First, let me say that Im in support of an infrastructure for an educated community. We sorely need that. To get a handle on the bond proposal, I looked at the numbers presented about the upcoming Arlington Library Bond from the Arlington Update (Fall 2006) and an Arlington Times letter to the editor (Oct. 11, Foundation of education by Karen Hobson). I also referred to the Sno-Isle Library system Web site.
I was wondering about the scale of this project since it seems to me that with the recent advent of the Internet, perhaps usage of libraries is diminishing. Like many others with Internet access, I havent needed the library for several years. We do need to acknowledge that some who do not have access to the Internet at home, work or school use the library for the express purpose of Internet access. Further, I readily acknowledge that parking in the present location is minimal.
I did some calculations based on the numbers available from the above sources and had some interesting outcomes. Hopefully my assumptions are correct (I will state them), but if not, I would welcome any clarification from other readers. My goal isnt to discourage voting for the bond, it is simply to parse the data in a way that makes sense for evaluating a capital investment business decision:
1. From the numbers given for growth (11,500 in 1981 and 28,000 in 2006), the population has increased approximately 3.6 percent per year (compounded as will all the other growth numbers be computed) over the last 25 years. It is projected that in the next 19 years (2006 through 2025 increase of 46 percent) that growth will be about 2.0 percent per year, lower than that of the past.
2. From the numbers given for library checkouts (up 15 percent from 1995 to 2005), the library usage has increased approximately 1.4 percent year. So apparently, library usage has increased only 39 percent as fast as the population growth (1.4 percent/3.6 percent), consistent with my theory that Internet usage has decreased the use of libraries. That would lead one to believe that projected library checkout needs will increase by about 0.78 percent per year in the future (39 percent of 2 percent projected overall growth). If this is the case, in 20 years (when the bond is finally paid for), usage of the library will be 16.8 percent higher than it is now.
3. In 1981 when the last library was built, we deemed it prudent to provide .45 square feet per person (5,200 sq ft library, 11,500 population), but for the new library, we are proposing is .71 square feet per person (20,000 sq ft, 28,000 population), an increase of 58 percent in spite of less usage per person now.
4. If we wanted to provide the same .45 square foot per person (as in 81) in 2027 (when the bond would be retired), and we project 16.8 percent usage growth in 20 years, (28,000 plus 16.8 percent would be an effective base of 32,700 people) we would build a library of 14,715 square feet instead of 20,000 square feet. At this future time the library would still have the same overcapacity as planned into the 81 library when new. If we assumed that the new library would be the same capacity in 20 years as the old library is now (full), we would provide a library of 6,075 square feet (16.8 percent more than present).
5. We are presented data that there are 125,000 visits per year. Since the library, based on current hours, is open 3,224 hours a year (actually less since it has shorter hours in the summer) that means that there would be a patron walking in the door every 93 seconds of all open hours. I have no option but to accept this, but my gut feel is that this 125,000 visitation rate seems high.
6. The new library appears to have about 75 parking spots. If each patron drove a car by himself, arriving each 93 seconds, and staying 45 minutes, the parking load would be 29 cars plus employees. Peak needs may be more for meetings.
7. The Sno-Isle Library system had expenditures of $22.2 million dollars in 2004 (the only data shown on their web site). Assuming that Arlingtons cost are proportional to visits of each (3,152,175 for Sno-Isle, 125,000 for Arlington), Arlington would bear 3.96 percent of these expenditures (a little less than average for the 20 Sno-Isle branches) for an operating cost of the library of $879,240 per year.
8. If we assume that the levy amount of $8.1 million is spread out over 20 years (life of the tax payments), it would be $405,000 per year. Its actually a lot more than that since this doesnt include the cost of interest on the loan. We arent presented with the total taxable property value in the library district. It would be interesting to know so we could multiply it by the levy rate to know the true cost. Can anybody help with this?
9. Adding the operating cost with that of the levy, it will cost us $1.28 million per year ($879,000 operating plus $405,000 levy) to have our library. With 125,000 visits, this means that the taxpayer cost per visit is $10.25. It strikes me that this is little different than the cost of the same person buying that book, CD or DVD that they are checking out.
10. I wonder about the funding proposal. Evidently, we have excess revenue now that allowed the City Council to purchase the land for the library. Could this same stream of excess revenue be used to fund the library bond? Could the old library be sold to help pay off the new bond instead of using it as an additional government building? It seems that if we need another building, it should be justified separately.
11. The cost of building the new library, including site preparation and parking, but not including the land is $405 per square foot ($8.1 million divided by 20,000 square feet).
12. Would it make any sense to charge a small fee to users of the library? I dont think there would be much patronage if there was a $10.25 admission fee (the actual cost), but having some small fee would be consistent with allocating the costs to the users like golfers, boat launch users, or ferry users.
Again, Im for an infrastructure that lends itself to an educated community, but I think we should carefully examine our investments so we make a wise decision about this tax increase. After all, were being asked to approve something that will cost the average homeowner $900 over the next 20 years (based on a $250,000 home) in addition to the existing library operating costs, which are much more. Lets make sure we are making the right choice.
Brian Laine
Arlington