I think option 3 is a very dangerous approach. We elect a City Council to make decisions on a wholistic basis. Sectioning off the various services could have unanticipated consquences that would be even more distructive to the city.
Of those choices, Option 3 is the most practical and has the greatest chance of success. Before that, Council will fully evaluate the ICMA reports to see where additional net cuts can be made and they will also have the public input from their survey that will tell them what we want. All that input will be provided within a matter of a few months.So, in essence, the next step will be to measure the two against each other and identify gaps between offerings and wants. And that will then be used for the "official" survey in November, when voters will choose to re-open the libray or return cut services - agree to pay x mills for x. A yes vote opens and pays, a no says it is gone (at least until the next election (or our housing values return to 2007 levels).The difference between this process and the 1.9 and the .9 is that voters were convinced other choices existed. Now that those other choices (Petition, Resolution, etc.) have been eliminated along with all "waste" , it becomes a matter of yea or nay.Keeping the Library issue and a temporary fix at the forefront loses sight of the proper long-term solution
The time to act is NOW.Council can save this library NOW. Council should have saved the library last November as soon as Proposal 1 failed. By waiting, they've further antagonized the electorate, pitted sides against each other in a battle with no victor, and NOW proposed spending MORE money we don't have in the current budget to ask everyone what they want.EVERYONE wants the library. It should be saved. Do it...then sort out the rest of the issue while educating the electorate as to what you are doing.But to continue to give the appearance of doing nothing?Shameful.
And to anti-tax folks, these 3 choices are still 2 choices