Library Referenda 2006: Thumbs Up, and Down

If you wanted to win a library election in 2006, what would have been the mythical perfect referenda? For building referenda, the sweet spot was hit with measures over $10 million, on a ballot sometime between September and December, with no other items on the ballot, in a general election, for a library serving a population under 100,000. For the perfect operating referenda, you'd fare best in a general election, but the other variables—other items on the ballot, timing, or size of population—don't appear to have the same impact. Interestingly, libraries serving the largest population—over 100,000—fared the best in operating referenda and the worst in building referenda. However, no referendum is ever perfect, so you end up with mixed results, as evidenced by the 105 efforts reported in 2006—36 building referenda and 69 operating.

The 36 building ballots totaled $578,184,532, an increase of $118,206,888 over 2005. Sixty-four percent were approved, a healthy increase over the anemic 52% that got the thumbs up in 2005. On the downside, the dollar amount approved added up to only 56% of the total requested, or $324,929,532. The average yes vote on all building referenda was up, to 56%, from 53% last year, but still trailing the yes vote percentages in the 60s seen in the last decade. However, an average of 62% of voters said “Yes” for those referenda that succeeded; when voters said “No,” the average no vote was 55%, slightly better than the previous year (57%).

There was no difference in the number of referenda in general elections (18) vs. special elections (18), but this mattered in the pass/fail rate. For referenda on general ballots, 13 of the 18 passed (72%); for those on special slates, only eight of the 18 passed (44%). Ballot competition was significant; if a measure was alone, it won 77% of the time vs. 57% when there were competing measures. Voters opened their pocketbooks toward the end of the year, with the passage rate increasing throughout the calendar; 88% of measures passed in the last four months, more than twice the passage rate of measures in the beginning of the year.

The dollar amount requested didn't appear to have a significant impact, with measures under $10 million approved 62% of the time and those over $10 million getting the nod 70% of the time. The same was true for the size of the population served, with small towns under 10,000 passing measures 57% of the time, on a par with cities over 100,000.

For the 69 operating referenda on the ballot, this was a good year, with 51, or 74%, approved, higher than the past two years. Referenda in general elections fared better than special elections, with 79% passing vs. 55%; with historically higher voter turnout for general elections, libraries benefit. As with last year, the average yes vote on all operating referenda was 59% but increased to 63% yes for those that won.

Operating referenda appeared on the ballot all year long, although more showed up in later months. Given that 2006 hosted a major general election in November, that's not a surprise. The surprise is that voters appeared amenable to library funding at the same rates yearlong, with slightly higher approval rates earlier in the year. This compares to figures for 2005, which means libraries may be getting caught by voter fatigue later in the year.

Very large and very small libraries seemed to do best, with ten out of 11 referenda for cities over 100,000 garnering voter approval. When voters don't like library measures, they're very clear about their displeasure. Our survey revealed an average yes vote in those cases of only 46%, including four of the 18 failing measures that received over 50% approval but in states with supermajority or double-majority requirements.

Pity libraries in California and Idaho, with their supermajority requirement—the average yes vote on all winning elections for both buildings (62%) and operating funds (63%) still didn't tip the scales in their favor. In fact, only five of 36 building referenda and ten of 70 operating referenda nationwide passed the supermajority test. One of the saddest stories comes out of Del Norte County Library, CA. On the far northern border of the state, it is the lowest per capita funded library for communities of comparable size in California. According to Director Patricia Hector, an initial sales tax measure failed in 2004 by only 62 votes. “Everyone said to try again,” she notes. “We thought the voters would understand the importance of every vote when we tried again. We had the backing of every candidate, board, business, and organization in town. Even the taxpayers league didn't come out against us. We still lost by 42 votes. I believe it is the two-thirds majority rule that caused it to fail.”

One of the big stories is referenda for large libraries. Seven libraries serving communities over 200,000 put building referenda on the ballot, with four passing. Texas was a bright spot for new libraries with referenda passing for Austin PL and Houston PL, as were Prince William PL System, VA, and Range-view Library District, CO. Austin, with a 60% yes vote, will get a long-awaited and much needed new $90M central library.

Boise PL, ID, Oakland PL, and Sno-Isle Libraries, WA, failed to get building ballots passed. The Oakland PL completed a new Facility Master Plan and placed a $148 million bond package for a new main, two new branches, and renovation of the other branches on the slate but suffered a close loss with 64% of the voters in favor. The measure faced opposition by the local newspaper, as well as a small but vocal group that opposed the site for the new main library.

In Idaho, where property tax relief is a hot topic, the Boise City Council placed a $37 million bond measure to finance three new branches in a city that has never had branches before. According to Kevin Booe, interim library director, the campaign was well organized and received major endorsements from the Metro Chamber of Commerce, business leaders, the mayor, politicians, and library advocates, but the property tax climate was just not conducive to an increase.

In contrast, the Rangeview Library District, serving nearly 300,000 people northeast of Denver, placed a measure for funds for both debt service and operations that represented the third try in five years. After prior failures, the library board scaled back the amount requested and mounted a classic grass-roots campaign and won by 6000 votes.

In operating referenda, all four referenda serving communities over 200,000 succeeded. The Pacific Northwest, traditionally strong on library support, saw three major measures pass, for the Multnomah County Library, OR, serving the Portland metropolitan area; Pierce County Library System, WA, near Tacoma; and Washington County Cooperative Library Service, OR, in Hillsboro. The Multnomah levy was a renewal and increase of an existing levy. The campaign generated some controversy concerning what the Friends for Safer Libraries called the library's “pro-pornography” stance, but the levy still managed to get the nod. While both Oregon levies passed in the November general election, library levies in Oregon generally face a tough two-pronged “double-majority” test. “In Oregon, any funding measures that are on the ballot when it's not a general election are subject to the 'double-majority' rule: not less than 50% of voters need to vote yes, not less than 50% of eligible voters need to vote,” explains Penny Hummel, Multnomah's PR manager. “Practically speaking, this makes it inadvisable to go before the voters in a nongeneral election, since it is very unlikely that sufficient registered voters will vote.” This double-majority provision is what tripped up the Dalles-Wasco County Library, OR, which was forced to go to the ballot twice last year. In May, the library referenda didn't meet the double-majority requirement: it received a 58% yes vote but with only a 47% voter turnout. Then, the November general election ballot didn't have the majority voter turnout requirement and the measure passed, but with only 51% of the ballot.

The Pacific Northwest was home to one of the big losses this year, however. Jackson County Library Services, OR, serves 195,000 residents in Medford and surrounding communities. A Local Option Tax on the November 7 ballot, which would have funded 95% of the operating costs for the library, was defeated, with only 41% of voters in favor. The library has passed many previous tax measures for operating funds as well as construction. Now, however, the county, facing the loss of a significant portion of its general fund nondedicated operating revenue from federal timber subsidies, decided it could no longer afford to allocate $8 million to library operations from its general fund. It told the voters that if the local measure did not pass, all the libraries in the county would shut down. This type of brinksmanship has mixed success, and in an election in which there were competing high-priority measures such as school bonds in several communities, the voters chose the ones they saw as most urgent. The Jackson County commissioners have decided to close all 15 branches of the library as of April 6 and have placed on the May 15 ballot an $8.3 million levy that would allow the buildings to reopen. However, since the May election is not a general election, the levy would be subject to the same double-majority rule that tripped up the Dalles-Wasco County Library.

Campaigns make a difference, but the best word to describe spending on most library campaigns is Modest, with a capital M. Campaign costs for operating referenda ranged from less than $100 to a few thousand, with the majority under $5000. Big-city campaigns had big tickets, with nearly $400,000 spent on Multnomah's winning campaign and $125,000 spent on Oakland's loss.

The actual referenda campaign is often strongly supported by a companion nonpartisan library education campaign. In Fort Collins, CO, serving an urban and rural population of 160,000, the committee spent $56,000 on the actual campaign for a November 2006 ballot. According to library director Brenda Carns, the Friends provided funds for an early effort to publicize and highlight the library. A PR campaign was initiated with the American Library Association's “Read at Your Library” theme using local leaders. It began in January 2006, with a separate effort that helped place the question on the November ballot by educating residents about the issues facing the library and its dwindling resources. The nonpartisan library education effort, combined with a classic grass-roots campaign, resulted in the establishment of the new library district and the passage of a three-mill rate that will increase the current budget from $3.6 million to $5.7 million in 2007. The publicity effort was also recognized by Colorado State Library as the best in the state in November 2006.

Smaller libraries also mounted significant and successful campaigns. In Briarcliff Manor, NY, the library serves a population of 7,696, but there was a clear determination to build a new library, since the current one does not meet minimum New York State space standards. With the loss of a developer pledge of $2 million, the village board decided it would turn back to the voters for support though prior referenda had been defeated in 1995 and 1996. The campaign “took on a life of its own,” according to library director Geraldine Mahoney, deploying everything from balloons and stickers to community rallies with face painting. It led to a winning election by a margin of 222 votes.

New media are having an impact on library campaigns, as noted in Oakland's loss, which saw the use of local Yahoo groups to spread the word about the referenda. As with any unmediated information source, this turned out to be both a blessing and a curse. According to Kathleen Hirooka, community relations coordinator for the library, “it was so easy for rumors and inaccurate information to spread rapidly to users through these Yahoo groups by those opposed to the measure. It was then difficult to keep up with trying to dispel the misinformation.” Indeed, she adds, “a couple of newspapers used the 'facts' that the opposition gave them without questioning them or asking either the library or the campaign committee for verification.”

The enduring value of support from library Friends and supporters comes through strongly in the campaign stories such as that of the winning Calhoun County Library, WV, which notes, “All campaign signs, pamphlets, brochures, etc., were donated or paid for by a Friend of the library.” And then there's the campaign committee for a winning bond for a new library for the Fremont County Library System, WY, in Landers, whose members, when asked to describe themselves, stated that they were “as organized as a bunch of introverts who would rather be reading books and sipping a chai can be!”

Securing funding for libraries and library buildings can be difficult in New England. In Massachusetts, six libraries tried for new building funds, with only half of them successful. In Wilbraham, the building expansion and renovation project required a two-thirds town meeting approval, plus a simple majority at a fall special election for a bond. The measure lost at the town meeting and the special election, and the town had to return a $2.6 million state grant for the project. In Scarborough, ME, one of the fastest-growing communities in the state, a bond measure failed with only 45% yes votes, partially as a result of competing needs from the school district and an inability to generate local philanthropic support. Merrimack, NH, suffered a stinging defeat, with only 27% of the voters approving a bond and a resulting loss of capital reserve funds that left the library in worse shape than before the election. Illinois didn't fare much better with operating referenda, with only five of nine measures passing; Michigan's 18 ballots topped that with 14 winners.

A number of libraries noted the competition from other measures on the ballot, or local opposition by an elected official. Jonathan Bourne PL, MA, acknowledged that negative feeling spurred by the recall of a selectman was not good for a positive vote on a library tax. Regarding the Schertz PL, TX, the issue that had the greatest impact on the campaign was the decision by the local school district to place a bond measure on the same ballot at the last minute. Sewickley Township PL, PA, reported that one township supervisor actively campaigned against the measure and put up “Vote No for the Library” signs around town.

For libraries that had failed referenda in 2006, a number noted that they will go back to the voters in 2007, including Illinois's Midlothian PL and Kewanee PL District for operating increases and the Jonathan Bourne PL and White Cloud Community Library, MI, for capital funds.

Library referenda continue to have checkered results, although 2006 was better than the past few years. Libraries are clearly valued by many constituencies, and while it is easy to see that libraries endear themselves to the hearts—and pocketbooks—of voters, it is still an uphill battle to gain consistent voter support for new buildings and enhanced operations. Threats of closure are often taken with a grain of salt by jaded voters, and competition for limited public dollars continues to haunt library elections.

Library campaigns often make do on a shoestring, and as Michael Sawyer, director of Colorado's Rangeview Library District, notes, their “campaign was truly an example of what dedication, elbow grease, and faith can accomplish.” Libraries, and the dedicated community advocates who support them, often accomplish electoral miracles with these three attributes. However, for a country that professes strong support for its libraries as hallmarks of community, leaving their financial outlook to the whims of the voters whose information on the issue is created by elbow grease doesn't always create the best results for libraries and their patrons.