Nobody is saying the Oxford Public Library is not a valuable community institution that enhances residents’ quality of life.

Nobody is saying the Oxford Public Library hasn’t managed its money extremely well during tough financial times.

Nobody is saying the Oxford Public Library should close its doors and people should look elsewhere for their books, DVDs, computer services and children’s programs.

But the bottom-line is, in our view ? and the view of many other folks ? the library’s fund balance is excessive, therefore a tax increase is not justified at this time.

The library has a fund balance (i.e. reserve funds) of approximately $1 million and an operating budget of a little over $1 million. That’s almost a 100 percent fund balance.

Typically, local governmental entities carry fund balances of 15, 20 or 25 percent. That’s considered appropriate and healthy.

Nobody is saying the library should have a fund balance of zero. That would be irresponsible financial management and we certainly would not advocate that. Having a solid fund balance is a necessary component of any local government’s budget.

What we are saying is the library should not have a large enough reserve to where it could technically operate for almost an entire year without collecting any new revenue.

What we are saying is the library should not ask the taxpayers to reach into their pockets and give more money when it’s sitting on such a hefty savings account.

Some folks see it differently.

They think having such a sizeable fund balance is perfectly reasonable and warranted because this and that could happen in the future and replacing/repairing infrastructure is so expensive these days.

We get it. We understand that line of thinking. We simply don’t agree with it. It’s an honest difference of opinion.

Every single local government out there has present and future infrastructure needs, but we don’t believe that warrants all of them maintaining fund balances of approximately 100 percent at all times.

That’s not responsible. That’s excessive.

At what point do we say enough is enough? How much is too much when it comes to fund balances? Is there such a thing as ‘too much’ in some government folks’ eyes?

Defending the need for excessive fund balances by saying ‘what if this happens’ and ‘what if that happens’ is a slippery slope that can take you from being sincerely fiscally responsible to simply hoarding taxpayer money.

We realize there’s no legal maximum as to how large a fund balance can be, but there darn well should be. Absent a law covering this issue, it’s up to voters to keep their local governments in check via the ballot box.

For the time being, we believe the Oxford library has enough ? or in this case, more than enough ? extra money to supplement rising operating costs, deal with the impact of lost revenue and handle any building-related issues that may arise.

If the library had anemic reserves or was facing the immediate prospect of completely draining its savings, we could get on board with a tax hike because we sincerely believe the library is a valuable resource. (Voting ‘no’ does not mean you hate the library.)

But that’s not the case at this point.

If library officials feel they need to maintain such a large fund balance, so be it.

But please, please do not ask the taxpayers to shell out more money via a millage increase unless something drastically changes.

And please don’t ask a fourth time if the voters see fit to fail this request for the third time. The voters said ‘no’ in August 2012. The voters said ‘no’ in August 2014. There’s a point when repeatedly going to the ballot box with the same question becomes harassment.

Why bother to have elections if officials are just going to repeatedly ignore the outcome until they get the answer they want.

That’s not democracy, that’s bullying.

We, once again, strenuously urge Oxford residents to vote NO on the Oxford Public Library’s 10-year, 0.4518-mill property tax increase. ? CJC