Supporters of a new Greenfield Public Library clearly aren’t messing around when it comes to getting a new facility.
Library supporters clad in bright green shirts bum-rushed last week’s Greenfield City Council meeting in the latest chapter of what has become one of the largest community mobilizations this town has seen since a biomass plant was proposed for the northern end of town.
The question is, will it be enough to convince this fiscally austere council to add another $19.5 million in bonding authority to an already large and growing portfolio of “big ticket” projects?
Library supporters say the council approval is critical to securing a rare, $9 million state grant that will help finance the construction. Supporters have also promised to augment that effort with a fundraising campaign to reduce any potential costs to the city’s already beleaguered taxpayers.
It’s a compelling argument that may be enough to secure support from a majority of council members, but that’s not what’s needed here. It’s going to take a super majority — nine votes — to move this thing forward, and that may be a tough bar to clear, regardless of how many pro-library signs are showing up on people’s lawns.
The problem is not the project. I think most people agree that the current library is inadequate and needs to be replaced with something a little more modern and accessible, and this design would certainly seem to fit the bill.
The biggest stumbling block facing this project is funding ambiguity, for which this council has already shown a healthy disdain. If the city agrees to take on that $19.5 million debt and does get the $9 million from the state, it still leaves Greenfield on the hook for $10.5 million.
Library supporters have promised to launch a vigorous fundraising campaign, which will help, but probably won’t raise anywhere close to $10.5 million, which means there will have to be a capital outlay of some kind from a city that just built a new high school, parking garage and senior center, and still has to build either a public safety complex – not to mention the millions in potential sewer repairs that are reportedly lurking beneath the city’s streets.
Then there is the council itself, which spent the better part of three hours last week haggling over a few hundred thousand dollars just to set the tax rate. I don’t expect these guys to fork over $19.5 million in borrowing authority without asking a lot of questions, which library supporters had better be prepared to answer during the upcoming forum on the project, which takes place Dec. 13 at Greenfield High School.
Not every member of the Greenfield council is prepared to lay the blame for the city’s financial issues at the feet of Mayor Bill Martin.
A visibly frustrated Council Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Ashli Stempel took to the floor last week to decry the “blame game” certain councilors are playing with regard to Martin’s handling of the budget.
“This isn’t just town hall’s fault,” Stempel said. “We need to stop blaming, find solutions, and move on because the people of Greenfield deserve it.”
Stempel says the council’s recent budget slashing efforts have left a number of departments under-funded, most notably the health department, which still does not have the full complement of inspectors it needs to operate effectively.
One of the unwritten rules of becoming a state representative is to avoid local political fights.
Someone apparently forgot to tell that to Franklin-Hampshire-Worcester State Senator-elect Jo Comerford, who was part of a contingent of residents who this week hand delivered a petition to the Daily Hampshire Gazette and Valley Advocate’s offices in support of employee efforts to unionize that shop.
I understand Comerford hasn’t taken office yet, and her show of support was mostly symbolic, but this is an area she is going to want to steer clear of after taking the oath — lest it become a distraction from doing the job she was elected to do for a district that has been without representation for far too long.