Invitation to discuss libraries declined

By Kevin O’Brien

Clark County’s invitation to talk about billing for cross-border library circulations was quickly shelved Monday by the Marathon County Public Library Board of Trustees.

By voting not to start billing for cross-border check-outs, the board effectively turned down a request from Clark County Library Committee chair Bryce Luchterhand to have a joint meeting between the board of trustees and Clark County’s committee.

Trustees expressed little interest in opening a discussion that could lead to payments being made between the neighboring counties for items checked out by residents from libraries near the county line.

“I don’t know what, if anything, would really be accomplished by that kind of a meeting,“ said trustee Gary Gisselman, a member of the Marathon County Board of Supervisors Reid Raymone, president of the board of trustees, opened the conversation by saying he had received an email from Luchterhand on Feb. 1 asking for a joint meeting to discuss “an imbalance of library patron activity along the Marathon and Clark County border.”

Luchterhand’s email referenced a 25-year old agreement between the two counties, and said the Clark County Library Committee voted at its most recent meeting to try and amend that agreement. The email offered several dates for a possible joint meeting.

Raymone said he asked for a legal opinion from corporation counsel Michael Puerner, who looked into the state statute governing when libraries are obligated to pay for circulations in other counties. According to a memo from Puerner, because Marathon County has a consolidated library system, it is not obligated “to make payments to any public library in an adjacent county” unless

See LIBRARIES/ Page 5 Libraries

Continued from page 1

it first asks for payments from the neighboring county.

Since the Marathon County library system has not issued a notice that it intends to bill any library in Clark County, it is not obligated to provide payments for services provided to Marathon County residents at Clark County libraries, according to Puerner’s memo.

Raymone said the agreement approved in 2000 made it clear that the two counties would “continue the exchange of cross-border borrowing services…without entering into the billing process between libraries.”

Leah Giordano, director of the Marathon County Public Library system, said it’s clear that Marathon County residents borrow more items from Clark County libraries than vice versa, simply because so many county residents live close to a library in the neighboring county.

However, she also noted that both Clark County and Marathon County libraries belong to the Wisconsin Valley Library Service (WVLS), and Marathon County serves as the resource library for all WVLS members.

“We share things freely,” she said. “We pay handsomely for the membership for the privilege of sharing materials.”

Giordano said Clark County’s request only applies to Marathon County patrons who walk into one of the neighboring county’s libraries to check out an item. Under state law, she said Marathon County would have to make the first move to change the current arrangement.

“It’s super clear that unless we bill them first, they cannot bill us,” she said.

Raymone said the overall state statute governing public libraries operates on the idea that each county will pay for library services within its boundaries.

“While I certainly understand that some counties may have financial issues and they want to find other avenues for funding, I don’t know that getting that money from libraries in other counties is the most appropriate way to do it,” he said. “It almost seems, in my mind, to be contrary to the nature of libraries – that we freely allow our items to be borrowed and we borrow to the extent we have those resources.”

Giordano agreed, stating the Marathon County pays for its own library system but it is open to any Wisconsin resident regardless of where they live.

Raymone also questioned whether there was any “added burden” for libraries in other counties to provide items to provide materials and services to Marathon County residents. As an example, he said it’s not like Clark County libraries are being asked to stay open extra hours just to accommodate Marathon County patrons.

“To be faithful stewards of Marathon County’s taxpayer dollars, it would not be in our interest or in the taxpayers’ interest to bill an adjacent county if the result could be that we end up owing more money out,” he said.

Addressing an ‘imbalance’

When reached for comment after Monday’s meeting, Luchterhand said he was “sorely disappointed” with the library board’s refusal to sit down and talk about the funding proposal.

“Marathon County residents check out more than 30,000 books a year from Clark County libraries,” he wrote. “While our libraries are happy to serve Marathon County residents, we do not feel we should be absorbing the full cost of doing so.”

Luchterhand said state law allows Marathon County to decide whether or not it wants to compensate Clark County for serving its residents, but it also requires Clark County to serve Marathon County patrons.

“We think the law is unfair and hope the folks in Marathon County will be persuaded to do the right thing and pay their fair share, even when the law does not compel them to do so,” he wrote.

Luchterhand said Clark County has only recently come to realize the imbalance between the two counties’ library services.

“Now that it has come to light, I can only describe the failure to make some effort to address the problem as intentionally shirking responsibility to provide compensation for services rendered,” he wrote. “We hope for an amicable resolution to the problem, perhaps by the full county board.”

Clark County’s request to talk about library funding from Marathon County came out of the county board’s budget discussions last fall.

Under an initial proposal recommended by the county’s Finance Committee, the county would reimburse libraries for 90 percent of the cost of serving Clark County patrons but only 25 percent for Marathon County patrons. This would have resulted in a total funding cut of about $47,000 for the Abby, Colby and Dorchester libraries. That money would have been essentially transferred to the libraries in Greenwood, Loyal, Neillsville, Owen, Thorp, Withee and Granton, which would collectively see their county contributions go up by about the same $47,000.

“It benefits the other seven libraries (in Clark County),” Abbotsford Library director Jenny Jochimsen told the city council in October. “Because of where we’re located, it does not benefit the three libraries on the Marathon County line.”

According to statistics prepared by Colby Community Library director Vicky Calmes, the CCL rented out 21,338 items to Marathon County patrons in 2023 (far more than any other library in the county), with Abbotsford Public Library providing 5,395 items and Dorchester Public Library circulating 3,061 items to residents of Marathon County.

Eventually, the county board voted to keep its existing funding formula in place, maintaining 70 percent funding for Marathon County circulations. However, the decision was made with the understanding that the Clark County Library Committee would reach out to Marathon County and ask the neighboring library system to help pay for its residents who use Clark County libraries.

WHAT’S AT STAKE - Seniors enjoy sewing at a Community Service Day activity held at the Colby Community Library. CCL director Vicky Calmes said programs like this could be in jeopardy if Clark County stops covering 70 percent of the cost for Marathon Country resident, who make up a majority of the library’s patrons.

SUBMITTED PHOTO