Reading Public Library · 2019 vs. 2025
Reading Public Library is busy and valuable. But with physical visits still well below 2019 and staffing higher, staffing levels and lower-use evening or weekend hours are reasonable opportunities to examine. The current model may be justified. Or there may be savings that preserve the services residents value most. The workload should tell us.
The state data
The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) collects annual staffing and service statistics from public libraries across the Commonwealth. Using 2019—the last full pre-pandemic year—as the baseline avoids making today's physical usage look artificially strong by comparing it only with the COVID years.
| Measure | 2019 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical library visits | 231,775 | 175,815 | −24.1% |
| Total staffing (FTE) | 24.36 | 26.33 | +8.1% |
Reading's library remains busy and valuable. But physical visits are 24% below 2019 while staffing is 8% higher. Nearby libraries also show that comparable communities operate successfully with materially different staffing levels.
That doesn't give us a predetermined answer. It gives us a very reasonable question.
Before asking residents to pay more, examine the workload. Look at usage by day and hour. Compare staffing with nearby libraries. Cost out alternatives such as attrition, scheduling changes or reductions during lower-use hours.
Maybe the current model is worth the cost. Maybe some savings are possible without materially diminishing the library residents value. We should find out before treating every current expense as fixed.
The obvious response
E-books, downloadable audiobooks, databases, streaming resources, technology help, online research, and other electronic services are real library services. They also require staff support. That is not in dispute.
If digital growth explains why Reading needs more staff despite substantially fewer people coming through the doors, quantify the change. Show which digital services grew, how much they grew, what additional employee work they create, and how much staff time or FTE capacity is required to support them.
A digital checkout is not automatically the staffing equivalent of an additional person entering the building. Many electronic services are available remotely and around the clock. They may create technical, administrative, instructional, collection-development, or patron-support work—but the relationship should be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Show the growth in electronic circulation and other digital activity since 2019, identify the staff functions that support it, and estimate the workload those functions require. If that work explains the staffing increase, that is useful evidence for taxpayers to see.
Simply pointing out that digital usage increased. Usage counts and staffing requirements are different measures. The budget case should connect service demand to actual employee workload.
Compare nearby libraries
FY2025 MBLC data show that Reading has one of the highest staffing levels among nearby libraries. But the comparison is not an argument for a predetermined staffing cut—or for treating today's staffing as fixed. It shows the tradeoffs communities make between staffing, hours and service. Winchester, for example, reports more physical visits and digital circulation with slightly fewer FTE than Reading. Other nearby libraries operate with substantially fewer staff. The question is what level of staffing and service Reading residents want to pay for.
| Library | Population | FTE | FTE / 10K | Visits | Digital circ. | Total circ. | Visits / FTE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading | 25,428 | 26.33 | 10.35 | 175,815 | 80,122 | 502,209 | 6,678 |
| Winchester | 22,837 | 25.23 | 11.05 | 186,531 | 102,071 | 487,510 | 7,394 |
| Wakefield | 27,810 | 21.80 | 7.84 | 168,535 | 70,082 | 383,002 | 7,731 |
| Wilmington | 23,148 | 17.29 | 7.47 | 105,566 | 57,850 | 232,407 | 6,106 |
| Melrose | 29,357 | 17.66 | 6.01 | 85,019 | 75,638 | 326,885 | 4,814 |
| Stoneham | 22,854 | 13.50 | 5.91 | 69,600 | 37,706 | 163,342 | 5,156 |
| North Reading | 16,054 | 9.83 | 6.12 | 52,377 | 25,624 | 149,924 | 5,328 |
Reading is genuinely busy: it had the highest total circulation in this peer group and the second-highest physical visits. That is evidence residents should consider when deciding what level of library service they want to preserve.
There is more than one workable service model. Winchester handles more visits and digital circulation with slightly fewer FTE, while Wakefield and Wilmington operate with materially fewer staff. Those differences make staffing, schedules and service levels reasonable tradeoffs to examine—not conclusions to assume.
What would residents gain from preserving the current staffing and hours? What would they give up under a more limited schedule or a lower staffing level? With physical visits still 24% below 2019, examine usage by day and hour, workload, attrition and scheduling alternatives—and show what each option would save and what service would change.
The certification question
The concern is real. Reading normally must keep the library open 59 hours per week across six days, including some morning, afternoon and evening hours, to meet the state's Minimum Hours Open requirement. The library currently operates 64 hours including Sunday, or 60 hours Monday through Saturday.
The Town says eliminating Sunday hours is financially equivalent to reducing 0.5 FTE. It further says reducing another 1–2 FTE would require cutting Monday–Saturday hours from 60 to 56 or 54 hours, putting Reading below both the Minimum Hours Open requirement and the Municipal Appropriation Requirement.
The state requirement tells us how many hours Reading must remain open. It does not tell us how many employees Reading needs to provide those hours.
That distinction matters because Reading's staffing has increased 8.1% since 2019, from 24.36 to 26.33 FTE, while physical visits remain 24.1% below 2019 levels. Those figures do not prove that Reading should reduce library staffing. But they do make it reasonable to ask why a reduction of 1–2 FTE necessarily requires cutting public hours below the 59-hour standard.
How many employees must be present during each open hour? How many staff-hours are required to operate the library for 59 hours? How much staff time is devoted to public coverage versus programming, administration, digital services and other functions? How have those requirements changed since 2019?
If the current staffing model is necessary to maintain certification and the services residents value, showing that workload would make the case.
If scheduling changes, attrition or a different staffing model could preserve 59 hours with somewhat fewer staff, taxpayers should see that alternative too.
Certification is an important constraint. It should inform the staffing discussion—not end it.
The budget context
The FY28 override plan has been described as roughly 3.75% growth on the Town side. That matters. The choice is not between a $6.5 million override and freezing every municipal department at today's spending level.
Before asking for spending beyond an already-growing budget, examine staffing and operating-hour alternatives. Show what each would save—and what residents would lose.
Sources & notes
The analysis on this page draws on publicly available state library statistics, Town budget materials and municipal records.
November 3, 2026
Then examine reasonable staffing and operating-hour alternatives. Cost them. Show us the tradeoffs.
Back to the override case