To the Editor:
The $37 million library bond was overwhelmingly defeated on Dec. 12 by a margin of 2 to 1. There are valid concerns about how the proposed project was handled from the beginning by the director and the board of trustees. At their last meeting in February, the Treasurer reported that the final three payments for the $1.8 million “expansion project” were set to be made. The term “expansion project” is misleading and confusing. It refers to the $1.8 million spent on the planning phase prior to the referendum. Most of this money—$1.5 million or more—was paid to the architects. The director and the board of trustees exercised incredibly poor judgment by spending $1.8 million before securing approval from taxpayers to fund this large proposal.
They reportedly now have $4 million in their “reserve fund.” At some point, they had around $5.8 million—perhaps even more. Some of this money could (and arguably should) have been used for maintenance and repairs. How does the library amass millions of taxpayer dollars?
The board is now discussing whether a bond or a library tax increase will be necessary to fund repairs, whether the expiration of a tax break for a local power company will reduce their tax revenues, and whether their annual budget will increase by 3.18%. Suddenly, all these numbers matter—yet they were not raised during the years of planning for this project, which was one of the most expensive library projects per capita in the United States (Spotlight, Dec. 11). The library tax applies only to residents within the Bethlehem Central School District, meaning South Bethlehem (part of the Ravena CSD) and North Bethlehem (part of the Guilderland CSD) are excluded. So, the library tax affects a limited number of residents.
It was a completely out-of-touch proposal. Board member Ms. Brancatella stated, “I think the town did not want the bond as it was presented.” In January, she suggested they needed to do more outreach to explain the bonding process. Even now, she seems to think the problem lies with the process itself, rather than with the price tag and the design.
The Director has stated that asbestos abatement is high on his priority list of repairs. However, according to the New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau, “Usually, it is best to leave asbestos material that is in good condition alone. Generally, material in good condition will not release asbestos fibers. Try to prevent the material from being damaged, disturbed, or touched.” If the library is not going to be torn apart, why would asbestos abatement be necessary?
One last point: the meetings of the board of trustees are very frustrating. Residents can sign up to speak for three minutes during the “comment period.” The director carefully monitors the speaking time and warns individuals when they are nearing their limit. Board members remain silent and zombie-like throughout. According to the rules, they are not required to respond or answer questions. Even when the architect from Ashleigh McGraw attended a few meetings, he tried to remain silent until one resident shamed him into answering a reasonable question. It was absurd to watch. Residents should expect to hear responses from elected trustees when they come to meetings to express their concerns. Where did these rules come from? Is no one supposed to interact with board members at meetings?
It is clear the board needs redirection on what their priorities should be. Based on their public discussions, it appears the board is prepared to go back to the same well and try to repackage the same mistake. The two board seats up for election in May could shift the board’s composition, hopefully stopping this kind of thinking.
Fran Royo
Delmar
Please consider supporting us to access our online content and receive ongoing coverage of news that affects you.
