Document text
County decides to seek library levy Raymond: Ashland plan needs dialogue By ALBERTO ENRIQUEZ ASHLAND -- Ashland's decision to go it alone on library improvements may run afoul of its lease agreement with Jackson County. The city of Ashland owns the historic Carnegie library building at 410 Siskiyou Blvd. The county runs the library but leases the building from the city with 20 years to go on a 50-year lease. The four-page lease agreement includes a provision reading: "The parties agree that, as far as practicable, the cost of operation of the library shall be borne uniformly by all residents of the County and neither party shall seek to impose any charge or tax for library purposes upon any part of the County unless the tax or charge is applicable uniformly and on the same terms throughout the county." Jackson County officials have made no secret of their dismay that Ashland is seeking a levy of its own. County officials prefer that all library projects be put into a single countywide measure. Asked what the provision could mean for Ashland's efforts, Jackson County Administrator Burke Raymond said it appeared the lessor should be talking to its lessee. "I suppose if you're leasing and an owner came and said, `I want to make a lot of improvements,' that they would discuss it with you," Raymond said. "We are the leaseholders and nobody has really discussed it with us. They've only told us what they're going to do." County commissioners reinforced that commitment to a single countywide library measure Thursday when they approved a capital improvement plan that includes a library bond on the March 2000 ballot. Ashland Mayor Cathy Shaw said the lease provision did not appear to apply to the city's plans for its own bond election, perhaps as soon as May. "They're talking about operation," Shaw said. "We are not affecting the operational cost of the building." Shaw said no decisions had been made on building design, and it was possible that an adjoining but separate building would comply with the lease requirement. She said that should Ashland voters approve a separate bond, the city could delay issuing those bonds until the county election in March 2000. Such a strategy would encourage Ashland voters -- even those who voted against the original city bond -- to support the subsequent countywide measure because it would cost them less. Ashland City Attorney Paul Nolte said he has looked at the lease language, and he agreed that attorneys might differ over its interpretation. "The way we've been looking at the lease, it can't bind future boards and councils by contract," Nolte said. "If the people vote to do this, it appears that they can." But Nolte hastened to add that the city wasn't eager for a debate -- at least not without a discussion. "That's the last thing we want to be seen as, that we're gunned up and going to court," Nolte said. "Obviously, we're going to be discussing it with the county ... and the city considers the county a pleasant partner to be in business with." It was a sentiment Raymond couldn't help but echo. "So do we," he said. "The county finds the city a pleasant partner, too." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA