Search This Blog

Monday, February 14, 2011

Another article shows the library plans just didn't add up


The Oakland Press, last week, showed that the TCU/Howrylak plans were based on faulty numbers that, if accepted as written, would have endangered Troy's financial security.
Here's the truth--if you don't want to pay for a library, fine, but admit that and be done with it. Don't pretend the money is out there at the end of a rainbow. somewhere.
We will have a library if we find new funding for it. NO new funding? NO library.

Excerpts from Oakland Press article:
Latest attempt to salvage Troy library in question
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
By BONNIE CAPRARA
Special to The Oakland Press
The latest attempt to keep the Troy Public Library open may have stalled before it started.
The same day Oakland Circuit Judge Langford Morris dismissed a lawsuit that would have forced the city to adopt a citizen-backed petition to amend a city ordinance to fund and operate the library, Troy Councilman Martin Howrylak is fighting an uphill battle to get his fellow council members to put the library back in the city budget.
Howrylak proposed the resolution at the Troy City Council meeting Monday. He cited the city’s $1.7 million in unallocated fund reserves, reduced future contribution to the employee retirement system, and the city’s attempt to reduce labor and benefit costs by 10 to 15 percent that would free up $2.4 million for the library.
The City Council postponed discussion on the resolution until after a scheduled special meeting was held after its regular meeting Monday night that was devoted to re-examining budget priorities.
However, Assistant City Manager John Lamerato said found money Howrylak referred to from a November budget update is already spoken for.
“Those funds are necessary to carry us forward,” Lamerato said. “Property taxes were going to be reduced by at least $700,000 in 2012 from our first projection of our budget. In 2013, $90,000. That is part of the reason we needed to reallocate those funds over that two-year period of time.”

read more here

3 comments:

  1. was not the number 900,000 in 12/13 and not the 90,000 in the Oakland Press article?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, it should say $790,000.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because the author of the article and her editor didn't fact check.

    ReplyDelete