Hard-pressed to survive
Worthington Borough Council's decision to reduce funding to the Worthington-West Franklin Community Library from $4,000 to $1,000 ( “Worthington library director says vote doesn't mean lack of support” ) may signify an end to library services. Concurrent with another $100 rent increase (the third in as many years) to $900 per month, the deficit is devastating.
The library's yearly budget is about $40,000. Monies garnered from the township ($4,800) and borough fall short of the local financial support necessary to receive state aid, and the library must supplement with fundraising. Last year, it was able to raise nearly $20,000, clear evidence that Worthington values its library, but the facility was hard-pressed nevertheless to afford rent, payroll, materials and other expenses.
This year, the library will have to redouble efforts to be eligible for state aid while burdened with a rental commitment that surpasses its local and state funding combined.
I propose the community commit to making the building library property and not just another source of capital to the Worthington Civic Center at the expense of the township and borough, which both entities essentially serve. Despite the library's diligence in paying the ever-increasing rent, the Civic Center has failed to fulfill its duties as custodian, neglecting to repair the roof, which is leaking in three places — over books, mind you.
If the building were library property, maintenance would be the library's responsibility, it would be eligible for more grant money and state funding, and the other tenants in the building could be a reliable revenue source.
The writer is vice president of the Worthington-West Franklin Community Library Board of Trustees.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Appalling advice
- LCB: Asset to modernize
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Pass GMO label bill
- Latest lie?
- Thinly veiled disdain
- A buck to pass?
- Wrong on immigration II
- Little League lights
- Right on race
- Report reactions III