SAN JOSE — There was a time when Juan Diaz wouldn’t step foot inside a local library. The 24-year-old carpenter owed hundreds of dollars in late fees and additional fines for 35 books he lost over four years — many of which were eaten by his beloved but mischievous husky, Thena.

“It made me avoid the library because I know I can’t check a book out,” Diaz said.

Diaz, who has since paid off his penalties, is not alone. The city’s library system is facing a staggering and mounting $6.8 million in unpaid fines across its 23 branches — the most library director Jill Bourne has seen in nearly three years on the job. That figure is roughly five times the amount of unpaid fines racked up a few years ago in Chicago, a city nearly three times San Jose’s population. It also exceeds unpaid fines at public libraries in other major Bay Area cities such as Oakland, which has $3 million in outstanding fines, and San Francisco, which stands at $4.6 million.

A whopping 39 percent of all San Jose library cardholders — about 187,000 accounts — have racked up fines, and it’s only getting worse.

Now city officials are talking about everything from reducing fines, which are higher than at other Bay Area library systems, to an amnesty program to lure patrons back, effectively declaring it’s more important to get residents and books back into the libraries to promote literacy than to punish patrons for overdue materials, even if it means giving up some badly needed revenue. The city would not identify those with unpaid fines.

“It’s not going in the right direction,” Bourne said, adding that the amount of unpaid fines is not only the highest she’s seen since taking the job three years ago, but also more than she ever saw in San Francisco and Seattle, where she’d worked before coming to San Jose. “We’re not offering the right solutions.”

Bourne says the city should look at the fee amounts, which haven’t been altered since 2010, when city leaders doubled them. Today, residents are charged 50 cents each day an item is late, up to $20 per item. The biggest fine is levied when materials never come back — the cost of the item, plus a $20 “handling fee.” The library also charges a $3 fee when items are placed on hold but never picked up. Some of the fees help pay for staff time, while others go into the general fund.

Compared with San Jose, public libraries in San Francisco and Oakland charge residents far less in fines and fees. Residents in San Francisco pay 10 cents per day for late items, but it caps at $5. Seniors get a discount, and youths under 17 are excluded. There’s a $5 processing fee for lost items, compared with San Jose’s $20 fee.

In Oakland, residents pay 25 cents per day for overdue books, with a $6 maximum and no processing fee for lost items.

Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio suggests the city offer an amnesty program — forgive existing fines to bring people back.

Diaz thinks it’s a great idea and hopes city leaders make it happen.

“Some of the books aren’t even worth $20,” he said, “and people don’t want to come back.”

Library cards in San Jose are blocked after patrons amass $10 or more in fines. Nearly half of all youth and teen accounts have some unpaid fines, Bourne wrote in a recent report to city leaders.

Oliverio says it’s critical to “welcome back” cardholders who’ve been shut out because of fines, especially children who rely on the resources. He proposes a library amnesty program to forgive penalties for two weeks — but only if people return the outstanding materials.

It’s not a new idea, and amnesty programs have worked in other big cities, such as Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco. But it’s never been tried in San Jose.

“If we’re not collecting the money and you’re restricting people from the library, shouldn’t we have an alternative to welcome these people?” Oliverio said, adding that the value of the returned materials during an amnesty program typically outweighs the late fees.

For example, Chicago Public Library’s three-week amnesty program in 2012 retrieved 101,301 overdue items, valued at approximately $2 million, and waived $641,820 in fines out of the $1.4 million total owed to the library. Over 40,000 patrons got their library cards reinstituted.

Bourne agrees that the value of returned items outweighs fines, and the amnesty program was successful when she was a librarian in San Francisco, but she says that’s only part of the solution. It helps only those who can actually find the missing book or video — and those “lost items” make up only 9 percent of the total unpaid fines.

But Bourne acknowledges the fees “add up quickly” and educators tell her that some parents stop their children from getting library cards because they fear accruing fines.

Last August, the library launched “teen cards,” which can be obtained without a parent and give teens limited checkout abilities but full access to online resources. About 400 teens have signed up.

Other solutions proposed by Bourne include reducing or waiving fines for youths or allowing people to bring in a brand-new book to replace a lost item. People can also volunteer their time or read to pay off fines, she suggested.

But one longtime library patron thinks it’s unfair to forgive other people’s fines and fees.

“People have to learn the hard way,” said Eddie Acevedo, 60, while browsing Spanish books at Joyce Ellington Branch Library on Thursday. Acevedo says he’s never been late in returning a book. “Some people have no discipline.”

Contact Ramona Giwargis at 408-920-5705. Follow her at Twitter.com/ramonagiwargis.