>>> THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
LIBRARY LEVY.
THE DATE IS APRIL 8th.
IT IS 10:51 A.M.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I AM JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES, COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I WILL DO THE CHAIR REPORT
BRIEFLY.
THIS IS THE SECOND MEETING TO
DELIBERATE THE 2019 PROPOSED
LIBRARY READ VERY -- LEVY
RENEWAL.
WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE
COUNCIL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
LIST AND EXPLORING FOR
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO
STRENGTHEN THE ORDINANCE.
IN PREPARATION FOR THE MEETING,
THERE WAS A MEMO PROVIDED LAST
WEEK FOR THE NOTEBOOKS.
AND AN IMPORTANT NOTE TO MY
COLLEAGUES AS WE ARE ON A
COMPRESSED SCHEDULE.
AMENDMENTS ARE DUE NO LATER
THAN TUESDAY, APRIL 9th AT
NOON.
ALLOWING STAFF TO PREPARE FOR A
SECOND ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS AT
THE APRIL 11th MEETING.
THIS INCLUDES A PUBLIC HEARING
AS WELL.
FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS INCLUDING
THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF
INTEREST THAT COME UP AFTER THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 11th ,
I ASK YOU TO NOTIFY MY OFFICE
ASAP BY APRIL 12th AT NOON.
WITH THAT, WE WILL BEGIN WITH
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
TELL ME HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE
SIGNED UP.
>> WE HAVE ZERO PEOPLE SIGNED
UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> NOBODY HAS SIGNED UP SO WE
WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT
THIS TIME.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
COUNCILMEMBERS.
PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM OF
BUSINESS INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119491.
PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO
THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE
CITY AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD
AUGUST 6th, 20.
A PROPOSITION TO LIFT THE LIMIT
ON REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES UNDER
CHAPTER 84.55RCW AND AUTHORIZE
THE CITY TO LEVY ADDITIONAL
TAXES FOR UP TO SEVEN YEARS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING
INVESTMENTS, OPERATING HOURS,
OLLECTIONS, TECHNOLOGY AND
MAINTENANCE WHILE EXPANDING
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
ADDITIONAL HOURS, LIBRARY
MATERIALS, TECHNOLOGY AND
UNDERTAKING SEISMIC RETROFITS
OF THREE LIBRARY FACILITIES
AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A
NEW FUND AND RATIFYING AND
CONFIRMING CERTAIN PRIOR ACTS.
>> DO WE HAVE EVERYONE WE
NEED AT THE TABLE?
>> YES.
>> CAN YOU IDENTIFY
YOURSELVES.
>> YOU HAVE BEEN DOING A
PHENOMENAL JOB.
I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MUCH I
APPRECIATE THE MEMOS YOU ARE
DOING AND YOUR RESEARCH.
A QUICK RECAP FOR THE FOLKS
THAT WERE NOT HERE AT THE LAST
HEARING THAT WE HAD.
WE DID A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE
PUBLIC LIBRARY WHICH WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 1890.
WE TALKED ABOUT IN 1998, THERE
WAS THE LIBRARIES FOR ALL WHICH
IS A BOND MEASURE.
WE TALKED ABOUT 2012 DOING THE
LIBRARIES FOR ALL WHICH IS A
PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHICH I THINK
WAS 123 MILLION -- WHAT WE
ARE LOOKING AT NOW IS, FOR
2019, LOOKING AT A PROPERTY
LEVY COMING UP FOR 213 MILLION,
CORRECT?
>> SO WE HAVE A 90 MILLION-
DOLLAR DIFFERENCE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OF THE
213 MILLION WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING AND PROPOSING, 167
MILLION IS TO RETAIN THE CORE
SERVICES THAT WE HAVE BEEN
PROVIDING SINCE THE 2012 LEVY
AND THE ADDITIONAL 45.9 MILLION
IS TO ENHANCE AND IMPROVE
SERVICES.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE
TARGET AREAS, THE CATEGORIES
AND THE EMPHASIS THAT THE
LIBRARY HAS FOCUSED ON IN 2012
WERE THE SAME MEASURES THAT
WERE FOCUSED ON AGAIN.
THOSE DEDICATED CATEGORIES WERE
OPEN HOURS AND ACCESS,
COLLECTIONS, TECHNOLOGY,
MAINTENANCE AND -- SEISMIC
METRO -- SO IF WE GET AN
EARTHQUAKE, THEY CAN STAND WITH
IT.
I WILL HANDED OVER TO YOU,
ASHA.
>> AS MENTIONED, TODAY IS THE
FIRST TWO SETS OF ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION.
BOTH TODAY AND THURSDAY, I WILL
TALK ABOUT ISSUES THAT I HAVE
IDENTIFIED AS REQUIRING
CLARIFICATION.
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE LEVY
AND ITEMS THAT COUNCILMEMBERS
ARE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING.
BECAUSE OF THE TIGHT SCHEDULE,
I MIGHT HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON
FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE
TODAY AND HOPE TO ANSWER THEM
THURSDAY WHEN THE COMMITTEE
MEETS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE FIRST ISSUE IDENTIFIED IN
THE MEMOS AS NEEDING
CLARIFICATION AS AROUND FUNDING
FOR MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL
COST.
THERE IS SOME CONFUSION AROUND
WHICH FUNDS HAVE BEEN
SUPPORTING THESE COSTS AND
WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
CAPITAL PROJECTS MOVING
FORWARD.
BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE 2012
LEVY, A COMBINATION OF REAL
ESTATE EXCISE TASK -- TAX
SUPPORTED MAINTENANCE.
THE BOND MEASURE PASSED IN
1998.
THE PROJECTS IN THAT WERE
COMPLETED IN 2008.
BETWEEN 2008 AND 2013, THE
GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED THESE
PROJECTS.
AS OF THE IMPROBABLE OF THE
2012 LEVY, STARTING IN 2013,
LEVY FUNDING REPLACE THE
MAJORITY OF -- MAJOR
MAINTENANCE.
FOR THE 2012 LEVY PERIOD, 31.8
MAKE MILLION DOLLARS WAS
ANTICIPATED IN COLLECTION OF
LEVY FUNDS AND 7.8 MAKE MILLION
DOLLARS EVENTUALLY ENDED UP
BEING COLLECTED.
THE RATE WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE
BETWEEN 5-$700,000 ANNUALLY
BETWEEN 2013 AND 2019.
THIS IS MOSTLY TRUE EXCEPT FOR
2016 AND 2017 WHEN THERE WERE
SOME EMINENT -- UNANTICIPATED
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CENTRAL LIBRARY.
THOSE WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN
LEVY PLANNING AS WELL AS THE
EXPIRATION OF A LEASE OR
STORAGE FACILITIES WHICH
RESULTED IN THE LIBRARY WANTING
TO ACQUIRE A MULTI USE OFF-SITE
FACILITY.
ESSENTIALLY, THE COST FOR THE
CENTRAL LIBRARY INCLUDED
REPLACEMENT OF WORN FLOORING,
ASSESSMENT OF THE CURTAIN WALL,
ACCOMMODATION OF A LIFT,
INSTALLING ANCHORS OF THE
CURTAIN WALL AND INSPECTING THE
FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.
THE WORK ENDED UP COSTING $1.25
MILLION EXTRA IN 2016, $760,000
IN 2017.
ADDITIONAL 600,000 WAS
ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT ALLOCATION
OF PUBLIC RESTROOMS IN THE
LIBRARY, ONE OF WHICH WAS AN
ALL GENDER RESTAURANT.
FOR THE MULTI USE OFF-SITE
FACILITY, AT THE TIME, THE
LIBRARY WAS LOOKING TO ACQUIRE
A PERMANENT LOCATION TO
CONSOLIDATE ITS BUILDING
MAINTENANCE, CUSTODIAL
SERVICES, LANDSCAPING AND
GENERALLY STORING WHERE THE
LIBRARY VEHICLES WERE.
AT THAT TIME, THE LIBRARY
CURRENTLY HAD BUILDING
MAINTENANCE TO EXPIRE AT THE
BEGINNING OF 2016.
AND PLANNED EXPANSION OF A
STORAGE FACILITY WAS NOT THE
BEST USE OF CLEANING AND
STORAGE.
AT THAT TIME, IN 2016, THE
LIBRARY ENTERED A FIVE YEAR
LEASE AT A NEW FACILITY SO THAT
IT COULD -- SUPPORT WAS
NEEDED FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
TO THAT LOCATION.
AS OF 2018, $2.9 MILLION IN
PROCEEDS IS CURRENTLY BEING
SAVED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A
PERMANENT FACILITY AND THE
PROCEEDS COME FROM THE SALE OF
QUEEN AND STORAGE AS WELL AS
PROJECTS DONE DURING THE
LIBRARIES FOR ALL CAPITAL
PROJECT CAMPAIGN.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS MEANS
IS, FOR THE PROPOSED 2019 LEVY,
THE AMOUNT OF REFUNDING IS
ANTICIPATED TO STAY AT BETWEEN
5-$800,000 PER YEAR.
THE LEVY FUNDS COLLECTED FOR
THESE PROJECTS IS $55.7
MILLION.
COMPARED TO 4.8 MAKE MILLION
DOLLARS, IT IS PRIMARILY LEVY
FUNDING THAT WILL CONTINUE TO
FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS AND MAJOR
MAINTENANCE FOR THE LIBRARY.
THE POINT HERE I GUESS IS THAT
IT IS NOT THAT LEVY FUNDS ARE
REPLACING THE DECREASE IN
SUPPORT BUT THEY CONTINUE TO BE
THE PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR THESE
PROJECTS AND IT CONTINUES TO BE
A LIMITED SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR
CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE
LIBRARY.
>> COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES IT.
ASHA, I THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL IF YOU SPOKE A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT THE UPTICK THAT
SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF AN OUTLIER
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
REFUNDING DOLLARS TO CAPITAL
PROJECTS.
I THINK THAT WAS IN 2016. I
THINK THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE THAT WENT UP TO $1.25
MILLION AND IT HAS BEEN ARGUED
BY SOME IN THIS TOWN THAT IT IS
A MORE APPROPRIATE SOURCE FOR
SUPPORTING THE LIBRARY AND ALL
OF ITS NEEDS RATHER THAN A
PROPERTY TAX PROPOSED BY THIS
PROPOSAL.
SOME OF THE FOLKS ARE HANGING
ON TO THE REIT BUMP.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU
SPEAK TO WHY THERE WAS A $1.25
MILLION ALLOCATION IN 2016 IN
THE FULLER CONTEXT OF WHAT
APPEARS TO BE A MORE
TRADITIONAL CONTRIBUTION OF
SOMEWHERE IN THE 500-700,000
RANGE AS IT RELATES TO REIT.
THE 500-$700,000 ESSENTIALLY
ACCOUNTS FOR THE REIMAGINED
SPACES WHICH IS THE LIBRARIES
FOR NEWER OR ENHANCED USES.
BASELINE, THAT IS WHAT RENTAL
FUNDS.
IN ADDITION, IT FUNDS ADA
IMPROVEMENTS THAT TEND TO COME
UP YEAR AFTER YEAR.
THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF IT.
THE ADDITION, IN 2016
ESSENTIALLY WAS TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE FACT THAT IN 2012, IT WAS
NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE
WOULD BE THESE NEEDS AT THE
CENTRAL LIBRARY.
THE FLOORING WAS A NEW THING
AND THE CURTAIN WALL BECAUSE IT
WAS NEW ARCHITECTURE FROM WHEN
THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY WAS
RENOVATED, THERE WERE A VARIETY
OF NEEDS THAT DID NOT END UP
BEING WORKED INTO THE
ANTICIPATED PLANNING.
BECAUSE OF THAT, FUNDING ENDED
UP BEING THE MECHANISM BY WHICH
THOSE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
HAPPENED IN 2016 AND 2017.
SO WHEN THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE
TAKEN CARE OF, REIT FUNDING
DROPPED BACK DOWN TO THE
AVERAGE SOURCE IN 2018 AT ABOUT
$550,000.
>> SO 2016, THERE WAS
UNEXPECTED ADDITIONAL CAPITAL
PROJECT RELATED COST THAT WAS
NOT IN EXISTENCE IN THE YEARS
THAT WERE LEADING UP TO THE
PLANNING FOR THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECTS ET
CETERA.
THAT REQUIRED THE CITY, BOTH
THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL
TO REEVALUATE HOW TO PRIORITIZE
LIMITED TO RENTAL DOLLARS TO
MEET THE UNANTICIPATED CAPITAL
PROJECT COST OF THE LIBRARY AS
YOU JUST DESCRIBED.
IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
>> YES.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS
WELL.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF
THE CAPITAL PROJECT --
LOOKING TO LIBRARY FOLKS, THERE
WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE FLOOR
SINKING.
AND THAT WAS NOT ANTICIPATED.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS THAT, YES, THERE IS
SOME DISCRETION RELATED TO HOW
WE CAN APPROPRIATE AND ALLOCATE
PARENTAL DOLLARS.
BUT NOT ALL OF THE LIBRARY
NEEDS WILL AND CAN BE MET TO
THE SCALE THAT IS NEEDED BY
SIMPLY RELYING ON REIT.
IN MY OPINION, THAT IS AN
OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF DOLLARS THAT
EXIST FOR THIS REALLY IMPORTANT
USE.
AND SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE
PUBLIC THAT THE $1.25 MILLION
IN 2016 SHOULD NOT BE READ AS A
SIGNAL THAT THERE ARE LIMITLESS
AMOUNTS OF MONEY AVAILABLE IN
THE BUCKET FOR THE LIBRARY TO
MEET IS CAPITAL COST.
THAT WAS A DISCRETIONARY
DECISION MADE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR IN ORDER
TO MEET AND UNANTICIPATED COST
THAT WOULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE
BEEN ABLE TO BE MET THROUGH
LEVY DOLLARS AND REALLY SORT OF
DON'T WANT US TO BE PUT IN A
SITUATION WHERE WE ARE CREATING
A FALLACY IN TERMS OF OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO US IN THE LIBRARY
TO MEET THE REAL NEEDS.
THANK YOU.
>> THINK YOU.
>> I WILL MOVE INTO THE
SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF FINES.
AS THE LIBRARY PREVIOUSLY --
SORRY.
>> GO AHEAD.
AS THE LIBRARY PREVIOUSLY
DESCRIBED THE LEVY INCLUDES
FUNDING TO SUPPORT A FINE FREE
POLICY.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS POLICY,
IT IS ROOTED IN THE PURPOSE OF
THE LIBRARY, BOTH ITS MISSION
AND ITS PRINCIPALS.
THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE
LIBRARY IS TO PROVIDE FREE
ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND IT
INCLUDES ELIMINATING BARRIERS
TO ACCESS.
HISTORICALLY, CHILDREN'S
MATERIALS -- AND ENGLISH AS A
SECOND LANGUAGE MATERIAL, HAS
BEEN FINE FREE SINCE 1890 AND
2009 AND THOSE WERE REINSTATED
BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS CREATED BY THE
RECESSION.
CURRENTLY, MOBILE SERVICES
PATRONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
FINES AND E-MATERIALS AS A
GENERAL CATEGORY DO NOT HAVE
FINES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
FOR ALL OTHER PATRONS AND ALL
OTHER MATERIALS, OVERDUE FINES
ARE CHARGED AT 25 CENTS PER DAY
FOR MATERIAL AND ACCESS IS
BLOCKED WHEN THE FIND REACHES
$15.
AS IT STANDS, 20% OF THE
LIBRARY'S CURRENT ACCOUNTS ARE
BLOCKED.
AS A POLICY GOAL, TO ACHIEVE
THE LIBRARY MISSION, THE IDEA
IS TO INCREASE ACCESS.
AND FOR A LONG TIME, IT WAS
BELIEVED THAT THE FINES WERE
THE MECHANISM BY WHICH PEOPLE
WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO RETURN
BOOKS ON TIME.
IN REVIEWING RESEARCH AND THE
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER LIBRARIES,
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE FINES,
RATHER THAN INCENTIVIZING BOOKS
RINGGIT -- BEING RETURNED ON
TIME, DECREASE ACCESS.
BECAUSE THE FINES ACCUMULATE
AND ACCOUNTS END UP BEING
BLOCKED AND PEOPLE WITH LOWER
INCOME CAN OFTEN NOT PAY THAT
OFF TO GET ACCESS RESTORED.
PATRONS WITH MORE RESOURCES CAN
PAY RESULTING IN A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
THOSE COMMUNITIES WHO SCORE
LOWER ON THE EQUITY INDEX,
WHICH IS A MEASURE THAT THE
PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
USES TO EVALUATE OPPORTUNITY.
>> BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER, CAN
YOU SHARE WITH US -- WE KNOW
THERE WAS A STUDY IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND CHIPS UP -- SO
THEY UNDERSTAND THERE IS NOT
JUST A RUN ON THE LIBRARY AND
EVERYBODY WILL NOT JUST TAKE
BOOKS AND NEVER BRING THEM
BACK.
WAS JUST CLEAR THAT UP SO THE
SEATTLE TIMES UNDERSTANDS THAT.
>> I WOULD NOT BET ON THEM
UNDERSTANDING.
>> THINK YOU.
>>> AS AN INITIAL MATTER,
THIS IS ABOUT ELIMINATING FINES
AND NOT FEES AND THE
DISTINCTION IS THAT FINES
ACCUMULATE FOR OVERDUE
MATERIALS AND FEES ARE INCURRED
WHEN AN ITEM BECOMES LOST OR IN
NEED OF REPLACEMENT.
AND SO, MOVING INTO THE SAN
FRANCISCO STUDY, ESSENTIALLY
WHAT THEY DID WAS COLLECT DATA
ABOUT ALL THE USERS, THE
COMMUNITY USERS, WHICH ACCOUNTS
HAD ACCESS -- LIMITED OR
BLOCKED ACCESS BECAUSE OF THE
FINES THAT ACTIVATED THE
BLOCKAGE AND WHAT THE ECONOMICS
OF THOSE COMMUNITIES WERE LIKE.
AND THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME
TALKING TO OTHER LIBRARIES THAT
HAD EITHER ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
A FINAL ELIMINATION POLICY OR
WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
ELIMINATING FINES FOR EITHER
ALL MATERIALS OR VERY SPECIFIC
MATERIALS.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THEY FOUND
AFTER TALKING TO ALL OF THESE
LIBRARIES IS THAT EITHER
RETURNS ENDED UP BEING THE SAME
OR THE TIMING ON RETURNS WAS
SHORTENED.
THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN
CIRCULATION THAT HAPPENED AT
MULTIPLE LIBRARIES.
AS WELL AS DATA COLLECTED THAT
SAID THAT IT WAS A NEGATIVE
INTERACTION OF PEOPLE HAVING TO
PAY OFF FINES THAT DECREASED
INCENTIVE TO GO BACK AND GET
ACCESS RESTORED.
IT IS NOT ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF
THE FINES BUT THE ACTUAL
INTERACTION WITH THE LIBRARY
THAT WAS NEGATIVE.
LOOKING AT THAT, THEY LOOKED AT
COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT
ELIMINATING FINES.
ONE OF THEM WAS INCENTIVIZING
RETURNS AND INSTRUCTING PEOPLE
ON WHAT THEIR CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITY WAS IN TERMS OF
RETURNING THOSE THINGS ON TIME.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY
NOTED, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH
THE PUBLIC LIBRARY'S MISSION IS
THAT THE MISSION IS TO PROVIDE
FREE AND EQUAL ACCESS.
SO THE POLICIES THAT THE
LIBRARY PUTS IN PLACE ARE
INTENDED TO BE IN LINE WITH
THOSE.
SO IF THEY HAD FOUND -- IF
SAN FRANCISCO OR SEATTLE FOUND
THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
PATRON WAS TO RETURN ITEMS IN A
TIMELY WAY AND TEACH THEM TO DO
THAT, THE FINES WOULD BE
NECESSARY AND THAT ACTUALLY
WORKS PICK THE POLICY WOULD
THEN BE TO KEEP THOSE FINES
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WOULD LEAD
BEST TO FREE AND EQUAL ACCESS.
AS IT TURNS OUT, GIVEN ALL THIS
RESEARCH, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
THE ROUTE TO FREE AND EQUAL
ACCESS IS INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE
TO RETURN BOOKS BUT THAT IS NOT
A POLICY OUTCOME DRIVEN BY
FINES.
AND SO I AM READING FROM ONE OF
THE QUOTES FROM THE STUDY.
OVERDUE FINES DID NOT TURN
IRRESPONSIBLE PATRONS INTO
RESPONSIBLE ONES.
THEY ONLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD TO PAY
FOR THE LATE RETURNS AND THOSE
WHO CANNOT.
>> ONCE I CAN HERE.
I HAVE A FEW FOLLOW-UPS AFTER A
POINT.
>> I MISSED WHAT YOU SAID
LAST.
MAYBE IT RELATES TO ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS I HAD IN TERMS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO STUDY FIRST OF
ALL.
AND IF YOU MENTIONED IT I
APOLOGIZE, BUT WHAT WAS THE
PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THEY
STUDIED THIS?
AND CLEARLY, THEY DID IT --
THE DATA THEY ARE USING IS NOT
ONLY THE LIBRARY SYSTEM'S DATA
BUT WHICH BOOKS WERE CHECKED
OUT AND HOW MANY IN
CIRCULATION.
ALSO THERE WAS A SURVEY
COMPONENT.
IT WAS INTERESTING.
YOU MENTIONED ONE OF THE THINGS
WAS NOT ONLY THE FINES BUT THE
NEGATIVE INTERACTION OF HAVING
TO GO AND PAY THE FINES. I
THINK THAT IS A GOOD INSIGHT TO
WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING.
IF YOU COULD GO INTO -- BY
HOW MUCH THE CIRCULATION WENT
UP HERE JUST AS A GUIDELINE FOR
US IN SEATTLE.
AND THE LAST POINT YOU MADE, IN
TERMS OF INCOME, DO WE SEE A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN
CIRCULATION AS FAR AS LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ARE
CONCERNED?
AND IF THEY DID NOT MEASURE A,
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
KNOWING WHAT KIND OF FACTORS
THEY USED TO MEASURE IT LIKE
HOW DID THEY CLASSIFY SOMEONE
AS LOW INCOME?
LAST THING, DID IT HAVE ANY
POSITIVE IMPACT FOR CIRCULATION
OF BOOKS BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE?
THINGS.
>> IN TERMS OF -- THIS
STUDY WAS DONE TO MAKE A CASE
FOR MOVING FORWARD IN THE FINE
FREE PROCESS.
I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT
HAPPENED SPECIFICALLY IN SAN
FRANCISCO.
I CAN GO BACK AND CHECK.
IN TALKING TO SOME OTHER
LIBRARIES FONDA -- THEY FOUND
THE SALT LAKE LIBRARY INCREASED
11% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
BORROWERS.
14% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
ITEMS BORROWED EUROPEAN
ELIMINATING FINES.
IN NASHVILLE, THEY FOUND ABOUT
50,000 PARTS WERE BLOCKED OUT
OF 300,000 USERS.
WHEN THEY ELIMINATED THE FINES,
THERE WERE -- THERE IS NO
PERCENTAGE BUT A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY
AFTER THE POLICY CHANGE
HAPPENED.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
ARE YOU FINISHED ANSWERING THAT
QUESTION.
>> IN THE FIRST MEETING, WHEN
THE ISSUE OF HAVING A FINE FREE
ENVIRONMENT WAS APPROACHED, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
I FULLY SUPPORT NOT IN ANY WAY
PENALIZING PEOPLE.
I FULLY SUPPORT THAT.
I WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
ISSUE AS I LOOK AT WHAT ALL THE
POSSIBILITIES ARE.
AGAIN, THERE COULD BE PEOPLE
WILLING TO PAY FINES AND I THINK
THE FINE REVENUE OF AROUND $8
MILLION A YEAR -- IF YOU LOOK
AT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
NEW LEVY, IT WENT FROM 1.4, TO
THE OLD LEVY -- THE BASELINE
IS 2.2.
I DID HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO WHY
-- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT
KEEPS GOING UP JUST BECAUSE THE
AMOUNT GOES UP.
IF WE PUSH THE AMOUNT DOWN AND
WE DIDN'T SUPPORT THE FULL
PROPOSAL OF THE EXECUTIVE, THE
ADMINISTRATION FEES GOES DOWN
BECAUSE OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.
BUT THE FINE REVENUE -- AND I
DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A PILOT OR
WE LOOK AT HOW YOU CAN CAPTURE
A FINE FROM THOSE WILLING TO
PAY RATHER THAN PENALIZING
THOSE THAT CAN'T -- IS THERE
A MIDDLE GROUND?
EVEN IF WE CAPTURE 20% OF THOSE
WILLING TO PAY, YOU ARE PAYING
CASH FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.
MOST LIBRARIES HAVE SOME KIND
OF FINE MECHANISM.
THE FEE IS WHEN THEY DON'T TURN
IT IN AT ALL.
WHAT IS THE FEE REVENUE?
THE FEE STRUCTURE STILL IN
PLACE.
WHY NOT GET AWAY WITH THE FEE
PENALTY STRUCTURE ASK IF THEY
DON'T TURN IT IN, WOULDN'T SOME
OF THE SAME FOLKS UNABLE TO PAY
THE FINES BE PROHIBITED FROM
BORROWING AS WELL?
IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD GO ALL
IN OR LOOK FOR SOME KIND OF
PILOT.
SO THE FEE REVENUE IS WHAT WE
GET.
DOES THAT INCLUDE THE FEES?
>> THE PAST LEVY PERIOD, THE
8 MILLION INCLUDES FINES AND
FEES.
MOVING FORWARD, THE PROJECTION
IS THAT FEES WILL CREATE
$200,000 WORTH OF REVENUE IN
EACH YEAR MOVING FORWARD.
>> MOST OF IT IS A FINE BUT A
SMALL SEGMENT OF FEES WERE
PEOPLE JUST -- IS THERE
FORGIVENESS IF THEY JUST LOST
IT?
>> IT DEPENDS.
WANTS A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
HAS PASSED -- I THINK 40
DAYS.
AFTER 40 DAYS HAVE GONE BY,
ANYTHING IN OVERDUE STATUS
TURNS TO FEE STATUS.
SO IT REQUIRES REPLACEMENT
BECAUSE YOU HAVE LOST IT.
THE FEE POLICY IS IN PLACE
BECAUSE THE LIBRARY HAS
INTEREST IN GETTING ITS
MATERIALS BACK.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
FINES AND THE FEES IS THAT WITH
FINES, IT IS PRIMARILY AN
OVERDUE ISSUE.
IT IS ABOUT GETTING THE ITEM
BACK IN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF
TIME.
AS FAR AS FEES GO, BECAUSE YOU
ARE LOOKING AT LOST OR REPLACED
BOOKS, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO
REPLACE THAT COPY OF THE BOOK.
IT IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN IF
YOU CAN PAY TO BRING SOMETHING
BACK IN A TIMELY WAY OR NOT.
>> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
WAIVING THE PENALTIES FOR FEES
BECAUSE USUALLY SOME PEOPLE
LIVE OR OPERATE IN A HIGHER
THEFT AREA THAN OTHERS AND I
DON'T WANT THEM PROHIBITED FROM
BEING ABLE TO BORROW FROM THIS
PUBLIC ASSET JUST BECAUSE THEY
COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE BOOK
BACK SO WE SHOULD LOOK AT
WAIVING THE FEES.
AND ON THE FINES, WE SHOULD
DEVELOP A PROCESS BY WHICH WE
DON'T ENFORCE IT IN TERMS OF IT
THEY CAN'T BORROW ANYMORE BUT
IF THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR
IT -- I GREW UP IN THE
LIBRARY.
WE PROBABLY COULD CAPTURE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A
VOLUNTARY BASIS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THE SAN
FRANCISCO STUDY BROUGHT UP WAS
THE PIECE ON NEGATIVE
INTERACTION IN TERMS OF COMING
TO THE LIBRARY TO PAY OFF
FINES.
IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE
NEGATIVE INTERACTION WOULD
INCLUDE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO
HAVE TO PROVIDE YOUR INCOME
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF IF
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT CAN
PAY AND SOME PEOPLE THAT CAN'T.
THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO
PROVE THAT.
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A
THRESHOLD.
>> I WASN'T SUGGESTING THEY
APPLY AS A DISCOUNT.
I WAS SIMPLY SUGGESTING THAT
THEY HAVE A POSITIVE
INTERACTION.
WE TRY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE.
BUT IF YOU CANNOT PAY OR YOU
ARE UNWILLING TO PAY, YOU CAN
STILL BORROW.
HERE IS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
IF WE HAD A STRICT POLICY IN
PLACE THERE NOT INCOME
ELIGIBILITY PURCHASED A
VOLUNTARY BASIS.
PEOPLE COULD PAY FOR LATE BOOKS
IF THEY CHOOSE.
MY GUESS WOULD BE, DON'T MOST
PEOPLE PAY FOR THE FINES?
THE DELINQUENT AMOUNT IS LIKE
10 OR 15%.
>> WHAT IS THE DELINQUENT
AMOUNT?
>> 20%.
>> 20% OF THE PEOPLE ARE
UNWILLING TO PAY.
I WOULD NOT SUGGEST WE PENALIZE
THEM AT ALL.
EVEN IF THOSE PEOPLE -- EVEN
OF THE 80% ARE PEOPLE -- IF
IT IS AFFECTING THEM ADVERSELY,
-- BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
POLICY REASONS FOR WAIVING
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHEN THERE
MIGHT BE SOME PEOPLE WILLING TO
PAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LOOKED AT
THAT AT ALL.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD
TO DRAW THE RESEARCH WE HAVE SO
FAR IN TERMS OF THESE
QUESTIONS.
I WOULD SAY THAT -- JUST
SPEAKING FROM A STUDY ANGLE, I
DON'T SEE HOW -- I DON'T SEE
HOW WE CAN HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE
WE SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW
YOUR INCOME INFORMATION BUT IF
YOU ARE ABLE TO PAY, YOU SHOULD
PAY.
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU
HAVE THAT KIND OF POLICY --
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS PEOPLE WHO
CAN AFFORD TO PAY WOULD PAY AND
IT WOULD BE SHAMING OF PEOPLE
WHO CAN'T PAY.
AND THERE ARE CHILDREN WHO
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
WHETHER THEIR PARENTS ARE ABLE
TO PAY OR NOT.
IT JUST SEEMS TO PUT THE ONUS
ON THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES TO
DECIDE WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.
I DON'T THINK IT IS WORTH --
AND IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, YES THAT
IS A VALID THING TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE THINKING
OF WAYS TO RAISE THE REVENUES.
BUT NOT TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT ON THE BASIS OF APPLYING
FINES FOR LIBRARY BOOKS.
I THINK THIS IS THE CORRECT
DIRECTION TO GO IN.
>> I WOULD NOTE, IN TERMS OF
FISCAL IMPACT.
THE REVENUESFROM FINES AND
FEES HAVE BEEN DROPPING OVER
THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.
IN 2013, WE WERE COLLECTING
$1.6 MILLION.
AS OF 2017, THAT DROPPED TO
$1.2 MILLION.
SOME OF THAT IS DUE TO THE
INCREASE IN USAGE OF THE
MATERIALS RATHER THAN PHYSICAL
MATERIALS.
ASSUMING THE TREND IS GOING TO
CONTINUE, THE PROJECTION IS
THAT THE REVENUE WILL CONTINUE
TO FALL FROM FINES.
>> I DON'T WANT THIS
DISCUSSION TO DOMINATE THE
LARGER ISSUES.
I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT HAVING A FINE
STRUCTURE ON PEOPLE ABLE TO PAY
BUT A FINE STRUCTURE ON PEOPLE
WILLING TO PAY THE LAST POINT
IS, WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE
VOTERS FOR PASSED LEVY THAT WAS
122 MILLION, UP TO 213 MILLION.
WE HAVE TO IMPRESS UPON THE
PUBLIC THAT EVERY PROPERTY TAX,
EVERY LEVY DOLLAR WE ARE ASKING
THEM TO PAY IS PART OF A LARGE
SCHEME OF INTELLIGENCE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I AM FINISHED.
>> I AM OFF MY SOAPBOX.
>> I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO
TALK ABOUT WILLINGNESS.
TALKING ABOUT WILLINGNESS, NOT
ABILITY.
I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS, IN
TERMS OF HAVING A SENSE OF
PROPORTION IN THE CITY AND
STATE THAT HAS THE MOST
AGGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM -- IN
THE CONTEXT OF SOME OF THE
BIGGEST CORPORATIONS PAYING A
NET NEGATIVE TAX RATE MEANING
THEY GET MORE FROM THE TAX
SYSTEM THEY PAY INTO IT.
GETTING MORE SUBSIDIES.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE
TALKING ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS
OF THE HOUSEHOLDS TO PAY
LIBRARY SCIENCE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIAL
SERVICES FOR FAMILIES,
ESPECIALLY FAMILIES -- AND
RELYING ON LIBRARIES FOR
VARIOUS NEEDS, NOT JUST THE
BOOKS.
ALSO FOR INTERNET ACCESS.
I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THE
ACCESS TO LIBRARIES AS OBSTACLE
FREE AS POSSIBLE.
AND REALLY NOT ENGAGE EVEN IN A
CONVERSATION THAT INVOLVES --
INVOLVES NICKELS AND DIMES.
>> ONE LAST COMMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THIS.
THE LIBRARY SYSTEM HAS BEEN
USING THIS APPROACH FOR OVER 35
YEARS.
AS TO THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE COST ASSOCIATED
WITH OVERDUE OR MISSING ITEMS,
I THINK THE STRUCTURE WE HAVE
CREATED ALLOWS FOR THAT BECAUSE
PEOPLE WILL BE CHARGED FOR AN
ITEM THAT IS NOT RETURNED.
IT WILL BE CHARGED OF THE
REPLACEMENT VALUE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE TO PAY FOR
THE REPLACEMENT VALUE WILL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THE
REPLACEMENT VALUE AND NOBODY
WILL BE BLOCKED FROM ACCESSING
LIBRARY SERVICES AS I
UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I THOUGHT WE SAID IF
PEOPLE CAN'T PAY THE FEES, THEY
ARE BLOCKED FROM ACCESS.
>> IF THEY CANNOT PLAY THE
LOST OR REPLACED FEES, BUT THEY
CAN WORK WITH THE LIBRARY IF
THEY ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD THE
FEES.
>> SO THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY
BLOCKED.
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.
>> THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY
BLOCKED BUT THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PERSON TO
TALK TO THE LIBRARY ABOUT
GETTING THE FEES WAIVED.
>> I WILL WRAP THINGS UP IN
ONE POINT BECAUSE I WANT TO GET
BACK TO THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHICAL
POINT.
FIRST, I WANT TO START WITH THE
BASIC LEGISLATION ON PAGE 5,
LINE FOUR.
IT TALKS ABOUT OVERDUE FINES
AND LITTLE IMPACT ON RETURNING
MATERIALS AND SUCH FINES HAVE A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON LOW
INCOME FAMILIES WHICH
DISCOURAGES LIBRARY USE.
WE KNOW THAT ELIMINATING FINES
EQUALS HIGHER USAGE.
SO THIS IS A MORE PHILOSOPHICAL
POINT WHICH ACTUALLY HAS ITS
ROOTS IN BASIC FACTS, COMMON
LAW AND HISTORY.
THE LIBRARIES ARE NOT A REVENUE-
GENERATING ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OR
SERVICE.
BY NATURE, LIBRARIES ARE PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE MOST
INTENSIVELY USED AND VALUED IN
EVERY COMMUNITY ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
SO WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH
ABOUT FINES OR FEES BUT THE
POINT IS, GOING BACK TO THE
FOUR CATEGORIES ON OPEN ARE
ACCESS -- AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE
ATTACHMENT LEGISLATION ON THE
MAPS.
THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS.
I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE LIGHT
OF A $213 MILLION LEVY.
BUT THERE IS A GREATER GOOD
HERE.
THE GREATER GOOD IS PUBLIC
LIBRARIES ARE PUBLIC.
THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING THEM
IS TO HAVE PEOPLE COME IN AND
USE THEM.
WE HAVE LEARNED THAT PUBLIC
LIBRARIES ARE WHAT THEY CALL,
THE PEOPLE'S UNIVERSITY.
IT IS THERE WHOLE POINT.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT
THAT IS THE NARRATIVE THAT WE
SHOULD BE LOOKING AT HOW WE
WOULD LOOK AT THIS LEVY AND
SECOND OF ALL, I DO APPRECIATE
THAT IT WILL BE $213 MILLION
WHICH -- COUNSELOR, WHAT WAS
THE MATH ON THAT?
YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS?
WE DID DO THE MATH QUICKLY AND
I CANNOT REMEMBER HOW MUCH IT
WAS.
HOW MUCH WAS IT A MONTH OR A
YEAR?
>> I BELIEVE $84.92 PER
AVERAGE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD.
>> $84 A YEAR WHICH IS ABOUT
$1.50 -- $7 A MONTH.
SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE.
I THINK THAT IS JUST IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THAT IS THE HISTORY OF
OUR COUNTRY AND WHY SO MANY
PEOPLE HAVE BECOME --
INCLUDING ME, HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY.
BECAUSE WE USED PUBLIC
LIBRARIES.
WITHOUT A PUBLIC LIBRARY, I DO
NOT BELIEVE I WOULD BE SITTING
HERE TODAY.
SO WITH THAT, CAN WE MOVE
FORWARD OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER RYAN?
>> TO COMMENT ON THE MATH.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A
QUICK ANALYSIS TO LOOK AT WHAT
INFLATION HAS DONE IN THE SEVEN
YEARS SINCE WE DID THIS LEVY
AND ALSO A POPULATION.
SERVING A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN
THE CITY.
THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE MATH
SHOWS THAT WHEN YOU ACCOUNT FOR
POPULATION CHANGE AND
INFLATION, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
A 35% INCREASE IN THE LEVY
AMOUNT AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT BUT
I WOULD LOVE URINALYSIS TO
CHECK THAT MATH.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING
SOME CHANGES AND PROVIDING
SERVICES.
THAT IS A QUESTION WE WILL HAVE
TO WRESTLE WITH THE NEXT COUPLE
WEEKS.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
>> THE THIRD ISSUE IS
SLIGHTLY RELATED TO THE AND
THAT IT DEALS WITH THE RISING
COST OF E-MATERIALS.
AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THE
LETTER WOULD PROVIDE $5 MILLION
FOR SEVEN YEARS TO SUPPORT THE
INCREASING COST OF THE
MATERIALS -- E-MATERIALS.
IT WOULD BE THE LOW AMOUNT OF
MAINTAINING THE MOST CRITICAL
NEED.
THE GROWING USE OF E-MATERIALS,
IF YOU LOOK AT APPENDIX B
ATTACHED TO THE END OF YOUR
MEMO, THERE ARE TWO FIGURES.
THE FIRST TALKS ABOUT PHYSICAL
MATERIALS AND DIGITAL MATERIALS
AS PART OF THE TOTAL
CIRCULATION.
ESSENTIALLY, IT SHOWS THAT
THERE HAS BEEN A STEADY
INCREASE OF STEADY INCREASE IN
THE USE OF DIGITAL MATERIALS
THAT COMPARESWITH THE DECREASE
IN THE USE OF PHYSICAL
MATEIALS.
THE SECOND FIGURE SHOWS THE
DIFFERENCE IN CIRCULATION BY
FORMAT IN WHICH THE ELECTRONIC
MATERIALS HAVE INCREASED QUITE
A BIT MORE SINCE 2013.
THESE ARE 2017 NUMBERS.
THE LAST FIGURE, FIGURE THREE,
SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN COST
BETWEEN A HARDCOVER BOOK VERSUS
THE E-BOOK OR THE E-AUDIO.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR BOOK BY
MICHELLE OBAMA, HARDCOVER IS
$16.90, TO OWN IT VERSUS $55,
TO LEASE IT ESSENTIALLY FOR TWO
YEARS.
SO THE COST IS QUITE A BIT MORE
FOR E-MATERIALS.
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF THE
2012 LEVY, THERE WERE SHOW
FAULT -- SHORTFALLS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INCREASE IN
MATERIALS WHICH WERE FILLED BY
PRIVATE
>> BECAUSE OF THE CONSTANT
CHANGING OF LICENSING
CONDITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE A 24
MONTH LEASE NOW COULD BE A SIX
MONTH LEASE FOR THE NEXT COPY
OF THE E-BOOK.
BECAUSE OF THAT IT IS A
CONSTANTLY CHANGING NUMBER AS
TO WHAT WILL SUPPORT THE DEMAND
FOR E-MATERIALS .
>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE
TRAN4: FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY
GOOD INFORMATION ON THE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF WHO USES HARD
BOOKS VERSUS E-MATERIALS?
OBVIOUSLY IT TAKES SOME SORT OF
TECHNOLOGY ON THE USER END TO
DO THAT.
I AM CURIOUS IF E-MATERIALS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY SERVING ONE
POPULATION?
I KNOW THAT THE LIBRARY DOES
AMAZING THINGS WITH TECHNOLOGY,
DO WE HAVE THE READER LOANERS
OR POLICIES IN PLACE, I DON'T
KNOW, MAYBE WORKING WITH A BIG
CORPORATION WHO CAN DONATE YOU
READERS TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE?
I WILL BE CURIOUS IF THERE ARE
OPTIONS LIKE THAT.
ANOTHER QUESTION HAS LESS TO DO
WITH THE LEVEE, I KEEP LOOKING
AT OUR FOLKS FROM THE LIBRARY
OUT THERE.
AS WE SEE THE COSTS GO UP FOR
THESE, AND I ASSUME THERE ARE
SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS ARE
DIGITIZING, BUT IT HAS TO BE
MORE EXPENSIVE TO RENT A BOAT
THEN EMAIL A FILE.
WE ARE PAYING 3-4 TIMES THAT
AMOUNT FOR THAT ACCESS.
DO WE KNOW IF THAT ADDITIONAL
MONEY IS GOING TO AUTHORS TO
SUPPORT WRITING?
IS IT ALL BEING CAPTURED BY
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES AND
DISTRIBUTIONS AND PUBLISHING
HOUSES?
AGAIN THIS IS NOT TERRIBLY
RELEVANT, BUT IT WILL BE GREAT
TO KNOW THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING
WRITERS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD
AS OPPOSED TO A WORLD WHERE
WRITERS ARE STARVING AND WE ARE
PAYING A LOT MORE MONEY AND IT
IS GOING TO THE HANDS OF THE
FOLKS CONTROLLING THE INDUSTRY.
TERE IS PROBABLY NOT A LOT WE
CAN DO TO CHANGE IT, BUT IF
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN
HIGHLIGHT ABOUT THAT TREND IT
WILL BE GOOD TO FLAG IT.
>> THANK YOU, THE ONE ELSE?
>> I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU ON THE LATTER TWO QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING
AND WHETHER OR NOT THE LIBRARY
HAS THE READERS ON LOAN.
IN TERMS OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS,
AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I
HAVE HAD I BELIEVE THE USE OF
THE MATERIALS IS HIGHER IN
AREAS THAT ARE NOT -- EXCUSE
ME, AREAS HIGHER ON THE EQUITY
INDEX.
BETTER OFF COMMUNITIES ARE
USING THE MORE.
I CAN GET SOME NUMBERS ON THAT
FOR YOU.
>> I JUST NOTE FOR NOT THE
CAPITAL ISSUE, BUT THE
ELIMINATION OF FINES AND RISING
COST OF E-MATERIALS ISSUES THAT
THERE ARE PROPOSED OPTIONS IN
THE MEMO ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN
DO.
OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN DO ANYTHING,
BUT SPECIFIC OPTIONS LAID OUT
TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYONE
INTERESTED IN PURSUING THOSE,
IT WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE
MAYOR'S LEVEE PROPOSAL TO
ELIMINATE FINES AND KEEP THE
PROPOSAL AS IS. MODIFY THE
PROPOSAL TO DECREASE HOW MUCH
LEVEE FUNDS SUPPORT THOSE
OPERATIONS AND THEN ELIMINATE
THE $8 MILLION ALTOGETHER FROM
THE LEVEE.
ON THE E-MATERIALS THE OPTIONS
ARE TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AS
IS AT $5 MILLION OR MODIFY TO
PROVIDE MORE OR LESS THAN $5
MILLION.
THE NEXT PIECE OF THIS IS
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE
LEVEE.
THE NEXT IS AROUND PROVIDING
AIR-CONDITIONING AND OR
ELEVATORS OF THE THREE
LIBRARIES SCHEDULED FOR SEISMIC
RETROFIT.
FOR THE COLUMBIA CITY LIBRARIES
FOR GREEN LAKE AND THE
UNIVERSITY BRANCH TO ADD AIR-
CONDITIONING WILL BE AN
ESTIMATED $500,000 PER BRANCH
FOR A TOTAL OF $1.5 MILLION.
TO ADD ELEVATORS TO GREEN LAKE
UNIVERSITY IT WILL COST $500
EACH -- $500,000 EACH.
THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS
DISCUSSED THAT DID NOT GET
ADDED TO THE MAYORS LEVEE
PACKAGE.
ESSENTIALLY TO ADD AIR-
CONDITIONING AND ELEVATORS TO
ALL BRANCHES WOULD COST $2.6
MILLION.
ADDING AIR-CONDITIONING WOULD
INCREASE THE LEVEE PROPOSAL IN
TERMS OF AVERAGE ANNUAL MEDIAN
HOMES $.60 AND ADDING ELEVATORS
WOULD INCREASE IT BY $.44.
THAT IS ADDED TO THE 84.92.
THE OPTIONS THAT I HAVE LAID
OUT OUR EXCEPT THE LEVEE
PROPOSAL WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE
FUNDING FOR AIR-CONDITIONING OR
ELEVATORS OR MODIFIES TO ADD
AIR-CONDITIONING OR ELEVATORS
TO ONE OR MORE BRANCHES.
>> I AM SORRY, CHAIR JUAREZ, IT
IS A QUESTION ON THE BASIC
PROPOSAL . ON THE QUESTION OF
WHAT THE POLICY SHOULD BE IF
MATERIALS ARE LOST, WHAT YOU
SAID IS I THINK THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL IS THE MEMBERSHIP TO
BE BLOCKED AND THEN THE PERSON
CAN TALK TO THE LIBRARIAN.
I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHAT OTHER
CITIES OR COUNTIES HAVE DONE
THIS FROM THE STUDY THAT YOU
ARE REFERRING TO?
IS THERE ANY SORT OF
CONSISTENCY ON THAT?
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IS
FINE.
>> I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU, BECAUSE WE DO NOT
HAVE THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO
BEING SCROLLED ON THE SCREEN,
WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON?
>> I AM NOW ON PAGE NUMBER SIX.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SECOND ITEM IS A
POTENTIAL ADD, THE POTENTIAL
FOR LIBRARY SPACE AT DENNY
SUBSTATION.
I THINK THAT YOU ARE ALL AWARE
THESE SUBSTATION IS BEING
WORKED ON AND ONE OF THE FREE
SPACES IS IN COMMUNITY SPACE.
THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL THAT
SPACE COULD BE USED AS A
NONTRADITIONAL LIBRARY SPACE.
IT COULD PROVIDE PROGRAMMING OR
BE A PICKUP LOCATION FOR HOLD
MATERIALS.
JUST A PLACE WHERE THERE IS WI-
FI ACCESS OR PLACES TO RENT OUT
A LAPTOP.
ANY KIND OF RENOVATION THAT CAN
USE THE LIBRARY THIS WAY WOULD
NOT OPEN UNTIL 2021, BUT AS IT
CURRENTLY STANDS THERE IS NO
LEVEE FUNDING PROPOSED FOR THIS
USE.
THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDING
TO SUPPORT THIS USE IN TERMS OF
THE LIBRARY'S BUDGET.
I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME
PROJECTIONS ABOUT WHAT USING
THAT SPACE AS A LIBRARY SPACE
WOULD ENTAIL.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS ABOUT $6.1
MILLION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE
AND STAFFING, FURNITURE, BOOKS
AND MATERIALS AND ANY TYPE OF
TENANT IMPROVEMENT.
IF THAT WERE ADDED IT WOULD
INCREASE THE AVERAGE ANNUAL
COST TO THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD BY
$2.44.
>> WHY THIS LOCATION?
HAS THERE BEEN AN ASSESSMENT OF
THE CITY AND THE DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY
THAT WOULD FIT FROM THESE
ADDITIONAL NONTRADITIONAL
LIBRARY SERVICES?
>> IN MY UNDERSTANDING IT DID
NOT COME SO MUCH FROM AN
ASSESSMENT AS FROM THE
OPPORTUNITY THAT HAVING THE
SUBSTATION IN THAT LOCATION AND
THAT SORT OF EMPTY SPACE HAD.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PROPOSAL
FOR THE SPACE.
IT COULD BE USED FOR ANY NUMBER
OF THINGS.
THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE
POTENTIAL THINGS.
>> IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE
SHOLD NOT BE LED TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS PURELY ON
OPPORTUNITY, BUT WE SHOULD BE
LED TO MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS
BASED ON WHERE THE GREATEST
NEEDS ARE.
>> THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THE
LIBRARY PROPOSED.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN
IN CONVERSATION ABOUT A
POTENTIAL SPACE USAGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, HAVE YOU
WRAPPED UP?
BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT
ITEM ARE YOU READY?
THERE IS SOMETHING I NEED TO
SAY.
I AM WANT TO ALLOW
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, THIS IS
AN ISSUE IMPORTANT TO HER.
IT IS ON PAGE NUMBER SEVEN.
SHE HAS TO GO SO I WILL GIVE
HER THE COURTESY OF TALKING TO
THIS ISSUE AND HOPEFULLY YOU
CAN FOLLOW UP WITH US.
HOW IS THAT?
>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
GO BEFORE YOU.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE REMARKED
THAT YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE, BUT
I HAVE TO LEAVE IN FIVE
MINUTES.
I UNFORTUNATELY WILL NOT BE
HERE FOR THE ONGOING
CONVERSATION.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE
SPECIFIC ITEM, THE FIRST:
ADDING PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN
BIRTH -3 YEARS OF AGE.
I WANT TO THANK THE LIBRARY FOR
THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE
HISTORICALLY DONE IN THIS
SPACE.
THEY HAVE AN EARLY LEARNING
SECTION ON THEIR WEBSITE.
THIS IS A CRITICAL PART OF
THEIR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AT
THE LIBRARY.
REALLY, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
NURTURE CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH A MUCH MORE CREATIVE
AND ACCESSIBLE WAY TO EARLY
LEARNING.
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT I THINK
IS VERY POPULAR ACROSS THE
CITY.
IN FACT, WHEN WE REQUESTED
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE
USAGE I WAS BLOWN AWAY BY THE
NUMBERS IN TERMS OF WHO AND HOW
THESE SERVICES ARE USED.
IN THE LAST YEAR THERE HAVE
BEEN 2866 EVENTS THAT FALL INTO
THIS BUCKET OF EARLY LEARNING
AND LITERACY PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN BIRTH- EARLY LEARNING
AND LITERACY PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN BIRTH -2 YEARS OF AGE.
THERE ARE OVER 106,000 PEOPLE
WHO HAVE ACCESS THESE PROGRAMS
AT THE LIBRARIES.
THAT IS ACROSS THE CITY.
WE HAVE MORE GRANULE DETAIL IN
THE TABLE INCLUDED IN THE MEMO.
IT IS A CONDENSED VERSION.
THERE ARE ANOTHER NUMBER OF
TABS AND INTERESTING DATA
PROVIDED TO US.
THIS WOULD BE PROGRAMMING THAT
WOULD FACILITATE THE ABILITY OF
PARENTS AND CHILDREN TO ENGAGE
IN THESE EARLY LITERACY-EARLY
LEARNING PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE
PLAYTIME FOR EXAMPLE.
IN MY RESEARCH I HAVE NOTICED
AND FOUND THEIR IS ACTUALLY A
POLICY PAPER THAT WAS WRITTEN
FOR THE ASSOCIATION FOR LIBRARY
SERVICE TO CHILDREN THAT TALKS
ABOUT WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE PLAY
LOOKS LIKE A LIBRARIES.
THEY POINT OUT THESE TYPES OF
PROGRAMS ARE CRITICAL TO MAKING
SURE CHILDREN ARE READY TO
LEARN WHEN THEY SHOW UP IN
KINDERGARTEN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE
DOING HERE AT THE CITY IS
INVESTING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF MONEY AND QUALITY PRESCHOOL
PROGRAMS.
WE HAVE ALSO FOUND WAYS TO
SUPPORT OTHER EARLY LEARNING
PROGRAMS THROUGH OUR SUITE AND
BEVERAGE TAX.
IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF
THOSE REVENUE SOURCES.
I THINK THESE PROGRAMS ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT TO MAKE
SURE CHILDREN HAVE A MAXIMIZED
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO
READ AND TO BE READY FOR
CLASSROOM TIME WHEN THEY
ARRIVED TO KINDERGARTEN.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BRAID
THIS TYPE OF INVESTMENT INTO
THE LIBRARY LEVEE OVER THE NEXT
SEVERAL YEARS.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND
MYSELF AND OTHER FOLKS THAT I
GAVE UP ON ADDING MORE FUNDING
IN THE FAMILIES EDUCATION
PRESCHOOL AND PROMISE PROGRAM
WITH THE HOPE AND PROMISE WE
COULD INCLUDE EARLY LEARNING
FUNDING.
THIS ONE IS A REALLY BIG
PRIORITY FOR ME AS THE CHAIR OF
THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND AS
SOMEONE WHO STRONGLY BELIEVES
IN HOW SMART THESE INVESTMENTS
ARE IN OUR LITTLEST LEARNERS
AND THEIR FAMILIES.
THERE ARE SO MANY AMAZING
EXAMPLES OF PLAY TO LEARN
PROGRAMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
ALSO BEING USED BY THE LIBRARY
CURRENTLY.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY
AMAZING OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THAT
AREA.
I AM HOPING TO BE ABLE TO PULL
TOGETHER A SET OF RESOURCES FOR
YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND
HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO GARNER
YOUR SUPPORT AS WE EVALUATE THE
POTENTIAL OF MAKING AN
AMENDMENT TO THIS LEVEE TO ADD
DEDICATED REVENUE TO SUPPORT
THIS TYPE OF PROGRAMMING.
WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR COST
ESTIMATES FROM FOLKS OVER AT
THE LIBRARY.
I CERTAINLY WANT TO BE
CONSCIENTIOUS AND ATTENTIVE AND
CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THIS COULD
IMPACT POCKETBOOKS.
I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THE
PEOPLE OF THE CITY WOULD FIND A
LOT OF VALUE IN INVESTING
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS PER MONTH
AND THIS TYPE OF PROGRAMMING
AND OUR LIBRARIES, WHICH IS
HEAVILY USED.
ALMOST 170,000 PEOPLE USE THIS
PROGRAMMING AT OUR LIBRARIES
ALREADY.
I AM HOPING TO BE ABLE TO GET
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME A
MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT
TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
FOR PUTTING THIS IN THE CENTRAL
STAFF MEMO.
I WANT TO INDICATE OUR INTEREST
IN EXPANDING UPON THIS CONCEPT
AS WELL.
I AM NOT SPECIFIC TO THE
PROGRAM, WHICH I ABSOLUTELY
SUPPORT AND WOULD LOVE TO WORK
WITH YOU ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.
WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF DOING
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH FOR WHAT IT
WOULD TAKE FOR ADDITIONAL
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FOR SPACE
FOR CHILDCARE FACILITIES TO BE
RUN OUT OF PUBLIC LIBRARY
FACILITIES ACROSS THE CITY.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES IS
THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SPACE.
WHEN WE HAVE THOSE SPACES WE
CAN DO INCREDIBLE PROGRAMS LIKE
THE TYPE THE COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ ALLUDED TO WITH OUR
PROFESSIONALS IN THE EARLY
LEARNING FIELD.
ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE
ARE INTERESTED IN DOING IS THE
IF THERE IS AN AVENUE. IF THERE
IS AN AVENUE FOR THESE TYPES OF
CAPITAL DOLLARS TO BE INCLUDED
IN HERE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
LIBRARIES AND THE UNION FOLKS
WHO WORK AT THE LIBRARIES TO
SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING THEY
WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR
BUILDING OUT THE SPACE.
I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN
WORKING WITH YOU ALL TO SEE IF
THAT IS AN POSSIBILITY.
I WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO
SHARING MORE INFORMATION WITH
YOU ON THAT SO THAT WE CAN
BUILD OUT ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR
TRADITIONAL INFANT AND TODDLER
FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
WHICH I THINK IS A NICE
COMPLEMENT TO THE PROPOSAL,
ITEM NUMBER ONE AS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SECOND ITEM THAT IS
LISTED HERE IS A DISCUSSION OF
ADDING MORE HOURS SYSTEMWIDE.
EVENTUALLY, BEFORE THE
RECESSION HIT LIBRARIES WERE
OPEN FOR A LITTLE OVER 1400
HRS.
SYSTEMWIDE PER WEEK.
WHEN THE RECESSION HIT IN 2010
THOSE HOURS WERE CUT BY AN
ADDITIONAL 200 HOURS.
WITH LEVEE FUNDING THE LIBRARY
WAS ABLE TO INCREASE THOSE
HOURS IN 2013 AND AGAIN IN 2016
TO THE POINT WERE CURRENTLY
LIBRARIES ARE OPEN 1377 HOURS
PER WEEK.
THE ADDITIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY IN THE PACKAGE TO
INCREASE HOURS WOULD INCREASE
ONE MORE SUNDAY HOUR AT ALL
BRANCHES.
THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LEVEE
FUNDED AS IT IS AN ITEM THAT
CAN BE ADDED WITHOUT FUNDING.
THAT WOULD INCREASE HOURS, 26
HOURS PER WEEK, OPEN FOR
BRANCHES ON FRIDAY AND ADD
EVENING AND MORNING HOURS TO
THREE OTHER BRANCHES.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL
THAT WAS NOT IN THE LEVEE
PACKAGE AS TRANSMITTED BY THE
MAYOR, WHICH WOULD BE TO ACT ON
AN OPEN EVENING HOUR MONDAY
THROUGH THURSDAY ACROSS THE
SYSTEM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 108
HOURS PER WEEK.
CURRENTLY THAT IS ESTIMATED AT
$5.6 MILLION.
THE LIBRARIES ARE GETTING ME
MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT
THE AMOUNTS, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT
WOULD ALLOW EACH LOCATION TO
STAY OPEN ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR.
>> YOU MEAN ALL 27 LIBRARIES?
>> YES.
>> I AM LIKELY TO BRING AN
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS
FOR MIDWEEK FOR AN EXTRA HOUR A
COUPLE REASONS: ONE IS EVENING
HOURS CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR
USERS TO ACCESS THE LIBRARY AND
MORE HOURS ARE GENERALLY
BETTER.
THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE
COMMITTEE SPACES THAT ARE OFTEN
CO-LOCATED A LIBRARIES.
COMMUNITY MEMBER HAVE THE
ABILITY TO USE THOSE FOR
MEETINGS.
IT IS A GREAT FREE SPACE TO
USE.
IN THE EVENING LIBRARIES ARE
CLOSING AT 8 OR EARLIER AND
MAKES IT HARD TO SCHEDULE WHAT
IS OFTEN AN HOUR AND A HALF
MEETING.
WE HAVE RUN INTO PROBLEMS, I AM
MOST FAMILIAR AT THE BALLARD
LIBRARY WHERE FOLKS HAVE
SCRAMBLED TO FIND NEW LOCATIONS
TO HOLD COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
WE STRUGGLED BECAUSE WE USE TO
MANAGE THAT BY USING SOME OF
OUR DISTRICT COORDINATORS WHO
HAVE KEYS AND ACCESS TO
LIBRARIES.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO SERVE A
COUPLE OF NEEDS: EXTENDIN
LIBRARIES AND A LOT OF
LIBRARIES TO 9 PM MONDAY
THROUGH THURSDAY.
AND ESSENTIALLY MAKING IT MUCH
MORE REALISTIC THAT PEOPLE
COULD USE FREE COMMUNITY SPACE
FOR MEETINGS.
IN THAT CASE IF A LIBRARYIS
OPEN TILL 9, TELL ABOUT A: 30.
THAT WOULD FACILITATE THE TYPE
OF GATHERINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO
SUPPORT.
WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THE
ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT.
IT IS A FEW MILLION DOLLARS FOR
SURE.
WE HOPE TO HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC
NUMBERS BY THURSDAY.
I WILL LOOP YOU IN ON THE
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL.
>> CHAIR, JUST TO UNDERSTAND,
THE MAYOR'S ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL
úAND THE COUNCILMEMBERS INTERES
IS IN ADDITION?
IS THERE OVERLAP?
>> THE MAYOR EXTENDED HOURS,
BUT THE CLOSING HOURS IN THE
EVENING, I THINK MOST LIBRARIES
ARE OPEN UNTIL NUMBER EIGHT
MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.
THIS WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL
HOUR.
THE PROBLEM WITH AN 8 PM
CLOSING MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
MEANS A 7:30 PM END TIME.
IF YOU HAVE AN HOUR AND A HALF
OR TWO HOUR MEETING AND YOU
NEED TO START IT 5:30 PM, MOST
ARE STARTING AT 6 OR 6:30 PM.
IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT I
THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW A LOT
MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY
MEETINGS TO BE HAPPENING AND OF
COURSE IT WOULD ADD AN EXTRA
HOUR FOR FOLKS TO USE THE
LIBRARY FOR A VARIETY OF MEANS.
>> THE 213 MILLION NUMBER IS
THE OLD NUMBER.
WE ARE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 5.9
OR SO AND MAYBE ANOTHER ONE IS
TWO OR SO.
I ADD ALL OF THAT TO THE 2.13?
>> YES, ANY ADDITIONAL WOULD
ADD TO THE $213 MILLION NUMBER
OVER SEVEN YEARS.
>> AND THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL,
HAS THAT BEEN SUBMITTED IN
WRITING?
>> YES.
>> I UNDERSTAND, I THOUGHT THAT
IN ADDITION AFTER IT WAS
SUBMITTED THERE WAS ANOTHER 5.8
MILLION.
I'VE GOT IT.
>> UNDERSTAND IT IS 213
MILLION.
BUT WHAT HER CONCERN IS THAT WE
DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS YET ON
WHAT THE COST WOULD BE.
IT WILL BE 213 AS A BASELINE
PLUS WHATEVER THOSE COSTS WOULD
BE.
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN IS
SUGGESTING THAT WHAT AT $5.6
MILLION OVER 213.
RIGHT NOW 213 IS THE BASELINE.
>> CORRECT.
>> YOU WILL COME BACK TO US
WITH WHAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK
LIKE?
>> YES.
>> JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE
NUMBERS IN THE MEMO FOR THE
ADDITIONAL HOURS PER WEEK.
THE WAY THAT I READ THIS, AND I
THINK MAYBE IT IS SUPPOSED TO
BE A CUMULATIVE NUMBER.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXTRA HOURS
WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL 108
HOURS PER WEEK?
>> YES.
>> IS THAT ALL OF THE ADS?
>> JUST THE OPENING SYSTEMWIDE.
IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE ONE
MORE HOUR PER BRANCH.
THAT SHOULD ADD UP TO 108 HOURS
PER WEEK.
IT IS ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR PER
DAY. IT INCLUDES THE CENTRAL
LIBRARY.
>> SO THE TOTAL OF ALL THREE
OPTIONS TOGETHER WOULD ADD
ABOUT 210 HOURS PER WEEK OVER
AND ABOVE WHAT IS CURRENTLY
BUDGETED?
WE COULD DO THIS OFF-LINE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS
WAS IN ADDITION AND NOT A
CUMULATIVE NUMBER.
>> YES, IT IS ADDITIONAL.
>> CAN YOU REMIND ME THE
DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENTS?
>> TOMORROW AT NOON.
>> I NEED YOUR STUFF TOMORROW
AND NOON.
PRESIDENT HAROLD STILL HAS HIS
LIBRARY BACKGROUND.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU
WANT TO SAY?
>> NO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ARE
THERE SCENARIOS IN WHICH ANY OF
OUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES PARTNER
WIH NONPROFITS OR COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS TO KEEP LIBRARIES
OPEN LATER?
>> I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO
YOU. I AM NOT SURE THAT THE
PARTNERSHIPS ARE SPECIFICALLY
TARGETED TO KEEPING THE
LIBRARIES OPEN LONGER.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM
CONSTANTLY THINKING ABOUT AND I
KNOW COUNCILMEMBER BACK SHOT IS
ALWAYS DOING THIS RAIN STORM,
WITH ALL OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND PRIVATE PARTNERS
WHERE WE HAVE SPACE PEOPLE
COULD POTENTIALLY BE SHELTERED,
ESPECIALLY IN HARSH WINTERS OR
COLD AND WET WEATHER SLEEPING
OUTSIDE, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO
BE SENSITIVE TO ADDING
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS.
WE WANTED TO PASS.
IN ORDER TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF
THE PUBLIC DOLLAR IN MANY CASES
I THINK WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH
NONPROFITS TO KEEP OUR FIRST
FLOOR AND BASEMENT FLOOR OPEN
FOR THOSE WHO NEED A WARM PLACE
TO STAY AND NIGHT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN
A HUGE HIT OUR CITY BUDGET TO
HAVE THOSE FACILITIES OPEN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT
TO DO, AND MADAM CHAIR THIS
MIGHT NOT APPLY TO THE LEVEE,
BUT IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR US
TO IDENTIFY SPACES ACROSS THE
CITY WHERE USED SPACE IN THE
EVENINGS, I AM THINKING OF OUR
LARGE FACILITY DOWNTOWN WERE TO
BE USED AS A SHELTER.
WE COULD PARTNER WITH NONPROFIT
AND THAT COULD BE A POTENTIALLY
GOOD USE OF PUBLIC SPACE.
IT COULD ALSO NOT ADD DOLLARS
TO THIS LEVEE.
I AM SUPPORTIVE OF
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT.
I HAD CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT
WE CAN ADD ADDITIONAL HOURS TO
CREATE THE SPACE IN THE
EVENINGS.
I RECOGNIZE IT WILL BE A LARGE
PRICE TAG.
IN AN EFFORT TO THINK OF
CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES, MAYBE
PARTNERING WITH NONPROFITS TO
RUN ADDITIONAL SPACES IN THE
EVENING.
IF WE NEED AUTHORIZATION THAT
MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD
HAVE TO CHAT WITH YOU ABOUT.
>> BEFORE WE WRAP UP IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE FOR MY
COLLEAGUES?
OKAY.
JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, THIS
LEVEE IS ONLY FOR 25% OF THE
TOTAL LIBRARY BUDGET.
THE REST OF THE MONEY TO RUN
OUR 27 LIBRARIES COME FROM THE
GENERAL FUND.
MT WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD THAT
NO, WE DO NOT CURRENTLY PARTNER
WITH NONPROFITS FOR THE
QUESTION POSED.
I HAVE MY OWN IDEAS ABOUT HOW
WE CAN HAVE REVENUES DREAMS IN
THE BRICK-AND-MORTAR THAT WE
OWN.
I AM THINKING SOME COFFEE SHOPS
MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW.
úBUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
JUST FOCUS ON NONPROFITS.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF
PROFITABLE GROUPS IN THIS CITY
THAT HAVE THE FUNDS IF THEY
WERE CIVIC MINDED AND GOOD
NEIGHBORS MAYBE THEY WOULD
CONSIDER CONTRIBUTING AND
ASSISTING US IN SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES RAISED TODAY, WHETHER
THEY ARE EXTENDED HOURS,
WHETHER THEY HAVE EXTRA SPACE
FOR SHELTERING, WHETHER WE HAVE
LONGER HOURS WERE MORE PEOPLE
CAN GET TO A LIBRARY, ANYTHING
THAT FOCUSES AND CONTRIBUTES TO
THE FOUR ISSUES WE HAVE BEEN
FOCUSED ON SINCE 1998: OPEN
HOURS AND ACCESS, COLLECTION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND MAINTENANCE.
SEISMIC EARTHQUAKE PROOF, I
REALLY WANT TO THANK EMPTY AND
HIS TEAM, HE HAS BEEN SO
ACCESSIBLE WITH ALL THE
INFORMATION.
HE HAS GIVEN US THE DATA,
HIRING A SOCIAL WORKER, A FULL-
TIME AND A PART-TIME PERSON IN
THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY.
IDEALLY LIBRARIES ARE PEOPLE'S
UNIVERSITY FOR BOOKS AND FOR
LEARNING AND FOR ACCESS, BUT
THEY ARE THE MOST PUBLIC OF
INSTITUTIONS SINCE THIS
COUNTRY'S FOUNDING.
I AM HOPING AS WE ARE IN THE
21st CENTURY THAT WE CONTINUE
TO LOOK AT LIBRARIES LIKE WE DO
WHAT OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
THAT THEY ARE JUST NOT YOUR
LIBRARY OF THE 20th CENTURY,
THAT WE PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES
AS WELL.
IF THAT, IF THERE ARE NOT ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS -- WEIGHTS, I
HAVE TO MAKE A STATE -- WAIT A
MINUTE, I HAVE TO MAKE A
STATEMENT.
LET ME DO THIS BEFORE I
ADJOURN, THE NEXT MEETING OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE WILL BE
THURSDAY, APRIL 8 AT 5:30 PM.
ROUND ON ISSUE ID AND THE
COMMITTEE WILL INCLUDE A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE LEVEE PROPOSAL.
WITH THAT WE STAND ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
>>[MEETING IS ADJOURNED]