Voters crush request for new libraries

By Emily Richmond

Wednesday, June 4, 2003 | 9:58 a.m.

Clark County voters rejected a $50.6 million bond issue that would have paid for construction of four libraries in some of the valley's fastest-growing communities.

The initiative failed with 62 percent of voters in opposition.

Daniel Walters, executive director of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, said Tuesday the vote outcome was a "clear message" that this was not the right time to seek a property tax increase.

"This was a rejection of more taxes, not of the library system or the services we provide," Walters said. "I have every confidence that when the time is right the voters will be there for the libraries, just like we're there for them every day."

Library patrons won't see any immediate changes in services or programs because of the initiative's failure, Walters said. But with thousands of people continuing to move to the county monthly, area libraries will become increasingly crowded, he said.

"We need about three years lead time to build and open a library," Walters said. "We're looking toward the future, and the bond would have helped us to be in a better position to meet those challenges."

The next attempt at passing a library bond issue won't be anytime soon, Walters said. The district spent about $405,000 -- less than 1 percent of the overall operating budget -- on the campaign, Walters said.

Some people who seemingly would support a question to add more libraries felt the timing for this initiative was not right.

"I'm a retired schoolteacher, and I'm for students getting their hands on library books," said Ann McIntosh, a former Rancho High School teacher who voted at Howard Wasden Elementary School on Tuesday. "But with cutbacks in many school programs, I would much rather spend money there to help the children."

The library system was rebuked late last month by Clark County District Attorney David Roger for using public funds to send a mailer to voters about the ballot question. The mailer included a disclaimer that it was not an endorsement of the measure, but that was not sufficient, Roger determined.