and structure of our building limits continued growth to meet current and future demands.

9. Similarly, one writer urges that we permanently move the library to the former Rite-Aid store in North Grafton. The Rite-Aid store contains about 8,000 square feet of space. That’s more space than we have today, but only about 28% of the proposed library space. That space might work for temporary quarters (which expense is already included in the total project cost) but not for a permanent home. The Rite-Aid parking is about 36 spaces, much less than the 86 planned for the expanded Library.

10. Another writer challenges the project because of the cost to “fill and level” the land behind the library. The land purchased from the Perreaults will be used for parking, the cost is already included in the total project cost. There is no additional cost for using this land.

There are many good reasons to move ahead with the library project. We will create a library that is a community highlight, and a place where multiple generations of residents can access information for pleasure, education, career searching, etc., and it can be done by families, simultaneously (unlike what would happen if the children’s and adult’s sections were separated between the Center and Nelson branches, as has been suggested). It will offer technology and space for many purposes and serve as a place of life-long learning. And it will be accessible to all.

I hope that these clarifications and visions of what we can accomplish with this project are helpful to the voters of Grafton. I believe it is appropriate for Grafton voters to trust the combined efforts of our Finance Committee (made up of dedicated and tenacious watchdogs of our tax dollars), the Library Trustees (also wonderful and dedicated volunteers) and the years of thorough review by expert consultant services.

And please understand, I have a well-earned reputation for being frugal (read…cheap!), but I am still willing to support very good community issues for the greater good of the entire town. I hope that you will go to the polls Dec. 13 and vote yes to approve the debt exclusion and to move ahead with this project.

Bob Lewis, Chairman

Committee to Support Expansion of the Grafton Public Library