" They dodged a bullet on that one! Much better off to lose both than split, like Charleston did. "

" I voted for the library referendum. I hope next time they do a better job of educating the public. I think most city residents did not know that their taxes would be unaffected. "

" You are right...They had a weak campaign. No community involvement at all, just the library admin and board. Of course they are going to be for it, although they weren't really out there much either. The Friends of the Library should have been out front, plus other library supporters.... The $45 Non-Resident fee probably killed it too. It is tough to explain the benefits of paying more, if you can pay less. Effingham went to the voters 4 or 5 times, before they got their district approved, so we'll probably see it again. "

" Im saddened and a little disappointed, but we will try again, said library Director Ryan Franklin,"

"Franklin said she believes a renewed effort in the future could convince enough voters of the benefits of having a library district."

In plain simple English, they intend to keep trying until the opposition grows tired or lax. Then they will shove this proposal down our throats.

Ryan if you are so saddened and disappointed you could seek a job where they will give you a blank check. Have you ever thought about making do with what you have? "

" Myles, whether a city resident or not, I can think of many reasons to have voted NO on this one, but I really can't come up with one reason to have voted YES. Please explain why you voted in favor of this.

By the way, you must be joking; city taxes would have increased. That was the whole idea, Myles. This move involved more than just creating a library district. Surely you understand that. "

" The library can only levy to a certain level by law...they are already at that level, so the city taxes would not have gone up. "

" I think they should have just a set price for everyone. Those out of town should not be charged more than us in town. If it would have been one set fee like $30 per tax bill would have been fair to all. And for all of the people that would have to pay more than one time?? That is the price of owning more than one piece of property, you pay more than once on every thing now on you tax bills. Until tax bills are issued to s specified person only and not a specified property that is the way it will be. "

" In discussing this, those representing the library stated the city didn't increase their funding again. Not that they were maxed out and couldn't.

Maxed out is per capita, and property assessment and collection percentage. Population level stagnation and TIF are holding them back, if they indeed are maxed out. It also is counter productive to their funding, that commercial property is going on 3 years behind on being done. This cities failures have definable consequences. Perhaps the library should look at and present openly the impacts of what is really limiting their current potential, as should the schools and any other seperate tax body being impacted by various failures of people effectively representing taxpayers. Turning a blind eye, and seeking a seperate collection method, would only increase burdons.

There never was an answer to would the city collections drop the ammount of annual library collections and any other tax collected contributions. Nor was there one for how the board would be the same or different, which is now appointed by the city holding their purse strings. Would they continue to be unpaid positions?

There is no such thing as it won't cost you anything, especially in government, especially for a tax body with the ability to levy an increase.

Charleston has been trying this, since at least 95, and still no clear plan, or even much of a change in asking for trust and a basicly blank check. 14 years at least, should be plenty of time, to set some clear information, plans and agenda to be compelling, fair and not overly ambitious out of the gate.

There is absolutely no reason for a day one 50% increase in budget, with the district move. More people contributing, should only seek a slight increase, if any, and result in more people actually paying less. Until the city says their collections will drop the entire ammount they contribute to libraries, and its verified with some legally binding verbage, there is no guarantee, those collections won't continue, if the library were to go it on their own.

Nearly every tax body, did a max levy, and have repeatedly since PTELL. For each we already get the but its only... 20 more dollars, which is adding up pretty fast year after year. Unless there is clearer communication, set rules and goals, and a more people contribute less proposal, this effort will come up short, as it has for 15 years now, in one form or another.

There won't be much in the way of blind trust for creating any new tax bodies, taxes, or even bond guarantees, because of practicality, and many misuses of numerous areas of public trust, and circumventing voters. If the school board comes back, again with cutting programs, sports, etc, if they can't dig a little deeper than they are allowed, they are already on thin ice as it is. The same factors that limit library funding, are impacting their potential collections, and they need to either cut, or confront those specific issues directly. "

" The max levy for libraries in the state is .23 per $100, unless a higher amount is approved in referendum. Matton is already there. The only rway they can get more is through higher property assessments, or get additional city funds. They can't just levy a higher number and get it.

Inital board is appointed, followed by elections. See below........

(75 ILCS 16/30‑5)
Sec. 30‑5. Initial appointment of trustees; first election.
(a) Within 60 days after the establishment of a library district, and if the district is wholly contained within a single county, the presiding officer of the county board, with the advice and consent of the county board, shall appoint the first board of the district from a list of nominees submitted by the petitioners or persons appearing at the hearing.

Board members are not paid, but can be reimbursed for expenses. "

" That was clearer than anything discussed to date on this issue.

Doesn't change much, about the issues both cities are are involved in, that are directly short changing various tax bodies, including themselves. Nor does it relieve Mattoon for not upping funding, if it is needed, when it is increasing its own collections max levy every year.

Both expansions were including out of county townships.

Any percentage tax entity is very dependant on sustainable growth. No sustainable, fully contributing growth of the tax base, no more, or even less money results. Dabbling excessively in commercial development speculation, by holding back tax dollars, adds to problems that were prevalent, before this town established its first TIF.

I don't know too many people who will move to a place, because of the variety of propped up retail it has. Not sure of many businesses locating somewhere because of the food and shopping variety either.

TIF is an I want my cake and to eat it too, tool, that needs to be very carefully administered. It needs clear and precise planning, accounting, and goals. It hasn't, and there were many studies of its various impacts available, when they established the first one. This cities actual use of TIF and attempts to, are prime examples of how not to use it. "

" I live in the city, but voted "no" because I don't believe it is right to pass this just so we can get the country folks to help pay for it. It just isn't right. "