Endorsement: Maitland voters should approve library bond
Maitland’s first public library came together at the dawn of the 20th century. A history, written for the city by Nancy Long, describes an early soiree to fund the construction of a library: “A great variety of beautiful needle work was displayed, and delicious home made confectionery, ice cream, grape fruit ade, punch, etc. were served. All found ready purchasers, resulting in a profit to the Library Association of $250.”
That money went toward a library that quickly became a social magnet, with an ever-growing selection of books, chairs for reading and socializing gathered around a fireplace and a grand piano. Over the decades, the library would grow with the city, remaining one of only two libraries in Orange County that are not part of the county system. It has been a hub of city life since then, and draws approximately 100,000 visitors a year.
Now it’s time to grow again. The current location, built around the core of the original, 1908 location, needs a lot of work. It’s also bursting at the seams, with no room to grow or provide services residents say they want. City leaders have identified a spot at nearby Quinn Strong Park that would be a good location for a brand-new, purpose-built library that could accommodate many more generations to come — with a price tag of up to $20 million.
That’s not going to happen with bake sales.
So on March 19, Maitland voters will be asked to approve a bond issue of up to $14 million that would go toward the $20 million project. This is less than half the cost of neighboring Winter Park’s new library and events center. And the per-household cost is likely to be about half of the library-dedicated tax rate that other Orange County residents pay.
A “yes” vote will bring Maitland a new library that’s designed to fit in with the Frank Lloyd Wright vibe of other city buildings, with room for classes, community gatherings, more computers and amenities other Orange County residents already have.
Plenty of sunshine
It’s important to note that the numbers behind this proposal weren’t just plucked from thin air. They are the end result of more than five years’ worth of information gathering, public meetings where residents talked about the kind of services they want and studies of potential locations and costs.
City leaders listened. They laid out a detailed, objective and easy-to-understand plan for a new facility and how it will be financed. All the documentation is available on the library’s website. And it’s important to know that the $14 million is a maximum cost — one that includes bringing the old library up to code so it can be re-purposed for a use that will fit the available space, and a hefty cushion that will protect residents from cost overruns. If city officials don’t need $14 million for those costs, they won’t borrow as much — resulting in lower-than-expected tax bills. And residents participated, stepping up to the microphone at public meetings and giving their name and address for the record.
A deceptive, spurious attack
That’s not true for the shady forces behind a last-minute, faceless and fact-challenged assault on the project’s legitimacy. The first sign that opposition existed arrived in mailboxes last week in the form of a giant, slickly produced postcard that directed residents to a website tagged “Maitland’s Folly.” It’s a true hit piece, featuring numbers that don’t reflect fiscal reality (in several places, they claim the library will cost $40 million. Elsewhere, they claim the cost should be $6 million and change. Neither claim is accurate — and as of Friday night, the website appears to be stripped of content, and prompts a warning from some anti-malware blockers.
We suspect, however, that there are screenshots.
Here’s what else we know: The people or corporations behind “Maitland’s Folly” have taken significant pains to make sure they can’t be identified. We’re pretty good at rooting out information on campaign finance, but we couldn’t turn up a single clue as to who is bankrolling this group, which didn’t exist before Feb. 13 and is using a St. Petersburg-based corporate registry company as its official contact. Rest assured, we will keep digging. Unrooting the truth behind entities like this are the journalistic equivalent of fun.
Voters should ask themselves: If the whoever-they-ares behind “Maitland’s
Folly” thought their arguments really had merit, why did they wait until the last minute? Why did they take such care to circumvent Florida’s tough campaign finance laws? Why is this group claiming that the city’s numbers are deceptive, when the entire library plan was put together in the public eye, with reams of documentation available from the library’s website (maitlandlibrary.com)?
We do suggest, however, that the city add multiple examples of how much individual residents might pay. Official documentation shows a cost of $110-130 per year for a house with a taxable property value of $500,000. But many residents will pay much less, based on how long they’ve owned their homes and their eligibility for several tax breaks.
For now, here’s what voters need to know: This plan is fiscally prudent and forward-looking. It will bring Maitland a modern, efficient library with the kinds of services most other Orange County residents
already have — at the cost of a property-tax bump that will be far less than other Orange County residents pay.
This is an easy “yes” vote, and a way to keep Maitland’s library as close to the city’s heart as it’s ever been.
As a service to readers, the Orlando Sentinel’s editorial board researches local issues and candidates and offers its endorsements. However, we urge voters to not rely solely on our opinions in deciding how to cast a vote. Voters should check the city’s informational websites on both ballot issue and look at the Sentinel’s coverage; in addition, they can ask friends and neighbors what they think.