December 8, 2008

Hog Heaven!



We found last week's library discussion amazing. Despite the fact that our post was for the purpose of discussing the machinations being employed to attempt to expand the current library or build a new library altogether -- something that is expressly planned for in the Park Ridge Library's Action Plans for 2007 - 2009 -- there were those who, in the myopic fashion of the self-absorbed few, think everything they choose to do merits public support. We had one commenter insist on declaring demands for subsidies to be a right -- that genius, who can resubmit that stupid comment here today, tried to cover his or her shameless tracks by characterizing such demands as "freedom of speech." We're not sure, but we don't think shameless whining for government subsidies is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they included that bit in the First Amendment; though we have to admit such idiocy does qualify in the broadest sense. There's no law against being stupid, nor against the frivolous exercise of one's Constitutional rights.

We can understand those who hold
"The Audacity of Hope" -- but we think having the audacity to ask other community members to further fund the expansion of subsidized programs and shoulder the extra costs for personal entertainment choices is beyond shameless, especially given the current economic climate and outlook, and especially in a particularly privileged and well-to-do community like Park Ridge. We would go so far as to say those who claim to have an understanding of community, and then proclaim their right to ask for more based on that erroneous understanding, do not in fact understand anything about community -- certainly not their own responsibility to their fellow community members.

But instead of talking about the philosophical aspects of community, community subsidies, the shameless grabbing for more benefits than one may contribute to, irrespective of any measure for legitimate need, let's take a look at some real numbers.

On the Park Ridge Library web site, you can find the following --


PR Library Annual Revenue Page







The dollar bill illustration shows that of the $.13 total cents collected by the city from each property tax dollar, "only" $.04 goes to the library.

What you won't find is the bottom half of that dollar illustration page, which was copied from the city budget. We've included the full page (pg. 4 of the summary) from the city budget below for your review.

City Budget Summary







We're also wondering why the full library budget, or at least an annual expense page, isn't included on the library web site -- maybe we missed it?

We figure it is likely the Park Ridge Library authorities chose not to include the bottom half of the city budget dollar illustration page because they didn't want to have to explain it.

But we'll go ahead and try to do so, as simply as possible.

The fact is, of the total $.13 collected by the city, $.04 is dedicated exclusively to funding the library. But as you can see the second dollar illustration shows that of the total funds collected per dollar by the city, 28% -- more than a quarter or almost one third (it used to be a full one third) -- goes to the library alone.

We're also pretty sure the Park Ridge Library authorities do not want to have to explain why the 7 programs operated by the library require 28% of the distribution of funding, while the 44 programs operated out of the city's general fund "only" require 29% of the city's distribution of the revenue collected.

Even more simply -- the city funds 44 programs by collecting $.09 cents from every property tax dollar, while the library funds only 7 programs by collecting $.04 cents (almost half of what the city collects) from every property tax dollar.

How can this be? We think it may have something to do with the Park Ridge Library payroll. There are roughly a total of 100 people -- including full time and part time -- on the library payroll, 65+/- who qualify for benefits.

Compare that to the Public Works Administration and Public Works Service Center employees combined -- there are roughly 73 full and part time employees, all receiving benefits, who are responsible for all the physical and mechanical needs of the entire 7 square miles of the City of Park Ridge vs. the library staff which is responsible for the 36,000 square foot library building and the collection inside it.

O.K., some may say that the library has to deal with boatloads of visitors every day. Well that may explain why, of the $4,792,700 Library Operating Budget, they spend $3,573,000, or 75% of their total operating budget, on personal services, which is municipal speak for "salaries, wages, and benefits for employees."

The point of all of the above is to get the people asking for more to realize that the library already eats up a ton of public revenue for what they provide to patrons. We are not suggesting, nor have we read any blog comments suggesting, that any library staff should be laid off. But we strongly feel that the library programs, building and staff should not be expanded.

While there are those who will continue to profess the intangible benefits of expanding library programs to serve what is, by
the library's own reported statistics, a lower number of visitors than in years past, as well as a higher circulation despite a decreasing collection, there are other city-wide budget problems to be considered.

For those who want to expand either the library programming or the library building, itself, we want to know how you intend to pay for those things. We would like to know if you would choose to cut other public services in exchange for expansion of services you want at the library, or if you would seek to raise property taxes collected by the city? And, by how much? Or, do you feel the city should simply borrow money to pay for the things you want? And, do you realize that incurring debt comes with, dare we say it, intangible as well as measurable costs?

Remember people, last year the city had a deficit of $1.7 million, and is already looking at another deficit this year of approximately $1.6 million.

The PRU Crew has never been quick to defend the city council, and we think they were asleep at the wheel during the last city budget process. But we'll be damned if we're willing to put them on the hook for all this mess and let the whiny grabbers walk away as if they aren't responsible in some fashion.

So! Here's a
link to the city budget page on the city web site. If you want a hard copy of the city budget, you can request one from City Hall. Take a look. Get out your pencil. Start slicing, dicing, and rearranging -- or adding in the costs of desired programs and the requisite tax increases to pay for them. Since there are those who seem to feel the sky's the limit, we can keep in mind we are a home rule unit of local government -- our city officials can tax us as high as they want to for anything and everything that anybody asks for. Go ahead. Tell your representatives what you think they should do. After all, as our genius commenter said, it's your right to ask them for what you want.

Or, tell your city council that you prefer to cut road paving and salting because it's not that you fail to recognize that, beyond anybody's "subsidized two-car driving habit", police, fire and ambulance services also use those very same roads, but rather you would prefer to spend money having librarians pay authors to read to toddlers.

Or better yet, tell your neighbors to quit complaining about flooding every year. Relief sewers? Feh! Go ahead. Tell your neighbors and your city council that flooding is something we all have to accept because there is no difference between the value of relief sewers and stocking the library with current bestsellers.

For the PRU Crew's part, we think people who claim the right to ask their government for anything and everything they want, should also take responsibility for telling their elected officials how they want them to provide the things they want. Think of it as being fully a part of your community.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

So how does that percentage compare with other local libraries.

Do we pay more, less, or about the same for "personal services"?

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

We don't know and we don't really care.

Anonymous said...

Some won't be happy until they get what they want...a new facility that we can ALL pay for.

Trouble is...these folks of the " buy me" Get me" " Do Me" generation
still believe that they are owed
everything.

Let's wake them up and pour a little stronger cup of SB for them today.
Add a shot of reality too!!!

The funds are not there folks!!

Anonymous said...

PRU:

Thanks for the post. I am not at a place where I can print it and my laptop screen is not the best in the world so my examination thus far has been limited at best.

I have not located any data about the revenue for various fee based programs (rec center for example) versus the cost.

Am I wasting my time trying to find this data?

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@2:16 --

How you choose to spend your time is up to you.

You are aware this is a discussion about the library though, aren't you? You are also aware the Park District is a different taxing body, right? And you are certainly aware that if the Park District wants to spend millions of dollars to build anything they have to go to referendum, correct?

Good luck in your search for apples that match the oranges here.

Anonymous said...

2:16, you will find the Parks budget on their website. I have a feeling I know what you are looking to find but I think you will be disappointed because I seem to remember for the most part the fees charged by the parks for almost all the programs cover the costs of the programs.

To the PRU, thank you also for this post today. It is so obvious when you lay it out in black and white but I must say I don't always think of the costs for things I use and like either. You made me rethink things today.

Anonymous said...

ok, first of all, i'm the person that PRU has now referred to twice, in derogatory fashion, as "genius".

PRU--why the need for name calling? if you're right about this, and this isn't just a matter of differing opinions, then present your case and show everyone why your views on this are correct. without the name calling.

those disagreeing with you have now been called "freeloaders", "communists" and, with your sarcastic "genius" above, stupid.

not a very strong argument for your views on this subject.


now, getting to the issue at hand. what's ironic is that i happen to agree with you about expanding the library. i don't think it's necessary, especially in these lean economic times.

what i take issue with is your--and other's--vehement reaction to people simply requesting what they want from the city. you--and others--seem to be saying that these people are somehow in the wrong *just for making their preferences known*.

in my view, more communication between citizens and government is always better. to shout people down and tell them that they don't have the right to make requests or suggestions is not productive. if you don't think their suggestions should be heeded, make your case for that. if you think they may not be aware of how much money is already being spent on programs similar to what they're requesting, inform them. and do so in a manner that doesn't make them feel like idiots.

remember, if you're right--and you clearly think you are--then your response should be about explaining your case clearly to those who don't agree with you. not insulting them and trying to make them feel stupid. that's not going to win you any converts.


as for the content of today's post, the logic displayed in the argument is laughable.

"7 programs" cost more than "44 programs" and that's supposed to prove something? are all "programs" exactly the same?

hey, PRU, if you really like employing that kind of logic, i've got a deal for you; i've got 17 "cars" (matchbox) that i'll trade you for one "car" (BMW).

since you seem to think that the quantity of the item is the only thing that matters, i suppose you won't mind making this trade.


ditto for the employees/employees and square mileage/square footage comparisons. they're intellectually bankrupt. you can't compare them that way, honestly, because the type of work being done is completely different.

it's like wondering why one farmer can work 100 acres of land while starbucks has to have four employees in a five-foot space behind the counter. the comparison simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

so these are the kind of arguments you're resorting to? that is, when you're not calling people names or insulting their intelligence?

seems to me--"genuis" that i am--if someone had the facts on their side and their opinions were so well-founded, they wouldn't have to resort to name-calling or rhetorical trickery.

but what do i know? in my "idiocy", i thought that "freedom of speech" allowed people to petition the government about any issue they chose.

thanks for setting me straight, PRU!

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@3:32 --

You are welcome.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@3:34 --

We like to irritate you, that's why we called you a genius. We knew your reaction would be defensive, obfuscating, and a long winded diatribe completely lacking in substance that avoids any of the bottom line issues.

So o.k., genius, got your pencil ready? We're eager to hear your solution to the budget issues, how you would solve them, how you would distribute a limited pool of resources among all the needs people claim to have, and how you define need vs. want.

Take your time. We'll be here.

Anonymous said...

"We don't know and we don't really care."


Priceless.

:)

Anonymous said...

oh, and here's another example of PRU's rhetorical trickery;

s/he is so eager to do "program" to "program" comparisons (with zero regard for what the programs are or what they cost--just how many of them exist) and to compare the number of libarary vs. public works employees (regardless of what they actually do), that, when given a point-blank opportunity to compare apples to apples (Corporal Citizen's post above asking how the PR library's budget as a percentage of total city budget compares to that of other local libraries), PRU replied:

"We don't know and we don't really care".

yes, that's it. disregard the actual *relevant* information (since it might cut against your argument) and keep pushing the meaningless statistics-wrangling stuff you've been peddling.

keep it up, PRU. the more you talk about this--with your name-calling, intellectually dishonest arguments, and complete disinterest in looking at numbers that might allow for an honest comparison--the more your argument appears to fall apart.

Anonymous said...

"We're eager to hear your solution to the budget issues, how you would solve them"

That's easy! Any old Schmidt-head can figure that one out.

Just fire everyone at the police dept. that doesn't carry a gun. Maybe that'll free up space and they'll stop crying to get out of their rat's nest... err I mean... police station.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@3:52 --

Why don't you enlighten everyone.

As for Corporal Citizen's question about what other libraries in other towns do, again we say we do not know and we do not care. We aren't asked to pay for what other town's libraries do.

Didn't any of your parents ever ask you that rhetorical of all parent question? If your friend jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?

Same principle.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Corporal Citizen --

You might want to double check your story. Seems Mayor Howard has begun his campaign of dirty tricks again.

Anonymous said...

So o.k., genius, got your pencil ready? We're eager to hear your solution to the budget issues, how you would solve them, how you would distribute a limited pool of resources among all the needs people claim to have

is that the standard? i have to solve the city's budget crisis before i'm allowed to state my opinions about your blog posts?

heh. funny. are you sure i shouldn't also be required to solve the israel/palestine issue before i can comment on your blog?

Anonymous said...

Oh my...is Howard telling lies again? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Howard is telling lies again...

Oh, that's right...his lips must have been moving.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Genius@4:07 --

You weren't asked to solve the city's budget crisis. You were asked to solve the budget issues around adding or expanding library programs. There is a limited pool of revenue. You refuse to judge one want or need as more worthy than another because everybody has the right to equal consideration of their wants and needs.

We wouldn't think of tapping your genius to solve any crisis, let alone the city budget crisis or the on going hostilities between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Clearly we haven't held you to any standard above a double digit i.q. score in the mid 80s, which is why we continue to post your comments.

Anonymous said...

PRU:

As I have said before, I have no problem with what seems to be suggested by you and others in this thread (and the firday thread). Without taking out a pad and pencil, I have a strong feeling it would be a net gain for my family.

However, I maintain that all of us ,including you, use tax payer subsidized programs that others would deem non-necessary. What you are talking about is a concept that would apply to many areas - not just the library.

As long as there is a position that is applied equally to all these programs then I have no problem with it at all. So how do we go about putting this list together?? Is it whoever screams the loudest??

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@4:23 --

Again, we look forward to your list and the methodology you will use to support your "position that is applied equally to all these programs".

We're going to stick with the idea of defining needs and wants, and then applying judgement to funding programs based on measurable costs and benefits in addition to considerations of affordability.

Anonymous said...

PRU:

For the record, as I stated in an earlier post:

"If anything I would expect the people running the library to say no, or phase out old programs for new to manage to space and budget, but to suddenly label fellow citizens who make a suggetion as greedy is, to use your word, extreme".

That is my point!!! I agree that this may be a ploy to try and get a new or expanded library on the radar. I would expect our staff and elected officials manage with what they currently have in terms of facilities in the near term.

So to answer the question you posed to the gentlemen you have begun to call "genius" the way to solve the budget issue is by managing to budget. If someone makes a request, you either figure out a way to provide it with what you have (after figuring out if it is has value), cancel an existing program so that the new one can take it's place or say no.

I appreciate everyones frustration but I think, in part, it is misplaced. Just because a fellow citizen makes a suggestion, or inquires about a possible program does not merit labeling them as freeloaders or greedy. I see no evidence that someone walked into the library demanding that all these things be added without anything being removed or changed.

Anonymous said...

Corporal, I have NEVER said I am in favor of cutting a single staff position in the police department.

Anonymous said...

Meet the new boss, same as the old.

It reminds me of a letter to the PRHA a few years ago where a Mrs. Herman stated that Mayor Frimark came to her door to drum up votes. He'd mentioned to her that he was working on a lot in PR and that the Crystal Palace on Dempster would soon be torn down to make way for a CVS Pharmacy.

Howie denied the whole thing in the paper making Soccer Mom look like a loon. That is until you fast forward a couple years later and see the big hole in the ground across the street from Maine East.

The Corporal is no fan of liars at the podium, present head cheeses and future included.

Anonymous said...

Anon December 8, 2008 4:23 PM

What kids or adult programs at the Library do you consider as (or more) "necessary" than snow plowing, road salting, relief sewers, or road paving, to name just a few?

How "we go about putting this list together" is, first, to look at what services benefit the most people in the most fundamental ways. How many members of the community at large are directly benefited by the tax dollars spent on those Library programs v. money spent on any of those same four city services?

If you value a tax dollar spent on someone reading a Library book to kids the same as (or more than) you value that same tax dollar spent on snow plowing or street paving, please say so. Then the readers of this blog can judge for themselves whether anything else you say has merit.

And I agree with PRU: Unless you're talking about a comparable community, AND you're willing to brand it as a paradigm or exemplar of good, fiscally responsible government, then it really doesn't matter what that community, or any other one, does because you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Corporal Citizen --

We very well remember the CVS pharmacy story. Every member of the Crew knew then that Howard P. Frimark is a liar.

The Crew was going back and forth with your comment, because we also heard from a source that Alderman Dave allegedly said he wants to fire all the community service officers.

Alderman Dave has stated very plainly here what his position is on staff at the PRPD.

We have to ask why you choose to believe that Alderman Dave is lying? Did you hear directly from Alderman Dave what he intends for the PRPD personnel? Or, did you hear this story from one of the loud mouths on the pension board, which by our calculation is one step removed from the probable source?

Anonymous said...

Hoover:

You have completely perverted my position!!! I have never even made a comparison between library programs and services like plowing salting....etc... I have no idea why you would even choose to represent what I have said that way.

What I said is that there are services that we subsidize that others might deem unnecessary. As an example there are many other community related services (rec. center, nature center, halloween parties, parades, baseball fields) that are a net cost to the tax payer. Some charge a fee but are still not self funded. Others charge no fee at all.

Rather then asking me if library programs are more important then the services you list (by the way my answer would be no), let me ask you what other non-necessary services you would like to get ride of. I would bet you even use some of them.

Anonymous said...

Someone compared the library programs with snow plowing and salting the roads. You cannot compare neccesities with library programs. The city should provide necessities, and distribute any remaining funds to non-necessities.

It ain't difficult to figure one from the other. Plowing, necessity, sewers, necessity, library expansion, non-necessity.

See, it's really easy.

Anonymous said...

It ain't difficult to figure one from the other. Plowing, necessity, sewers, necessity, library expansion, non-necessity.

See, it's really easy.


is it, though?

how *much* plowing and salting? must the streets be bone dry at every moment?

how *much* road maintenance. should every road in the city be as smooth as a baby's bottom? how many seconds can a pothole exists before it gets filled?

*what*, specifically, should be done to the sewers? if even one person's basement floods, ever, does that mean the city must spend millions on more sewer upgrades?

easy? only when you set up false dichotomies and straw men.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anonymous Genius --

We hate to tell you this, but we can see from our meter that you are quoting yourself in support of yourself. This may be because you wish to appear as more than one person supporting, what the Crew has come to call, your paralysis by analysis.

We recognize your navigation habits through the site too and your inability to focus on the issues at hand, as well as your inability to determine a direction or make any definitive judgement on any topic -- as we can see from your most recent comment.

We're willing to let you have your say, but don't think that you have the right to demand that we produce anything for you.

Until you get back on your meds and stop behaving like some cyberspace Sybil, we won't be posting anymore of your nonsense.

We don't like people who try to perpetrate frauds -- what we refer to as bullshit -- even small, petty, or silly ones of no consequence.

You may consider this your first and final warning -- all any adult should ever need.

PRU.ADMIN

Anonymous said...

I find it astounding that there are 100 library employees and 75% of the budget is spent to employee them.
There appears to be a lot of private office space in the library. Perhaps is is time for a little house cleaning of staff and eliminating some offices.
AJ

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Before anyone assumes too much, we thought we should clarify that there are approximately 100 employees on the payroll, which does not mean there are 100 employees in the building every day during hours of operation. At least we don't believe so.

Anonymous said...

so where are they? and what are they doing?

Anonymous said...

they probably employ a roomful of lobbyists who do nothing but sit around all day and scheme about how to get more money from PR taxpayers!

Anonymous said...

I understand that there are many programs under many seperate budgets from library programs to PD programs to street and sanitation programs ect...

However, at the end of the day, it is our (Park Ridge City) budget in total. This budget is running in the red.

The library has a line item budget in our city. One employee or 100 employee's is not the issue. The issue is the library, as well as all the programs meeting or exceeding there line item budget? If not, our electives must address corrective actions. Corrective actions spark criticisms from the public. That's domocracy. Our electives need to listen and then make a decision. Some will like and some not. If you don't, speak through your vote and keep or change your elective official.

God Bless America!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous December 8, 2008 5:38 PM:

Your position was "perverted" before I ever got to it. But in case you're still confused: When it comes to spending tax dollars, necessities should take precedence over amenities: and Library programs - every single one of them - are amenities.

So unless the Library wants to start charging the users of those programs full value for them, so that they cost the taxpayers nothing, they should be eliminated unless the taxpayers say they want to keep paying for them.

And I'm talking about programs of all types, not just Library programs even though those are the ones that seem to have cornered the "freebie" market.

And to answer your questions: I don't care how many programs the Library (or anybody else) run so long as they pay for themselves and stop burdening the taxpayer; and neither I nor my family members use any "free" programs, so even though we might not be paying full value - because nobody seems to want to charge us (or even tell us) what that is - we still pay for what we use.

Anonymous said...

Your necessity is my amenity and vice versa. That is why we vote for elected officials. If we don't agree with there assesments then we have the right to vote them out. Majority may not always win, but it has worked for 232 years and counting. Name another country that can boost the same!

Anonymous said...

Hoover:

We agree on a large % of the argument. As I have said, the library is responsible for managing to budget and that means no new programs that would add cost. They should also be taking a hard look at ways to reduce cost, as should all departments of our government.

I am sure I have not done the best job of clearly explaining my position - that happens often. My issue has to due with certain people using the library services, and making suggestions being labeled as greedy and freeloaders. You your self said the following:

"so even though we might not be paying full value - because nobody seems to want to charge us (or even tell us) what that is - we still pay for what we use".

You do not pay for what you use. If the fees they currently charge do not conver the cost then tax dollars go to support the program - even tax dollars of those who do not use the program. That is exactly like those who use the library program and are being singled out as freeloaders.

In you post you advocate a system where all are charged full value for what ever program they use. I would assume by that you mean library, rec. center, senior center, nature center, use of baseball fields....etc....

I have no problem with that. As I have said I would probably would make money on the deal.

So Mayor Frimark and Alderman Dave....here is an issue you can sink your teeth into. What exactly are your positions on "non-necessary" services? Will we have a referendum aon every service to determine if the public deems it necessary or not?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8;56 AM, no, your necessity is not my amenity. A necessity is a necessity. You need it. A lot of people are confused about necessities and amenities. That's why the were in this whole credit mess right now. How much plowing? Well, the streets should be bone dry. How many potholes, none. next issue.

Anonymous said...

A necessity is a necessity. You need it.

How much plowing? Well, the streets should be bone dry. How many potholes, none. next issue.

cognitive dissonance. are those extremes really "necessary" or are they just how you'd prefer things to be?

Anonymous said...

anon 12:10:

I agree with the gereral point you are trying to make, that being that my necesity may not be your necessity.

It goes beyond those services that could fall into the non-necessities catagory.

Take plowing, which I think we can all agree is a necessary service. This will be my sixth winter in PR and every year I hear all these complaints about plowing. My experience has been very different. Even last winter with all the snow we had I never had any serious concerns about how the roads were plowed (that would include the side street I live on as well as semi-main roads and Main roads). I would not want to spend even one more dime on salt or trucks etc. Others in town would tell you think this necessary service is grossly inadequate and would be happy to see money taken from a different budget and spent on plowing. I guess they see bone dry streets as a necessity an I have no problem driving in snow on my side street.

In any case, back to the library, I have not seen anyone here advocating a new library or even advocating spending any money beyond budget in any of the posts. At least that is one thing we all seem to agree on.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:21

Are you Frimark?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

It's called priorities.
Great comments and feedback
but you have to stay focused.
This mayor is all over the map!
Maybe the money trees will bloom
faster in the spring!

Anonymous said...

For those of you that think plowing and salting are not important...

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/parkridge/news/1332102,pr-crashes1-121508-s1.article

Anonymous said...

anon 9:46 am:

I am not sure what you mean by your post. I certainly never said that plowing and salting were not important. I called them a necessary service. Are you saying that more money needs to be spent on plowing and salting?

I think that there are weather realities that require responsibility on the part of the driver. The day these accidents occured was a BAD combination of cold weather and rain. I forgot to park my car in the garage and had to chip my way in the next morning. I would also say that the sidewalks were really dangerous. The salt trucks were out in force but that does not mean that the roads will be 100 % without ice.

As I write this I am looking out my office window and the street is completely covered with snow with more falling. Does that mean that PR DPW is doing a bad job? No that means it is snowing.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2:06 I posted it simply to show that things like snow plowing and salting are necessary; and they are so for the safety of the residents in PR. I don't believe you can compare them to library reading programs...(especially ones that are free to anyone including non residents...)

I'm an avid reader and have been all my life. I love the library. I use it and am thrilled to have it at my disposal...but I would not call it a necessity, nor would I place the importance of it on CITY. I do believe children having access to books, being read to, etc, is in fact very important. So important that I think it's a essential for the parent to do these things. I don't think it's the cities job; and certainly not at the expense of providing services that are.

We're in debt already and are stuck with Frimark in office till at least next year...I don't know how we would add to the library at this time. Maybe the mayor can ask Napleton to build an addition to the library...."The Napleton Wing"...it has a ring.