Library Users, Would You Pay a Fee?

[OceanAnnie]

Yes, it's called "taxes" and I already pay them plenty!

Indeed.

 

[NotUrsula]

OK, so your three "targets" for purposes of this discussion are ...

... books to serve entertainment needs ...
... arguably premium entertainment options ...
... public Internet access for entertainment purposes ...

Now then, my side:

1) ... books to serve entertainment needs ...
I'm not sure what this means, actually, and I certainly don't see how this differs from any list of what libraries offered in the 1950's. Do you mean we should stop buying fiction? Or stop buying anything that doesn't qualify as "literary fiction"?

This function, above all others, if the one that will keep a public library in the black. I've had 22 years to learn what kinds of things that the most ardent library supporters tend to like, and this is it: fluffy novels. They are cheap and they have rabid fans; it costs very little to supply them, comparatively speaking. (We often rent them, btw, especially when you see multiple copies; when demand dies down we swap out the extras for new titles. Mass-market paperbacks tend to be supplied via donation; very few libraries buy those except for YA collections.) This segment of the collection tends to appeal most to middle-aged women and retired men, who tend to be some of our most vocal supporters, and who also tend to be reliable voters.

2) ... arguably premium entertainment options ...
Again, I'm not sure how you are defining this. WII games? Boxed video sets? DVD's of foreign-language films?

For the most part, public libraries collect these because they are in high demand by affluent younger patrons. These are the people whose favor we need to curry if we want to survive. We have to entice them to use our services, and to be positive about our value, and the best way to do that is to get them in the door with something that they really want, so that they will be exposed to the other things we can offer. It is all about the tax money -- the majority of public libraries are running for election every single day. As to costs, again, not really that high, as public libraries are not required to pay public performance rights on materials that are only circulated for loan to individuals. (This is a much higher-cost line item for college and school libraries, because they have to buy performance rights for classroom use.)

3) ... public Internet access for entertainment purposes ...
I cannot argue with this one, but it is an area where our hands are largely tied. Our professional code of ethics forbids questioning patrons on their reasons for wanting access to a service, or establishing a use-test for the purpose of ferreting out that information. (In fact, we don't want to know, because if we don't know, then we don't get put in the position of having to spend money defending our employees from FBI subpoenas.) As long as an adult patron is not doing anything obscene or illegal, or accessing a site that damages our equipment, we cannot ethically forbid the use. We can enforce time-limits for the use of the equipment, but that's about it.

Internet access is a large expense, but there really isn't much of a way to break down the cost for "entertainment" use vs. whatever else kind of use people want, except insofar as it impacts bandwidth needs. Quite frankly, most public libraries I know don't have the funds to supply really speedy bandwidth -- IME only a truly desperate viewer would have the patience to watch long-form streaming video on a public library machine.

Taken together, the "entertainment" books and media seldom account for more than 20-25% of the average library's materials budget. The normal largest collections expenditures are 1) reference materials/databases, which usually are about 40-50% of the materials budget, 2) Periodical subscriptions, and 3) Technical books, such as auto repair manuals, software manuals, test-prep guides, etc., which are comparitively expensive and are frequent targets for theft.

IME, the money we spend on "entertainment" offerings and internet access comes back to us about threefold in terms of public support on election day, and in statistics that we can use to win grants. The money that we spend on the rest of the collection doesn't have nearly that return.

PS: About this:

I'd be happy to pay a fee, as long as they agree to no longer receive revenues from taxes.

Just so you know, the average US family pays about $40/yr in property taxes to support public library service. If you eliminated the tax funding and went to funding on a strictly subscription model, you wouldn't be paying $50, you would be paying at least 10X that for comparable services. IME, libraries that are funded this way drop everything BUT the "entertainment" materials, because those are the cheapest to provide and the most popular.

Most libraries that levy fees for in-district use are those that are experiencing tax shortfalls. Normally it happens when businesses in the area close, or when the local government just cannot collect the property taxes that are owed. In times of economic hardship, public library operating expenses tend to rise, because user demand grows exponentially.

 

[Rora]

$50 seems like a lot. I'd pay if the fee was more resonable..maybe.

 

[gina2000]

In NJ the databases are being cut. Once you cut that sort of infomation source, the value of internet access diminishes for me.

I would pay $$$ to use a library but I think it's a damned shame that education and literacy, the cornerstone of any society, no longer are valued by the powers that be....at least, in NJ.

Oh, and our library rents "premium" entertainment to patrons. It's a great way to recoup the cost of "entertainment".

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure what this means, actually, and I certainly don't see how this differs from any list of what libraries offered in the 1950's.

I love JD Robb books. I think that our library here in town probably shouldn't spend public funds keeping its collection of JD Robb books complete.

This function, above all others, if the one that will keep a public library in the black. I've had 22 years to learn what kinds of things that the most ardent library supporters tend to like, and this is it: fluffy novels.

Good! Excellent, actually. Make them completely part of the retail revenue-support portion of the budget -- totally off the tax revenue-supported portion of the budget.

2) ... arguably premium entertainment options ...
Again, I'm not sure how you are defining this. WII games? Boxed video sets? DVD's

Yeah that's the general order -- videos that don't have research value for high school students.

It is all about the tax money -- the majority of public libraries are running for election every single day.

I'd rather see retail demand satisfied by retail sources. There are federal laws that prohibit government from competing with commercial enterprises, and I would rather not see that objective violated in spirit, regardless of whether or not it is violated in fact.

3) ... public Internet access for entertainment purposes ...
I cannot argue with this one, but it is an area where our hands are largely tied. Our professional code of ethics forbids questioning patrons on their reasons for wanting access to a service, or establishing a use-test for the purpose of ferreting out that information.

I think we should fix that -- I would love to see municipal libraries aimed at supporting high school research, and state libraries (in the state capital, and perhaps county seats) supporting more general research. Economies of scale, y'know.

Taken together, the "entertainment" books and media seldom account for more than 20-25% of the average library's materials budget.

Imagine how much the rest of your mission would be supported if that 20-25% of your budget was concentrated on the rest of your mission.

IME, the money we spend on "entertainment" offerings and internet access comes back to us about threefold in terms of public support on election day, and in statistics that we can use to win grants.

I suspect that most taxpayers couldn't care less how much non-essential services make library employees' lives easier on election day.

Just so you know, the average US family pays about $40/yr in property taxes to support public library service.

And for every person who doesn't avail themselves of your services, that fosters yet-even more enmity toward society-in-general. I don't think it is very clear that society itself yields a net-positive.

 

[bicker]

Oh, and our library rents "premium" entertainment to patrons. It's a great way to recoup the cost of "entertainment".

As I alluded to above, without prejudice with regard to whether I agree or disagree with the law, I believe that that could actually be a violation of federal law. I don't remember the name of the law, so I can't look up the particulars, but I bumped up against the law in 1994 when I was working at Peat Marwick and a government agency was considering competing against us with regard to ISO 9000 compliance. We sued, or one of our (commercial) competitors sued, and won.

 

[sunnydoozer]

Now then, my side:

1) ... books to serve entertainment needs ...
I'm not sure what this means, actually, and I certainly don't see how this differs from any list of what libraries offered in the 1950's. Do you mean we should stop buying fiction? Or stop buying anything that doesn't qualify as "literary fiction"?

This function, above all others, if the one that will keep a public library in the black. I've had 22 years to learn what kinds of things that the most ardent library supporters tend to like, and this is it: fluffy novels. They are cheap and they have rabid fans; it costs very little to supply them, comparatively speaking. (We often rent them, btw, especially when you see multiple copies; when demand dies down we swap out the extras for new titles. Mass-market paperbacks tend to be supplied via donation; very few libraries buy those except for YA collections.) This segment of the collection tends to appeal most to middle-aged women and retired men, who tend to be some of our most vocal supporters, and who also tend to be reliable voters.

2) ... arguably premium entertainment options ...
Again, I'm not sure how you are defining this. WII games? Boxed video sets? DVD's of foreign-language films?

For the most part, public libraries collect these because they are in high demand by affluent younger patrons. These are the people whose favor we need to curry if we want to survive. We have to entice them to use our services, and to be positive about our value, and the best way to do that is to get them in the door with something that they really want, so that they will be exposed to the other things we can offer. It is all about the tax money -- the majority of public libraries are running for election every single day. As to costs, again, not really that high, as public libraries are not required to pay public performance rights on materials that are only circulated for loan to individuals. (This is a much higher-cost line item for college and school libraries, because they have to buy performance rights for classroom use.)

3) ... public Internet access for entertainment purposes ...
I cannot argue with this one, but it is an area where our hands are largely tied. Our professional code of ethics forbids questioning patrons on their reasons for wanting access to a service, or establishing a use-test for the purpose of ferreting out that information. (In fact, we don't want to know, because if we don't know, then we don't get put in the position of having to spend money defending our employees from FBI subpoenas.) As long as an adult patron is not doing anything obscene or illegal, or accessing a site that damages our equipment, we cannot ethically forbid the use. We can enforce time-limits for the use of the equipment, but that's about it.

Internet access is a large expense, but there really isn't much of a way to break down the cost for "entertainment" use vs. whatever else kind of use people want, except insofar as it impacts bandwidth needs. Quite frankly, most public libraries I know don't have the funds to supply really speedy bandwidth -- IME only a truly desperate viewer would have the patience to watch long-form streaming video on a public library machine.

Taken together, the "entertainment" books and media seldom account for more than 20-25% of the average library's materials budget. The normal largest collections expenditures are 1) reference materials/databases, which usually are about 40-50% of the materials budget, 2) Periodical subscriptions, and 3) Technical books, such as auto repair manuals, software manuals, test-prep guides, etc., which are comparitively expensive and are frequent targets for theft.

IME, the money we spend on "entertainment" offerings and internet access comes back to us about threefold in terms of public support on election day, and in statistics that we can use to win grants. The money that we spend on the rest of the collection doesn't have nearly that return.

Just so you know, the average US family pays about $40/yr in property taxes to support public library service. If you eliminated the tax funding and went to funding on a strictly subscription model, you wouldn't be paying $50, you would be paying at least 10X that for comparable services. IME, libraries that are funded this way drop everything BUT the "entertainment" materials, because those are the cheapest to provide and the most popular.

Most libraries that levy fees for in-district use are those that are experiencing tax shortfalls. Normally it happens when businesses in the area close, or when the local government just cannot collect the property taxes that are owed. In times of economic hardship, public library operating expenses tend to rise, because user demand grows exponentially.

I agree and our small library spends even less on some of these items. Our computers were acquired through donations and grant money and they are serviced by a volunteer and our internet connection is absolutely free. Cost to library -> free. They also helped to cut some of our budget, manuals that are quickly obsolete are no longer purchased, we can direct patrons to the computer where the same information can be obtained free from web-sites.

The DVD's get families in to the library and then the kid says "can I get a book too?" We rent them for 25 cents so we'e generally coming out ahead, and they fund copies of educational films and local productions which are loaned out for free. If we didn't get the families in for DVD's it wouldn't much matter what we did with the rest of the library, becasue it would be empty.

 

[sunnyday123]

When my DD was 8 she asked me why it was called a "free" library if I always had to write them a check when we went.

I would gladly pay the $50 per year, and no late fees.

 

[sunnydoozer]

I love JD Robb books. I think that our library here in town probably shouldn't spend public funds keeping its collection of JD Robb books complete.

Good! Excellent, actually. Make them completely part of the retail revenue-support portion of the budget -- totally off the tax revenue-supported portion of the budget.

Yeah that's the general order -- videos that don't have research value for high school students.

I'd rather see retail demand satisfied by retail sources. There are federal laws that prohibit government from competing with commercial enterprises, and I would rather not see that objective violated in spirit, regardless of whether or not it is violated in fact.

I think we should fix that -- I would love to see municipal libraries aimed at supporting high school research, and state libraries (in the state capital, and perhaps county seats) supporting more general research. Economies of scale, y'know.

Imagine how much the rest of your mission would be supported if that 20-25% of your budget was concentrated on the rest of your mission.

I suspect that most taxpayers couldn't care less how much non-essential services make library employees' lives easier on election day.

And for every person who doesn't avail themselves of your services, that fosters yet-even more enmity toward society-in-general. I don't think it is very clear that society itself yields a net-positive.

Your economies of scale argument doesn't work. In fact its the opposite is true. High School students have access to their school libraries and general reseachers purchase memberships to University libraries. Those groups are already being served. Public Libraries serve everyone else, especially families and seniors. If we take out fiction and the internet the library would be empty and they wouldn't be serving the community. You're missing the point. The items ay take 20% of the budget but they make the things you want possible, and they account fo 80% of the grants and subsidies and donations.

 

[can84]

I love JD Robb books. I think that our library here in town probably shouldn't spend public funds keeping its collection of JD Robb books complete.

Good! Excellent, actually. Make them completely part of the retail revenue-support portion of the budget -- totally off the tax revenue-supported portion of the budget.

Yeah that's the general order -- videos that don't have research value for high school students.

I'd rather see retail demand satisfied by retail sources. There are federal laws that prohibit government from competing with commercial enterprises, and I would rather not see that objective violated in spirit, regardless of whether or not it is violated in fact.

I think we should fix that -- I would love to see municipal libraries aimed at supporting high school research, and state libraries (in the state capital, and perhaps county seats) supporting more general research. Economies of scale, y'know.

Imagine how much the rest of your mission would be supported if that 20-25% of your budget was concentrated on the rest of your mission.

I suspect that most taxpayers couldn't care less how much non-essential services make library employees' lives easier on election day.

And for every person who doesn't avail themselves of your services, that fosters yet-even more enmity toward society-in-general. I don't think it is very clear that society itself yields a net-positive.

Maybe it's because I just completed my MSLIS (and if anyone knows of any library anywhere in the US that's hiring, please PM me!), but I have to say this really managed to bother me.

So, what exactly constitutes "research value" to you? If a student is writing a paper on say Broadway Musicals v. film versions and wants to view the movies, they would still have to pay? Or would they have to give proof that they are really writing about it? And what about elementary and middle-school students? They can't use the local library?

And how is it an economy of scale if the state capital is 300 miles away? How will a senior who doesn't drive reach that library? How does that serve the public?

 

[mom2boys]

On the news this morning they said libraries in Saginaw are going to start charging an annual fee for borrowing books. $50 per year. Would you pay that?

I don't think I would. I'm not a big library user. I go in spurts, with winter being when I check out the most books. I might pay up to $20/year, but $50 seems like a lot.

My first reaction is: I do pay a fee to use the library. It's called TAXES.

I wouldn't let a $50 per year for the FAMILY stop me from using the the library.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Maybe it's because I just completed my MSLIS (and if anyone knows of any library anywhere in the US that's hiring, please PM me!), but I have to say this really managed to bother me.

So, what exactly constitutes "research value" to you? If a student is writing a paper on say Broadway Musicals v. film versions and wants to view the movies, they would still have to pay? Or would they have to give proof that they are really writing about it? And what about elementary and middle-school students? They can't use the local library?

And how is it an economy of scale if the state capital is 300 miles away? How will a senior who doesn't drive reach that library? How does that serve the public?

Congratulations!!
No small feat!

I am a life long library lover. I have loved it over the years for all that it has to offer. I take the kids to the library weekly.

I have read snippets about possibly closing the library one day a week because of the economy (same as the post office). I haven't read anything about increasing or instituting new fees for the library.

 

[klacey1]

Noooo, I have to read a lot for work and really don't have time to go to the library. Even if I was an avid visitor, I can't imagine paying more than $20 a year. $50 is steep. Is that per family or per person??

 

[bicker]

High School students have access to their school libraries and general reseachers purchase memberships to University libraries. Those groups are already being served.

Super -- even less need for tax money to be directed toward libraries.

If we take out fiction and the internet the library would be empty and they wouldn't be serving the community. You're missing the point.

Rule of thumb: If you think *I* am missing a point, then the reality is that you're missing a point.

I assure you; I am not missing the point.

 

[bicker]

So, what exactly constitutes "research value" to you? If a student is writing a paper on say Broadway Musicals v. film versions and wants to view the movies, they would still have to pay? Or would they have to give proof that they are really writing about it? And what about elementary and middle-school students? They can't use the local library?

The point is to keep the budget so that it is not adversely inflated by non-essential services. I am very sure I made that point earlier in the thread.

How does that serve the public?

By reducing tax burden.

 

[can84]

Congratulations!!
No small feat!

Thank you! Was definitely more work than it seems

 

[WDWMom]

That is interesting. I bet it won't be long before it happens here too. I would pay the fee, but I would probably only get one card. My kids would have to use mine. I wouldn't pay $50.00 for each of us to have one. Our library belongs to a co op. We can order books from a bunch of area libraries, and they are delivered to our library for us to check out there. Our library is so small we don't have a good selection.

We used to be able to return books to any library in the co op. So if I checked one out in the next town over, I could return it in my town. They just stopped that service. We now must return it to the library we checked it out from. I think they are short on funds.

You must live somewhere in West MI because we have the same situation.

I would pay the $50 because I am there every week. I read 1-2 books per week. But don't tell my library that. Whatever I pay in taxes probably doesn't even begin to pay what I use. In fact, I know my library card number without looking at it.

 

[WeLoveLilo05]

I was typing something and it made no sense when I read it...
We have 2 libraries locally, a free public library and another library that we would have to pay a fee (I think it's $50 a year too) to join. I honestly don't know how the other library that charges a fee even stays open, makes no sense to me.

 

[scrapquitler]

My local library is fabulous. They have a HUGE collection of books, a huge collection of CDs and DVDs, lots of internet terminals and a beautiful recently renovated and greatly enlarged building (that renovation was finished about 3 or 4 years ago and cost somewhere around $8 million if I remember correctly). Here in CT, we can use any library in the state with our library card, and I can sit here at home and browse the collections of a bunch of CT's libraries (http://catalog.lioninc.org/search~S18/). I can even renew books and place holds right from home. Overdue fines are (ridiculously, I think) low just 10c per day, which doesn't motivate me to hurry up and return things on time

We are heavy users of the library. Our taxes pay for our public library, but given a dire economic problem, I would much rather pay a $50 per year family fee for the library than have to deal with a cut in services or the collection.

 

[NotUrsula]

Ah, I get it now ... you don't think public libraries should be tax-supported government agencies; you think that they should be commercial enterprises like video stores. What that means is that any solid argument that I can pose to defend the value of public library services is moot, because you want to eliminate them altogether. OK, I can live with that; you're not the first libertarian to take that position with me. However, I'll respond nonetheless, because other people are reading this, and I think that they might like to know why we do what we do.

I love JD Robb books. I think that our library here in town probably shouldn't spend public funds keeping its collection of JD Robb books complete.

Why not? You're a taxpayer, and you want the books; if they circulate, they are worth having, because that is what we do -- we provide materials that people want. (And just because I'm up late and feeling contrarian, I could point out that books that people do want to READ are normally considered a better investment of public funds than books that people don't want to read; and that's not a professional opinion, that's a public opinion -- I've heard it from more board members and patrons than I care to count. I can't tell you how many statistical reports I've read over the years that show lots and lots of zeroes in the 820's.

Good! Excellent, actually. Make them completely part of the retail revenue-support portion of the budget -- totally off the tax revenue-supported portion of the budget.

Sigh. For those people who actually approve of the notion of a tax-supported public library, here's why not: we have a mission to encourage reading because it sustains a literate electorate, and an ethical duty not to judge patrons who like to read what we perhaps consider fluff. I personally don't believe in having a "retail-supported portion of the budget" -- when I manage public libraries I feel that we should only offer services free-of-add'l-charge unless their cost is beyond our ability to do so, and the value is crucial AND universal. (Photocopy machines would be an example: I don't know any library that charges more for this than it takes to break even on the supplies.)

Yeah that's the general order -- videos that don't have research value for high school students.

I'd rather see retail demand satisfied by retail sources. There are federal laws that prohibit government from competing with commercial enterprises, and I would rather not see that objective violated in spirit, regardless of whether or not it is violated in fact.

Just how closely have you been looking at the titles your library offers?
At every library I've ever worked in, our policy was specifically NOT to compete with retail video outlets. The videos and games we offer are almost always the ones that the retail stores in our community either had
never carried (like BBC Shakespeare adaptations, or episodes of Arthur), or those that were old enough or unpopular enough to have been dropped from their inventory. We generally don't make a practice of direct competition with video stores on their high-margin titles.

I think we should fix that -- I would love to see municipal libraries aimed at supporting high school research, and state libraries (in the state capital, and perhaps county seats) supporting more general research. Economies of scale, y'know.

On this one you really DON'T get it. Public libraries are almost never designed for formal curriculum support; that mission goes to to school libraries. Public libraries in the US exist to support the folks who are NOT currently engaged in matriculation; that is the entire point of what they do. If you define "essential" as supporting a formal curriculum, then you need to be speaking to your school board, not your library board.

State libraries generally serve two populations: state employees and disabled persons who require alternative formats (tasking state libraries with this mission IS an economy of scale; it is largely a directly-accessed service that requires a lot of special equipment to provide. They do it all in one place.) They also tend to be the research service for the state legislature, in the same way that the Library of Congress serves in that capacity for the US Congress and Senate.

We already practice economies of scale, but not by palming off our patrons to libraries that have disparate missions. Most public libraries these days are members of consortia that share costs for the big-ticket reference services and create more buying power with vendors.

Imagine how much the rest of your mission would be supported if that 20-25% of your budget was concentrated on the rest of your mission.

I don't have to imagine it, I've seen the numbers. Without the voter goodwill that is generated by the "free" provision of popular materials, public libraries normally don't get locally funded at a level sufficient to provide ANY research-level resources. Voters (who are perforce patrons)don't like intimidating holier-than-thou public libraries that are the literary equivalent of castor oil.

I suspect that most taxpayers couldn't care less how much non-essential services make library employees' lives easier on election day.

You suspect wrong. Taxpayers on the whole want libraries to provide their money's worth, and we can best do that by giving voters the materials that they most want to have. When I talk to people who dislike their library systems, it is usually because they feel that these categories of services do not adequately meet public demand.

And for every person who doesn't avail themselves of your services, that fosters yet-even more enmity toward society-in-general. I don't think it is very clear that society itself yields a net-positive.

If you're saying that people who don't use public libraries resent the tax money that they put into them, then no, not all that often IME. The truth is that the average taxpayer actually has no idea what they pay for library services; we constantly encounter people who are confused about that. Most "resentful" non-users are rather like the folks who don't use FP at WDW because they think that you have to pay extra for it -- they think that public libraries always charge transaction fees. (Which of course brings us right back to our original topic of discussion.)