When is a lifetime not a lifetime

I watched a grumpy old snow bird voice his displeasure over the practice at the SoWal library a couple of Saturdays ago... if that's considered an "experience".;-)

Makes sense to me, covers the cost of lost/stolen/whoops packed it in my bag never to return instances. A few years ago I was in Tallahassee and paid off some old late fees at the public library. About $4.50, they get you with that nickel per year interest.

Don't know anything about the new card policy (mine is still a lifetime card as of this afternoon) but the library is hopping these days w/ people applying for jobs and benefits online.

Don't know anything about the new card policy (mine is still a lifetime card as of this afternoon) but the library is hopping these days w/ people applying for jobs and benefits online.

You're a resident, shouldn't be a problem. It's for the transient visitors.

Makes sense to me, covers the cost of lost/stolen/whoops packed it in my bag never to return instances. A few years ago I was in Tallahassee and paid off some old late fees at the public library. About $4.50, they get you with that nickel per year interest.

So you have no problem with being sold something as a lifetime benefit and then that being taken away?

So you have no problem with being sold something as a lifetime benefit and then that being taken away?

Well I would assume that there is a grandfather clause like many things for those that have a lifetime membership. However, if that lifetime membership was only actually available to property owners or residents, too bad about that rate hike. I'm sure this is just those greedy librarians trying to get more money and not something reasonable like out of towners leaving with books and not returning them. :roll:

I read on the news that the BCC revoked a lifetime library card some time last year and have replaced it with a $35 a year library card. I understand that this is for those that do not own property or reside in the area. Has anyone had any experience with this program?

Here's what I was told by the library staff: there is no charge for property owners, ever.

The "life-time" cards were revoked and a new card with a new charge is required. Those who had the so called lifetime card expected a "grandfather" clause, but apparently not.

The other change is that one may only check out New Release books for one week, instead of two. Not enough time IMO, however the overdue fine is not much.

Who makes the rules? Anybody know?

Apparently the BCC makes the rules. I think a fee is fine for out-of-state users, but $35.00/year is a bit much for a library card IMO.

Apparently the BCC makes the rules. I think a fee is fine for out-of-state users, but $35.00/year is a bit much for a library card IMO.

Especially since your taxes pay for the library!

$35 per year may seem a bit much, but their are many snowbirds who live at the South Walton Library. Often, this time of year, you will not be able to get on a computer because those seats are filled with snowbirds. However, the lifetime pass seemed almost nothing, for people who could "forget" to return books, CDs, DVDs, etc, never to be caught again.

I think it is great that all are welcome to use the library (afterall, it is a public library). My guess is that the are trying to curb the number of snowbird internet users, who prevent locals from being able to use the internet at the library. I think that hefty price of $35 will probably do the trick, as it IS rather steep, for something that is supposed to be a public service. If this fee were for keeping the out of towners from not returning books, a simple Fully-refundable deposit would work.

If I was a snow bird, I, too, might be tweeting a bit about the cost. It only sounds like an annual fee of $3 per month, but in reality, snowbirds are in town no more than 3 months, so it is really more like $12 per month for something that most others get for free.

$35 a year for anyone who doesn't live or own property here - seems quite reasonable for unlimited internet access, DVD's, videos, books, the latest papers and magazines, presentations, and tax prep help.

Many libraries charge a nominal fee to RESIDENTS for a library card, so going from a FREE card to one that charges people a nominal fee is a non-issue IMO.

That outrageous $35 fee is roughly the cost of buying a newly released book in hardcover, so it's still a bargain.

from what I heard, no one was objecting to paying the $35 fee UNLESS they had paid for a card before and been told that it was a lifetime card. It was the revoking of the lifetime card that upset people.

from what I heard, no one was objecting to paying the $35 fee UNLESS they had paid for a card before and been told that it was a lifetime card. It was the revoking of the lifetime card that upset people.

EXACTLY! No objection to the fee. The objection is from those that were sold a lifetime card then had it revoked, yet they are still alive. If a business were to do that everyone, including government, would hit the roof.

Personally, I do not understand why the TDC has spent millions drawing these people to the area, with our great amenities, and then charging them. Everyone acts like snowbirds are not contributing to the tax base. I guess we will know when they quit coming to the area.

What I would be curious to know is when the library STOPPED selling "lifetime" passes, and if they were ever anything more than $8.00.

One of the three snowbirds that came to the January 13 BCC meeting mentioned that they bought the memberships 20 years ago for $8.00. IIRC, the library was largely, if not totally, run by volunteers back then, in Cano Square/Emerald Coast Plaza, and much, MUCH smaller.

I can see both sides of this scenario. Clearly.

I can see both sides of this scenario. Clearly.

I am amazed that anyone can see the side of someone revoking a "lifetime" membership.

This debate makes me sad. I have a lot of wonderful snowbird friends. If I was in charge of the world, I would let the "Lifetime" memberships stand. Many of these friends have cleaned, repaired and cared for our parks, they have designed and made the stained glass windows on our churches, they have been our friends and sustained our economy. Perhaps this issue can be revisited.

I am amazed that anyone can see the side of someone revoking a "lifetime" membership.

There are lots of things we never thought we would see. I am waiting to be told we have to start bringing our own toilet paper.

This debate makes me sad. I have a lot of wonderful snowbird friends. If I was in charge of the world, I would let the "Lifetime" memberships stand. Many of these friends have cleaned, repaired and cared for our parks, they have designed and made the stained glass windows on our churches, they have been our friends and sustained our economy. Perhaps this issue can be revisited.

I agree DuneLaker. I seriously doubt there are that many lifetime cards needing to be honored.

The good will engendered by honoring our word would go a long way; right now I am sure most people who have rental property need every "snowbird" renter they can get!

The loss of revenue realized from one "upset" person will far out measure the cost of the lifetime card. But, even if that was not the case, the fact that we honored our word should be our standard IMO.

I am amazed that anyone can see the side of someone revoking a "lifetime" membership.

I can see both side of my Lifetime of contributions to social security plan that won't offer much to my 'retirement'

If the Walton County Library system offered "lifetime" memberships in the past, they should be honored. People paid for them believing they would be honored as long as presented. It is alright to stop issuing them but it is ludicrous to revoke "lifetime" memberships already issued.

I think Shallows is saying the library was operated by a different entity when these folks got the cards. Maybe a compromise could be found ; they could pay an additional fee to help with the increased costs associated with the library.

Reasonable people should be able to see that if they wish to continue to be provided with an up-to-date library, $8.00 paid years ago to a volunteer organization is not helping the cause much. And I do not think there will be a groundswell of taxpayer support for free services to anyone.

When I was in Daytona the library charged $35 a year to transients. Daytona also had a huge library system with numerous branches. You can renew books online. Hopefully with this extra income and updated system that will be considered.

The BCC is going to consider this again at their meeting on Jan 27. See http://www.co.walton.fl.us/administration/CommissionMeetings/januarytwentyseven/i1b.pdf
for more info.

Yes the winter visitors do contribute to our economy; but they don't pay property taxes, bed taxes can't be used for the library, gas taxes can't be used for the library, and the amount of sales tax returned to Walton County that can be allocated to the library in the budget is small...very small.

We do offer an on-line system where books can be reserved, rechecked, and the collection browsed in all four libraries in our system. You can access it at Walton County Library.

As SN pointed out, the "lifetime" commitment was made by a private entity that is no longer in business so to speak. Since the county began running the libraries in 2000, we have been fortunate to be able to share the library service at essentially no cost to our winter visitors - particularly those who paid $8 up to 23 years ago. Those times obviously are changing. 90 people have paid the new $35 fee (as of last Wednesday), so I don't think there's going to be a groundswell of winter visitors not coming to our area because of the library fee. They recognize the great value of our libraries, and are willing to contribute their fair share to support them.

Yes the winter visitors do contribute to our economy; bed taxes can't be used for the library, gas taxes can't be used for the library, and the amount of sales tax returned to Walton County that can be allocated to the library in the budget is small...very small.

Tell me you are not serious here. They do not pay property taxes? Come on now. Just where is it that they stay when they are down here? What do you think the owners do with the rent that they collect? I imagine some share of it goes to pay the property taxes. If snowbirds quit coming you will see even more empty buildings, more foreclosures, and fewer property taxes than what we are already seeing.

And if gas taxes did not pay for the roads then we would have to allocate a larger percentage of property taxes, which would result in fewer dollars available for the library. The same goes for sales tax.

If the library feels a need to put into place some sort of a system, that is fine. But we should not insult our visitors by indicating that they are not paying their share and we should do what we said we were going to do years ago, no matter how painful it is.

Please explain this private entity statement. The library was not part of the government until 2000? If that is the case how did the BCC pass the proposal in the first place?

Interesting that the BCC is willing to go back on it's word for $3150. I wonder if anyone has ever sat down and calculated the processing costs for collecting the $35 as it goes through the system.

If $35 is the "fair share" that needs to be paid for using the library, what are we doing with all of the other residents that live here full time but pay really do pay no property taxes? Will the library be identifying those individuals and asking them to pay their "fair share" or are they just going to single out those that do not live here?

Tell me you are not serious here. They do not pay property taxes? Come on now. Just where is it that they stay when they are down here? What do you think the owners do with the rent that they collect? I imagine some share of it goes to pay the property taxes. If snowbirds quit coming you will see even more empty buildings, more foreclosures, and fewer property taxes than what we are already seeing.

And if gas taxes did not pay for the roads then we would have to allocate a larger percentage of property taxes, which would result in fewer dollars available for the library. The same goes for sales tax.

If the library feels a need to put into place some sort of a system, that is fine. But we should not insult our visitors by indicating that they are not paying their share and we should do what we said we were going to do years ago, no matter how painful it is.

Please explain this private entity statement. The library was not part of the government until 2000? If that is the case how did the BCC pass the proposal in the first place?

Interesting that the BCC is willing to go back on it's word for $3150. I wonder if anyone has ever sat down and calculated the processing costs for collecting the $35 as it goes through the system.

If $35 is the "fair share" that needs to be paid for using the library, what are we doing with all of the other residents that live here full time but pay really do pay no property taxes? Will the library be identifying those individuals and asking them to pay their "fair share" or are they just going to single out those that do not live here?

Robert, you are correct that visitors drive a large part of our economy. On most issues I stand foresquare for encouraging all the visitors we can get. But I also understand that if we do not want to increase taxes and want continued services, income must be raised. That includes the Library.
I have been told that these passes were issued by a non-profit group that ran the Library until the BCC took it over. This covers the Costal Branch only, I do not know what role, if any, the cities of DeFuniak Springs and Freeport had in operating their libraries.
Maybe the right thing to do is honor the few 8 dollar passes still out there and begin selling new ones for the 35 dollar fee.