Thank you for acknowledging the significant benefits of publicly funded early childhood education. My youngest child attended the Flowing Wells preschool where many students receive PEEPs scholarships. These necessary scholarships provide a financial leg for public school district preschools to stand on in the midst of education cuts.
The article mentions that the use of library reserve funds was a short-term solution for the County to bridge the gap from the exhausted federal funds. What does the County administration say was the plan to fund PEEPs beyond this short-term solution? I cannot imagine that funding for libraries and early childhood education was ever meant to be put in competition with one another for any length of time.
The county believes that library carryover fund can be used indefinitely but as we mentioned in the article, some librarians are concerned that it isn’t sustainable.
This is a process that can be revised to ensure long term viability as the county has used different funding sources in the past.
The Library has been completely supportive of PEEPS from the beginning, as a literate community is their mission. It does both the library and PEEPS a disservice to present them as if they are alternatives or even in opposition. To the contrary, they are complementary aspects of a thriving future for families.
Library management has been supportive of PEEPS. I spoke on background to a number of librarians this week. They are concerned and have laid out examples of hiring freezes, delays in getting equipment and of course, a cost saving measure to cut the library’s operational budget last year. I don’t think it is as black-and-white as you are suggesting. No one is suggesting PEEPS is a bad program but at best, it can only support PEEPS for a few years until they would compete with each other for funding.
The use of Arpa funds for the first 3 years of PEEPS was planned to allow the library reserve fund to build up for support of PEEPS. It was not a library rainy day fund, and is not being "raided."
Jan Lesher has tried to make clear that the PEEPS money is independent of the library's. I know you all are not doubting the value of PEEPS, but this is a narrative that has been advanced by PEEPS opponents. Jan Lesher really is the best direct source for this information.
I think we are going to disagree on this topic at the end of the day. I absolutely agree that the library has been doing more than just checking out books and I appreciate what services they offer.
If the narrative is the library district is funding full operations with the ~$64 million to district will take in taxes next year and PEEPS will be using the (seperate) reserve fund, that is a perfectly valid statement.
But the money in the reserve fund was historically was used for library operations, including maintenance. The County can change the underlying policy and say this fund is going to be used for PEEPS for the next five years.
That policy change has consequences, including diminishing resources for fixing libraries. Just this year along the district is expected to spend ~$10 million on renovations at the main library and a portion of that funding is coming out of the same reserve fund.
We might ultimately disagree but in the meantime I would urge you to have a follow up conversation with Jan Lesher. That way, even if we disagree, we will be talking from the same fact-base.
I'm a little confused by the info for Ward 5 in the graphic-- if it's supposed to list the people who are currently running for the seat, it's inaccurate. My understanding is that Richard Hernandez did not file. Chris Elsner and Selina Barajas are the other Democrats, and I don't think there's a Republican in the race.
Thank you for acknowledging the significant benefits of publicly funded early childhood education. My youngest child attended the Flowing Wells preschool where many students receive PEEPs scholarships. These necessary scholarships provide a financial leg for public school district preschools to stand on in the midst of education cuts.
The article mentions that the use of library reserve funds was a short-term solution for the County to bridge the gap from the exhausted federal funds. What does the County administration say was the plan to fund PEEPs beyond this short-term solution? I cannot imagine that funding for libraries and early childhood education was ever meant to be put in competition with one another for any length of time.
The county believes that library carryover fund can be used indefinitely but as we mentioned in the article, some librarians are concerned that it isn’t sustainable.
This is a process that can be revised to ensure long term viability as the county has used different funding sources in the past.
I'm looking forward to seeing diversified funding that doesn't pit one necessary service against another. Thank you for reporting on this.
PEEPS funding does not threaten the libraries.
The Library has been completely supportive of PEEPS from the beginning, as a literate community is their mission. It does both the library and PEEPS a disservice to present them as if they are alternatives or even in opposition. To the contrary, they are complementary aspects of a thriving future for families.
Library management has been supportive of PEEPS. I spoke on background to a number of librarians this week. They are concerned and have laid out examples of hiring freezes, delays in getting equipment and of course, a cost saving measure to cut the library’s operational budget last year. I don’t think it is as black-and-white as you are suggesting. No one is suggesting PEEPS is a bad program but at best, it can only support PEEPS for a few years until they would compete with each other for funding.
The use of Arpa funds for the first 3 years of PEEPS was planned to allow the library reserve fund to build up for support of PEEPS. It was not a library rainy day fund, and is not being "raided."
Jan Lesher has tried to make clear that the PEEPS money is independent of the library's. I know you all are not doubting the value of PEEPS, but this is a narrative that has been advanced by PEEPS opponents. Jan Lesher really is the best direct source for this information.
I think we are going to disagree on this topic at the end of the day. I absolutely agree that the library has been doing more than just checking out books and I appreciate what services they offer.
If the narrative is the library district is funding full operations with the ~$64 million to district will take in taxes next year and PEEPS will be using the (seperate) reserve fund, that is a perfectly valid statement.
But the money in the reserve fund was historically was used for library operations, including maintenance. The County can change the underlying policy and say this fund is going to be used for PEEPS for the next five years.
That policy change has consequences, including diminishing resources for fixing libraries. Just this year along the district is expected to spend ~$10 million on renovations at the main library and a portion of that funding is coming out of the same reserve fund.
We might ultimately disagree but in the meantime I would urge you to have a follow up conversation with Jan Lesher. That way, even if we disagree, we will be talking from the same fact-base.
I'll reach out to Ms. Lesher, but I again want to say that I had a detailed conversation with a member of her staff about this topic yesterday.
Thank you.
I'm a little confused by the info for Ward 5 in the graphic-- if it's supposed to list the people who are currently running for the seat, it's inaccurate. My understanding is that Richard Hernandez did not file. Chris Elsner and Selina Barajas are the other Democrats, and I don't think there's a Republican in the race.
Hi completely agree. I forgot to update the graphic. It has been updated online and we are writing a correction.
I highly recommend you contact the county administration so you can report more accurately about library tax and funding for PEEPs.
We interviewed County Administration and reviewed information shared by their office, Nicole Fyffe is quoted in the article.
Every number in the story is from the county/or city. What is inaccurate?
I agree with Miranda. The graphic and the story on the several candidates vying to be selected do not jive.
Yep, we do too. Graphic has been updated.