ShareThis Page
Home

Ross commissioners nix proposal on Northland library

| Thursday, March 8, 2012

Ross commissioners on Monday killed a proposal that would have let residents decide whether to approve a new tax to benefit the Northland Public Library.

Commissioners voted 6-2 to end discussion on a referendum to levy a 0.22-mill tax that would have generated about $415,000 for the library. Commissioners Dan DeMarco and Chris Eyster were in the minority. Commissioner Grace Stanko was absent from the meeting.

"This is not about staying in or opting out of the library," Commissioner Gerald O'Brien told about a dozen library supporters in the audience, including Sandra Collins, the library's executive director. "We know what a great job they do," said O'Brien, who introduced the proposal to kill the referendum.

Ross will continue to pay its share of public money toward the library. The township has budgeted $404,000 for 2012. Bradford Woods, Franklin Park, Marshall and McCandless contribute an annual stipend to the library based on a formula that includes population, circulation and property assessment figures. The contributions make up more than half of the library's $2.4 million budget this year.

The referendum, proposed by Eyster late last year, would have allowed the township to use the money it gives the library for other purposes, like road paving or public safety.

Some residents said the referendum — the actual wording of which never became available — was confusing. Others said it was a way for commissioners to raise taxes without calling it a "property tax increase."

"Why fix something that isn't broken?" said Bill Grady, a former commissioner. "If you need to raise taxes, raise taxes."

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.

click me