Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.01.17 LC PacketCity of Boulder 2017 Library Commission Agenda Meeting date: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 Location: Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave., Canyon Meeting Room Meeting start time: 6 p.m. (Note: There is no access to the building after 8 p.m.) 1.Approval of agenda 2.Public comment 3.Consent agenda a.Approval of October 4, 2017 minutes pages 2-5 4.Update from BLDG 61 staff on current programs – Zack Jacobsen-Weaver, creative technologist 5.Discussion of Library Commission’s annual letter to City Council pages 6-9 6.Master Plan project update pages 10-21 a.Review and provide input draft memo and presentation for Nov. 28 City Council study session b.Review and provide input on working draft 5 year estimate of capital and operational costs for Master Plan goals c.Review and provide input on new draft goals addressing safety, security, emergency preparedness, and outreach to patrons experiencing homelessness 7.Library Commission update pages 22-26 a.Items from commission b.Boulder Library Foundation update c.City project representative update i.EcoDistricts d.Responses to patron emails from the Library Commission 8.2017 Colorado Library Association Conference report out 9.Information item: 2017 2nd Adjustment to Base Budget page 27 10.Library and Arts Director’s Report pages 28-38 a.Staff Day b.Boulder Library Foundation grant update c.Civic Area Update and Library Plaza d.Q3 Library use statistics e.Revised date for observance of the 2018 Veteran’s Day holiday 11.Adjournment 2017 Library Commissioners Alicia Gibb, Chair Joni Teter Tim O’Shea Juana Gomez Joel Koenig 1 Library Commission Minutes October 4, 2017 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: October 4, 2017 at the George Reynolds Branch, 3595 Table Mesa Dr. Contact information preparing summary: Maureen Malone, 303-441-3106 Commission members present: Joni Teter, Juana Gomez, Joel Koenig, Tim O’Shea Commission members absent: Alicia Gibb Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Maureen Malone, Administrative Specialist II Members of the public present: None Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [6:01 p.m., 0:00:00 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. Gomez moved to approve the agenda, and Koenig seconded. All in favor. Agenda Item 2: Public comment [6:02 p.m., 0:00:32 Audio min.] None Agenda Item 3: Consent agenda [6:02 p.m., 0:00:38 Audio min.] Item 3A, Approval of September 6, 2017 Meeting Minutes Teter emailed a suggested edit to the minutes ahead of the meeting (see handouts). Gomez moved to approve the minutes with the recommended change, and Teter seconded. Vote 3-0, unanimous (O’Shea was not yet present to vote). Agenda Item 4: Master Plan project update [6:02 p.m., 0:01:00 Audio min.] a.Summary of community input from first two draft goal check ins •Teter suggested that commission discuss the teen advisory group’s proposal to eliminate fines. o Farnan explained that this has been a trending issue over the last 2 years; a number of large metropolitan libraries decided this year to do away with fines. Denver Public Library is considering an amnesty for all past fines and then doing away with fines all together in 2019-2020. o While he doesn’t have the exact numbers, Farnan suspects that the expenses associated with collecting fines are probably around the same as the revenue from fines the library is able to collect. o Farnan stated that other libraries take the stance that fines are a barrier to service and disproportionately affect low-income families. Currently approximately 19,000 Boulder cardholders have suspended borrowing privileges for exceeding the $10 fine limit; how many of those 19,000 people are truly impacted (are still in Boulder, had any real intent to pay the fines) is not known. o Teter recommended that staff keep a list of policy issues such as this one that are not necessarily master plan dependent and develop a schedule to address those issues; the rest of commission agreed. Staff will bring back some more information early in the second quarter of 2018. •Gomez referenced what she found to be an interesting observation received through the online comment form: “I noticed the word “book” does not appear in the presentation. That pretty well says it all.” Phares replied that staff uses the word “materials” to cover everything, including books. Teter suggested defining “materials” in the master plan. Farnan stated that books will be stressed more in the master plan; however, he always says that “books are our brand, but not our business”; the library’s business is literacy. b.Update on and discussion of plan for the Nov. 28 City Council study session Teter sent some comments on the draft outline ahead of the meeting (see handouts). 2 Library Commission Minutes October 4, 2017 Page 2 of 4 •Teter flagged what she anticipates council will see as three radical ideas in the funding options the library is proposing (p.16 of packet, No. 5) to make commission aware of obstacles the library may face when meeting with City Council: o The library is proposing to earmark funds informally in the first option and formally in the second and third options. This is a difficult case to make, particularly in Boulder, because so much of revenues are already earmarked to specific purposes. The community has earmarked certain revenue streams in perpetuity to certain sources. As a community’s needs change over time, you want the flexibility to be able to change funding to match needs, and Boulder is limited in that. Programs in the general fund continually get squeezed as big problems arise and take funding from the general fund. Farnan clarified that scenario one is not asking the city to earmark money for the library, but asking them to raise the contribution from the general fund to the library – how they decide to do that is entirely up to them. There is currently a 0.0333 property tax revenue earmarked for the library; the revenue goes into the general fund and is transferred to the library. However, as property taxes goes up, the library receives a decreasing contribution from the general fund. o In the second and third options, the library is proposing that people who do not live within city limits of Boulder have their taxes raised to pay for city services. People outside of city limits use city services and are currently being subsidized by Boulder citizens. Farnan explained that the neatest solution to creating a regional taxing authority is to only tax those areas in unincorporated Boulder County wherein people use the library but aren’t currently paying a percentage of their property taxes to the city for city services; however, the library would then be subject to some extent to two governing entities who would decide how the library spends its money. o In the second and third options, the library is proposing that the city reduce its control and decision- making authority around library programs and services and facilities. Farnan added that in the case of a library district, City Council would relinquish governance in all respects except for appointing the board; if the district was larger than the city of Boulder, council would also appoint a non-resident member or two to the board. Teter shared that there was a previous attempt to form a library district around 2004-2005 that did not go well because the case wasn’t very clearly made. Farnan stated that it wasn’t so much controversial, but confusing; there was a lack of understanding of what a library district really is, and the city thought that they were being asked to continue to contribute the same amount of funds. Gomez wondered whether relinquishing control would lighten the city’s list of things to worry about. Farnan replied that they city has chosen to exert little control over the library over the last four years, aside from budgetary decisions. Teter pointed out that while there are some aspects of being part of the city that are beneficial due to the economy of scale, some savings in operating costs could be realized by separating from the city, particularly around computer equipment and facilities. Farnan agreed that there could be cost savings in those areas, but added that as a district, the library would have to assume certain other costs, such as insurance, human resources, legal services, finance. Gomez wondered if options two and three are like divorce or secession. Farnan replied that close to 70% of libraries in Colorado have separated in some way from their municipality; staff does not want to separate unless it is amicable and beneficial to all constituents. Teter reminded commission that the goal is to make sure that the library is fiscally sustainable, in whatever form that may be. •Farnan stated that to him, the single most salient point is the heavy regional use of the library; if you compare the 143,000 registered users to Boulder’s population, it changes the equation used by all other libraries in the state. If Boulder’s funding levels were equivalent to Denver’s on a per user basis, our budget would be close to $4.5M higher that it is currently – a 33% increase. Farnan shared that his second argument is the history of the way in which the city has funded the library; as priorities rise up before council, the general fund gets pinched and the city has less funding to contribute to the library. •Phares shared that the Library Commission urged staff to have a study session with City Council in 2010 (this meeting packet is linked under the resource section on the master plan webpage); staff discussed these same three funding options with council, and at that time, there was not support for the library to pursue investigating any of them. •Farnan stated that staff will primarily be presenting the facts with council; he encouraged commission members to attend the study session and share some of the talking points that Teter mentioned in her comments (see handouts). Teter commented that there is a high emphasis on being a team player within the city. Budget decisions are made internally by senior staff after negotiation and discussion and everyone is expected to support that; council never sees the budget recommendations that advisory boards make with 3 Library Commission Minutes October 4, 2017 Page 3 of 4 department heads, and the trade-offs being made get lost. Farnan questioned whether City Council is completely aware of how the priorities they come up with squeeze the general fund budget, and the library budget in particular. •Gomez wondered what portion of patrons served are county residents. Farnan replied that around 35-40% of users are not city of Boulder residents; staff is working on getting data for the last 12 months. Staff has maps of where users are: the disproportionate number in the near area are in Gunbarrel, Niwot and Cherryvale. Teter added that these areas are within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s planning area, and only the City of Boulder can provide services within that area because of the way the plan is written. •O’Shea wondered what options aren’t listed. Farnan replied that in the 2007 plan, it was standard practice to list fiscally restrained scenarios; he is not inclined to do that, but to simply lay out what staff has heard from the community, tell the city what it costs, and leave it to City Council to decide how to pay for it. •With the expected passage of the 2M & 2N ballot initiatives, which include funding for a North Boulder branch, O’Shea expressed concern about the new council members hesitating to give the library more money on top of the $5M for the new branch. Farnan replied that back when council was deciding whether or not to include it on the ballot, staff provided council with a dollar amount that would be needed for operating costs to run a North Boulder branch. Farnan added that whether or not the November ballot passes, staff will be including a North Boulder branch in the master plan. •O’Shea questioned whether a $1-1.5M increase for ongoing operations to carry out the master plan goals (expansion of community library services and access, north Boulder, Gunbarrel, north building of Main Library) is enough; staff is asking for more in order to continue, but the library has already been operating at a deficit for some time. Farnan responded that he is a realist and believes in being fiscally conservative; he doesn’t want to ask for more than is needed. Teter agreed with O’Shea and wondered whether staff should prepare more than one scenario: the minimum needed to run the library ($1-1.5M/year) and a vision scenario that allows the library to be comfortable, have a little padding, and achieve some of the longer-term goals. O’Shea suggested that staff go to council with the ideal dollar amount needed to accomplish their goals and come prepared to present comparisons to other city departments or other libraries, if needed. Agenda Item 5: Finalize Library Commissioner recruitment application [7:20 p.m., 1:19:00 Audio min.] Koenig sent some proposed questions for the application ahead of the meeting (see handouts). Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: •In response to the questions proposed by Koenig, Teter wondered whether commission thinks it’s important for people who want to serve on the commission to be knowledgeable about libraries and have familiarity with Boulder Public Library. Koenig replied that his questions aim to find someone who has done more to demonstrate their interest in the position than simply fill out an application. Farnan added that the general rule for boards is that members are volunteers, advocates and, as a body, to a certain extent determine policy. •Commission agreed to strike question 1 (p. 18 of packet) and replace it with a version of Koenig’s suggestion: ‘Have you participated in community organizations? Please describe. If not, why have you selected the Library Commission as your initial foray into community service?’ •Commission agreed to strike question 3 (p. 18 of packet) and replace it with a version of Koenig’s suggestion: ‘Have you reviewed commission minutes? If so, what are your thoughts about recent decisions?’, and include a reference to the master plan. •Commission agreed to strike question 6 (p. 19 of packet) and replace it with a question asking applicants how they would address the issue of security and safety as an ongoing concern for some patrons. •Staff will rewrite the questions based on the direction given by commission and submit the changes to the City Clerk’s office before the Oct. 15 deadline. Agenda Item 6: Library Commission Update [7:46 p.m., 1:44:30 Audio min.] a.Matters from the Commission b.Boulder Library Foundation update Farnan stated that at their last meeting, the foundation board voted to support the capital improvement tax renewal ballot measures 2M and 2N, and have so far contributed $500 to the campaign supporting the measures. O’Shea shared that the board approved a new mission and vision statement for the Boulder Library Foundation at their last meeting. 4 Library Commission Minutes October 4, 2017 Page 4 of 4 c.City project representative update i. EcoDistricts d.Responses to patron emails from the Library Commission Agenda Item 7: Library and Arts Director’s Report [7:56 p.m., 1:55:11 Audio min.] a.Jaipur Literature Festival summary Farnan commented that the library foundation will have two main questions to consider when deciding whether or not to contribute to the festival again in 2018: 1.Is the festival having the desired community impact? 2.Is the festival worth the investment? Staff has asked Teamwork Arts to confirm by November that Zee is willing to be a corporate sponsor again in 2018, and to confirm that they have a second corporate sponsor by February. b.Update on 2018 City Budget City Council approved the first reading of the 2018 budget last night. There were no questions from council about the $60k proposed for materials for BLDG 61. c.Proposed 2018 Library Commission meeting schedule Commission saw no issues with the proposed schedule. d.Update on patron emails to staff and commission Youth Services has completed their research on the history of the songs that Showing up for Racial Justice (SURJ) has requested be removed from storytime. Staff will provide a full report and recommendation on how to proceed at the November meeting. Agenda Item 8: Adjournment [8:06 p.m., 2:05:11 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, in the Canyon Meeting Room at the Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave., Boulder, CO 80302. 5 Fellow Commissioners -October 26, 2017 Tim & Joni thought that it might be useful to have a starting point for discussion on hand for the November meeting, so we started brainstorming some thoughts about what could go into this year’s letter to Council (see below). Someone will then need to take those notes and turn it into a letter that we can approve at the December meeting. Any volunteers to draft this year’s letter? Possible content for this year’s letter to Council: 1. The master plan should be the backdrop and context for our letter. Council asks what we think its top 3 priorities should be in 2018: we think the library master plan should be one. The library’s last master plan was ten years ago, and this plan presents a vision for the next ten years. So this year is an important check-in point and launchpad for the next iteration of library services, programs and facilities. 2. One of Council’s questions goes to how public engagement processes can be improved. We should summarize the library’s process and offer it as an example of how good public engagement can yield positive results. Our master plan reflects what we heard from the Community. •We could also point out that the library is viewed by the community as a trusted and neutral source, making it a good platform for civic dialogue. One of our master plan priorities is to initiate a community dialogue program based out of BPL. 3. We should call  out some highlights from the master plan that rise to the level of Council attention. Here’s a starting list. A.Branches: Extending library services to the northeast parts of the community are an important goal. Growth has been substantial in the northeast over the last 15 years, and but one of our current locations are located in the southwestern to west-central part of the city, along the Broadway corridor. A north Boulder branch was identified as a priority in the last library master plan and is the only major item unfulfilled from that plan. We heard very strongly that Gunbarrel residents would like library services located in closer proximity. We plan to extend library services through the “community library system” model. The language we wrote for the BPL website about could be used as a starting point. (That language follows this memo.) B.Facilities: We will be developing a facilities plan as a near term follow-on to the master plan. Known facility needs include: •Renovating the bathrooms at Main remains a critical near term capital need. The approved plan (developed by FAM) will address ongoing maintenance problems with failing infrastructure; decrease water usage by installing low-flow toilets; provide AFDA compliant spaces; improve service to families and care givers; and create a more welcoming experience for everyone. •North Building -- Determination of future designation (historic, flood plain, arts & culture) etc. And the goal of the Library to more regularly activate the Canyon Theater space, with some needed modifications. 6 •More meeting rooms and gathering spaces. (Note that denser living arrangements result in need for more public spaces.) •Maker extension? C.Collections and core programs/services: We heard strongly from the community that the library needs to  continue to maintain a emphasis on core services and programs: print and e-book collections; DVDs, CDs and streaming services; on-line educational and research services; traditional literacy programs (story time, summer reading, reading buddies, Boulder Reads); 21st century literacy programs (STEAM and Maker programs); and provide web/computer access to the under-served. •The library will continue to offer much of its programming through the generous support for the Boulder Library Foundation and a growing number of partnerships. •The library is also working to extend outreach for core services and programs to under-served groups in the community 4.Financial sustainability for the library system is a top priority for the Commission. •WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE LANGUAGE FROM THE MEMO TO COUNCIL (WHICH WILL BE PART OF OUR NOVEMBER  PACKET) TO HELP WRITE THIS PORTION. •Emphasize that 2M&N passage (presumed) does not make up for a long standing funding shortfall from the city. 7 Library Commission Motion August 2, 2017 As part of our vision to develop a community library system, the Library Commission recommends that City Council include funding for expanded library services in north Boulder, including a full-service library in NoBo, as a part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Tax Renewal ballot item. The library is a public space open to all. It promotes free speech, educational, cultural and digital literacy, and cultural and educational awareness. Motion Passes 5-0 The Library Commission also wishes to share with Council the language they will put on the web page explaining their decision. As part of the library’s vision to develop a community library system, the Library Commission recommended that City Council include funding for expanded library services in north Boulder, including a full-service library in NoBo, as a part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Tax Renewal ballot item. What is the "community library" concept? Instead of only concentrating programs and services in a central facility, branch libraries replicate where possible elements of ‘full service libraries” in other parts of the community. Decisions about what programs and services are to be provided at branch locations are based on piloting at specific locations. Following the model of the successful NoBo pilot, a short-term lease would be executed to test whether a library can be successful in a specific area. If library usage demonstrates need, a full-service branch would be considered. In some cases, future ‘Corner' locations may be enough to supply a neighborhood's long-term needs. In other cases, as is being recommended for NoBo, the corner library grows into a full-service location based on identified variables needed to sustain a library - such as location accessibility, availability, density of population, and adjacency to commercial areas and underserved members of the community. Future ‘Corner' locations may serve Gunbarrel, the Transit Village, or the Arapahoe Avenue and 55th Street areas. What is a "full service" library? x A public space that is open to all and creates a welcoming and inclusive environment x A platform for programs and services guided by the principles of free speech that support literacy in all its forms x A space for the public to access books, media, technology, public computing and trained staff x A facility that provides adequate space for: o Public programs for all ages o A diversity of meeting spaces for the community to gather, discuss, study and hang out o Operating spaces for mission-driven partner organizations that enhance services to the community o Creative spaces for the community to design, experiment and produce content. What is the plan to expand library services in north Boulder? NoBo corner library: Expand to a full-service branch, with open hours consistent with other branches x 2018 – Community engagement to inform the development program plan and select a location x 2018 - 2019 Identify capital and operating funding sources and create a financial plan x 2018 -2019 - Identify and engage partners x 2019 -2020 – Planning and construction Gunbarrel: Pilot a "corner library” like the current NoBo branch x 2018 – Community engagement to inform the development program plan x 2018 - 2019 Identify capital and operating funding sources and create a financial plan x 2018 – 2019 Identify location and engage partners x 2019-2021 – Planning and construction What kinds of programs and services might be offered at a full service NoBo branch? Decisions on which programs and services to offer in a full-service branch are based on piloting and testing of successful offerings. Beyond collections (books and media), programs and services in a NoBo full-service branch might include: Attachment F - Additional Board and Commission Feedback Agenda Item 5A 548 x Public meeting and community gathering spaces x Public computing x Programs and services with a focus on youth and family x Relocating programs like BoulderReads closer to an underserved neighborhood x Partnerships that can help mitigate long-term staffing needs and potentially generate some level of service or revenue that the library would not otherwise be able to provide (i.e. current partners at Main include the Boulder County Farmers' Market, the Small Business Development Center, Intercambio) x Open platforms providing some technology and programs to support creativity and making (partly replicating BLDG 61 at Main) Where does Gunbarrel fit into the Community Library option? Gunbarrel would initially function in much the same way that the NoBo Corner Library functions today. A short-term lease would be pursued to see if a library can be successful in the long term. At minimum service levels, services at the Gunbarrel corner library would include: x Books and media x Limited public computing x Children’s storytime Attachment F - Additional Board and Commission Feedback Agenda Item 5A 559 To: Library Commissioners From: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Date: Oct. 27, 2017 Subject: Library Master Plan project update Community check in meetings report The full report of the attendance and community and staff feedback received on the draft Master Plan goals is at https://boulderlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Patron-and-staff-feedback-on-the-draft- Master-Plan-goals.pdf . Draft memo for Nov. 28 City Council study session An incomplete draft memo for Nov. 28 City Council study session packet is Attachment A. There are brief notes in the incomplete sections to show the information that staff intends to cover. The notes and any information that needs to be verified is highlighted in yellow. Staff looks forward to the Library Commission’s input on the draft memo. Working draft 5-year cost estimate of Master Plan goals Staff has developed a working draft of a 5-year cost estimate for the Master Plan goals (Attachment B). This is intended as a tool for discussion showing the general amounts and timing of potential budget requests according to the proposed Master Plan timeline. This information is a working draft and in should no way be considered final. Revised draft goals addressing safety, security, emergency preparedness and serving patrons experiencing homelessness The staff proj ect team revised the draft goal for improving safety and security breaking it into four separate goals (Attachment C). The goals were incorporated under the appropriate Master Plan goal themes. The draft goals will be shared with library staff during the few weeks. Staff feedback will be collected and shared with the Commission in the Dec. 6, 2017 meeting packet. The team seeks the Commission’s feedback on the new draft goals. 10 Attachment A. 1 STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director DATE: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 SUBJECT: Boulder Public Library Master Plan project update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the study session is to update City Council on the status of the Boulder Public Library (BPL) Master Plan. Staff will provide the following information for council’s consideration: •background information about how the library serves the Boulder community, and the major accomplishments since the 2007 Boulder Public Library Master Plan; •highlights from input received from community members about the future of the library, including expanding library programs and services, new facilities in north Boulder and in Gunbarrel, some community members’ safety concerns; and •options to ensure financial sustainability for the library system. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED BPL received great input and ideas from the community during the community engagement phase of the master plan update project. A few key priorities became apparent that staff and the Library Commission would like to share with council. New facilities There is a lot of energy and enthusiasm from the community for the library to expand services in north Boulder and in Gunbarrel. Many north Boulder neighbors requested that the NoBo Corner Library be upgraded to a larger, full-service branch library which has been a goal for the library since the 2007 Boulder Public Library Master Plan, and some think a promise from the city for north Boulder since the mid-1990s in the 1995 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Many Gunbarrel neighbors want more conveniently located and easier access to library services. Most community members shared that their drive from Gunbarrel to any of the current library locations is time consuming and inconvenient. Many patrons also wish to 11 Attachment A. 2 minimize their carbon footprint. Some shared that they drive to surrounding cities to visit libraries and couple their trips to run errands and shop. There is lots of support and interest in Gunbarrel getting a “corner” library. Expanding programs and services As staff anticipated, the community places a high priority on access to library materials. Numerous requests for more books, more e-books, and more availability of streaming and downloadable resources were made via survey responses and during the community engagement activities and meetings. There was also significant interest expressed in expanding the BLDG 61 Makerspace, incorporating a makerspace in the potential new North Boulder Branch Library, and expanding maker programs to the other branch libraries. Safety concerns Through the survey and during the community check-in meetings, some patrons expressed that they do not consistently feel safe when they visit the Main Library. These patrons often cited discomfort with sharing space with other members of the community that they perceive as homeless or transient, or witnessing patrons exhibiting behavior or accessing materials that they find objectionable. The staff and Library Commission acknowledge that there are several opportunities to address these concerns including: •providing educational information about the public library as a place where all are welcome if they observe the rules of conduct and that the public library protects the First Amendment rights of all who use the library, •evaluating the configuration and management of public spaces in the library where people typically gather and implementing improvements that effectively support the equitable use of space, •improving the security officer presence and their skills with consistent enforcement and de-escalation. Capital and operating funding support necessary to fulfill the community’s vision for the library system to meet current demand by user base that is larger than city population (includes university students and commuters in addition to residents from other communities and FLC patrons from other libraries.) Questions for council 1.Does council have questions about the community input related to expanding programs and services and new facilities? 2.Does council have questions about the other options for funding and governance of the library that will be outlined in the master plan update? 3.Does council have any direction for library staff to pursue additional analysis of and planning for the funding and governance options presented? BACKGROUND Boulder Public Library serving its community Who – Libraries as “People, Place, and Platform” Comment [PJ1]: Define the “corner” library. 12 Attachment A. 3 What – operations Accomplishments The growth and success experienced by BPL during the past four years has been remarkable! Since 2014, BPL has increased the hours open to the public by 11%, opened a new “corner” library in north Boulder, and expanded program and event offerings resulting in a 100% increase in attendance. The number of new borrowers grew by 20%, visits to the libraries grew 8%, and e-book use grew by nearly x%. In 2016, due in part to this growth and to innovative partnerships and creative programs, BPL was honored as 2016 Colorado Library of the Year by the Colorado Association of Libraries. All of this was accomplished with a relatively flat budget and with a 2% reduction in full- time employees (FTEs). A nearly $1M capital investment was made in new, automated materials sorting systems to more efficiently process returned materials and in patron self-service stations to assist them with checking out materials and paying late fees at the Main Library and at the George Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries. This investment enabled the library to restructure and reallocate staff resources to provide more individual and personal customer service, to open the BLDG 61 Makerspace, and to create a new workgroup that focuses on programs, events, and outreach to the community. BPL nearly doubled the number of materials patrons have access to by collaborating with other local public library systems by expanding the Flatirons Library Consortium (FLC). The expansion included outsourcing the administration and maintenance of the libraries’ online catalog and patron database (Integrated Library System), which BPL previously managed. The FLC also obtained status as an independent legal nonprofit organization. BPL’s success with new programs increase investment from the Boulder Library Foundation – makerspace and new programs. During the past 10 years, the library has accomplished most of the goals and objectives in the 2007 Library Master Plan. Some of the most notable accomplishments include: •Restoring library hours to provide greater access to information and community resources. In April 2015, the library opened the George Reynolds Branch Library and the Meadows Branch Library one additional day per week (for seven days per week operation) with no budget impact due to staff restructuring, and adjusting the schedule for operating hours at the Main Library. These changes allowed the library to expand its offerings of morning children’s storytimes. •Security of facilities. In 2007, BPL’s budget was increased to hire a contract security officer at the Main Library for 35 hours per week. The hours were expanded to have one security officer on-duty all hours the Main Library was open to the public in 2010. 13 Attachment A. 4 •Leading edge center for information technology. While not likely what library staff and the Library Commission envisioned when this goal was written more than 10 years ago, opening the BLDG 61 Makerspace at the Main Library has certainly fulfilled the intention of the goal for the library to provide a leading- edge space, state-of-the-art technology, outreach and training for patrons. •Library Facilities Renovation. In 2009, the library completed a facilities sustainability study which outlined capital needs to renovate and introduce greater efficiency for maintaining city-owned library facilities. The Boulder community approved a capital improvement bond ballot issue in 2011 that funded $2.5 of $4.5 million in renovations of the Main Library. The renovations were completed in April 2014 and included the creation of a new child-friendly children’s area and a teen space, welcoming and open spaces that also support a greater feeling of safety in the facility, more and comfortable public seating, a café on the library bridge, and more public meeting spaces. During 2015 and 2016, both the George Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries received modest renovations, reconfiguring staff space to improve efficiency of processing library materials and to create more welcoming patron-friendly spaces. •Automated materials handling, materials security, and self-service equipment. From 2014 through 2016, new equipment was installed at the Main Library and the Meadows and George Reynolds branch libraries to facilitate automated check-in and sorting of library materials, patron self-service for checking out materials and paying late fees, and to support inventory management and security of library materials. The introduction of these technologies allowed staff to focus on more direct, customer-focused service and improved patron access to library materials. •Flexible service points. In conjunction with the Main Library renovation, library staff collaborated to create a customer service philosophy for the library that models the city’s vision of “Service Excellence for an Inspired Future.” From that philosophy statement, the front-line staff developed a model for mobile service that was introduced when the renovation of the Main Library was complete. Mobile service makes library staff more accessible to patrons by bringing them out from behind the service desks to assist patrons wherever they need it in the library. The change has been a win-win for patrons and staff alike. Patrons receive a warm welcome when they enter the libraries and more individual and personal service, and staff have found more satisfaction with their work because they are able to make direct, meaningful connections with patrons. While steps were taken to address them, two key goals from the 2007 Library Master Plan were not fully realized: building a full-service north Boulder branch library and expanding outreach. It is clear from patron use of the NoBo Corner Library, the community’s response to outreach efforts focused on early literacy, and from the results of the current Library Master Plan Update community survey, that these are still considered priorities by the community and therefore still worth accomplishing. Master Plan update project 14 Attachment A. 5 The project to update BPL’s master plan began in 2016 with research about community needs and issue identification. The issues identified provided a framework for gathering the community’s input on the priorities for BPL over the next 10 years. Independent consultants were hired to conduct and analyze the results of an online community survey and several focus groups held during the spring and summer of 2017. The community’s input was used to create several draft goals. During September and October 2017, BPL hosted four open house meetings and attended the citywide “What’s Up Boulder” open house to check in with the community about the draft goals. The library commissioners have provided the staff with critical support and direction throughout the project at monthly meetings, during the Library Commission annual retreat, and several study sessions by reviewing the information collected from the research, giving input on the design of the community survey and engagement activities, assisting the staff and consultants to host several of the events, and giving input on the development of the draft master plan goals and considering the options to ensure financial sustainability for the library system. Highlights from community input More books, great place for kids, value inclusivity, public trust, some concerns with safety, new facilities, take care of what we have, Boulder Public Library operating budget and capital needs BPL is currently supported through a combination of a 0.33 mill dedicated property tax and City of Boulder Sales and Use tax. In 2018, it is expected that property taxes will generate approximately $1.26 million for library operations with sales and use tax making up the difference of approximately $6.94 million. BPL also receives annual grant support for programs and events from the Boulder Library Foundation. [Add more details] For the past three years, the foundation has committed to awarding the library up to $250K in grant funding. Development Excise Tax The city has collected approximately $X in Development Excise Tax (DET) funds from new residential development for “library facilities that are attributable to growth.” Excise taxes are one-time revenues used to fund capital costs attributable to new development, and require voter approval. The availability of DET funds for specific projects is determined on a case-by-case basis. The community’s request for new library facilities in north Boulder and Gunbarrel would address growth-related needs, and may be eligible for at least partial funding from DET revenue. The balance of DET funds collected for the library is currently available to apply to capital improvements that are attributable to new growth. Impact fees Comment [PJ2]: Need Devin to review and update the DET and Impact Fee sections. This info is from a 2010 memo. 15 Attachment A. 6 In 2009, the city implemented an impact fee for libraries, and began collecting it in January 2010. The impact fee for libraries is charged on all new residential units and additions according to a fee schedule that varies by unit size and is based on the 2009 Development Impact Fee Study prepared by TischlerBise. Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund system improvements needed to accommodate development. The Colorado State Statutes authorize municipalities to impose impact fees to fund capital facilities to serve new development. The fee must be based upon the reasonable impacts of proposed development on existing capital facilities and must be assessed “at a level no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed development.” An impact fee may not be imposed to remedy an existing deficiency. The TischlerBise study calculated the library impact fee using the cost recovery and incremental expansion methodologies. The fee includes costs for facilities and the materials included in the library’s collections. The cost recovery approach was used to calculate new growth’s fair share of the city’s facility costs. However, since the city had only three years remaining on debt service payments for the most recent library capacity expansion (1992), TischlerBise recommended that the cost recovery component for library space be eliminated once the debt is retired. The component used for additional collection materials would not be eliminated. Blaystat-Laesar House proceeds The library has $X from the proceeds from the sale of the Blystat-Laeser House at 1117 Pine St., which was purchased in late 1986 to supplement the archival storage needs of the Carnegie Branch Library. After the purchase, the house was determined to be inadequate for its intended use, and when it was sold in 2002, the intention was to use sale proceeds to fund other archival storage options. Library Fund Discuss old and new Library Fund balances. Gifts and Contributions. Property tax for collection. Facilities, Renovation, and Replacement Fund Balance of one-time funds contributed prior to 2016 for facility refurbishment projects. To meet the needs and priorities identified by the community and to address community growth, BPL will either need increased ongoing support from the city’s general fund or to pursue another form of governance and funding structure. Make the argument about % of library users outside the city limits (some of these are commuters, FLC partner library patrons, and university students that aren’t counted in population figures). Other options for financial sustainability for the library system The 2007 Library Master Plan recommended that the library consider restructuring its governance and funding model to secure a higher level and more stable funding through some type of regional model. A summary of the cities and counties where current 16 Attachment A. 7 Boulder Public Library patrons (cardholders) reside is in Attachment X. While there are several options for library governance and/or funding besides municipal governance and funding, forming a library district or a regional library authority (RLA) are the two options that are feasible for the Boulder Public Library. The Colorado Library Law “Quick Guide” Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority is in Attachment X. Library districts are the most common form of governance and funding for libraries in Colorado. A map of Colorado library jurisdictions is Attachment X. While Colorado Library Law defines the RLA as an option for library governance and funding, there are none in Colorado. Library District A library district is a local entity other than a county, municipality, township or school district that is authorized by state law to establish and operate a public library as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics. It has sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy to qualify as a separate government entity. Fiscal autonomy requires support from local taxation dedicated to library purposes (e.g., a library tax). The residents within the boundaries of the district must produce a majority vote in favor of being included in the district, and must approve any new or increased library taxes within the district boundaries. If a library district is formed to include the city limits, the Boulder City Council would appoint a library district board. This board would then function independently of the city government, including hiring library employees, approving expenditures and overseeing all district operations. The district would assume responsibilities for all administrative functions (human resources, finance, facilities management, etc.) or choose to contract with the city or other entities to provide these services. All library employees would become employees of the district. Staff would consult the Boulder Comprehensive Plan to identify district boundaries which would include areas of unincorporated Boulder County that do not have adjacent areas with available library services. Regional Library Authority A regional library authority (RLA) is an entity created by an agreement between two or more governmental units. These can be cities, counties and/or library districts. This option requires voter approval to establish a combination of property and sales tax to fund library operational and capital costs. The government entities involved would either appoint a board of directors, or selected members of the City Council might serve on the board of an RLA. Though Colorado State legislation authorizing the formation of a regional library authority has existed for several years (CRS 24-90-110, et.seq.), none has ever been formed. Authority boundaries may include the Boulder city limits and the Gunbarrel General Comment [PJ3]: Need to confirm this is true. 17 Attachment A. 8 Improvement District. ANALYSIS Summarize the options. Impact of maintaining status quo. Municipal funding Need increased investment and ongoing funding to continue to be a “world class” library. Competition for city resources and for priority. Make the argument about % of library users outside the city limits (as described above). Library d istrict Some advantages of forming a library district include: •Funding is secured directly from dedicated tax revenues rather than competing with other city or county departments. •Funding is relatively stable – based on property taxes, not sales taxes. Stable funding provides more consistency in the library’s planning process. •A single purpose district can enhance taxpayer accountability and organizational focus. • Debt can be issued to fund capital projects, but funding received is not solely restricted to capital costs. •Unspent dollars can be retained for future years. Some challenges of forming a library district include: •Introduction of a new tax that requires voter approval. •State budget limits and constitutional limits such as TABOR and Gallagher apply to library districts. •The transition year to a district is difficult, requiring a large commitment from the board and staff. •Funding is restricted to property taxes. •Property taxes are subject to periodic property devaluations that could result in service reductions. Regional library authority Since an RLA has never been formed, a complete understanding of the disadvantages is not known. Some advantages of an RLA include: •Funding received is not solely restricted to capital costs. •Funding is secured directly from dedicated tax revenues rather than competing with other city or county departments. •Both sales and property taxes are funding sources. •Debt can be issued to fund capital projects. •Each library system may continue to be part of its city government. 18 Attachment A. 9 Some disadvantages of an RLA include: Since each of the governmental entities involved remain autonomous, establishing clear operational agreements, roles and creating a board of directors can be complex. Each governmental entity involved is responsible for generating the funds for its contribution to support library facilities and services within the RLA. NEXT STEPS Staff will complete the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan and present it for City Council consideration and adoption in March 2018. ATTACHMENTS (List in the order they appear in the document) Current area of residence of Boulder Public Library patrons The Colorado Library Law “Quick Guide” Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority Map of Colorado library jurisdictions 19 Attachment B.WORKING DRAFT Estimated Cost for Library Operations 5 Year Timeline Updated 10/19/201 WORKING DRAFT 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Projected timing for Master Plan programs and initiatives *Analysis of security *Analysis of janitorial *Analysis of WiFi/network *Teen Advisory Board engagement *Restructure homebound delivery program *Annual literacy festival *Community outreach for NoBo branch library project *Implement civic dialogue pilot *Evaluate costs/impact of enhancing holds service *Conduct Main Library north building renovation feasbility study *Begin enhancement of holds service *BLDG 61 hours *Begin expanding programs *Increase marketing *Develop technology plan *Begin update of Facilities Sustainability Plan *Develop Partnership Plan *Patron satisfaction survey *Planning and construction NoBo Branch Library *Main Library restroom renovation *Community engagement Gunbarrel Corner Library *Develop plan for use/maintenance of outdoor spaces *NoBo Branch Library opens *Canyon Theater pilot *Develop marketing plan *Develop technology plan *Develop Carnegie restoration plan *Gunbarrel Corner Library planning and construction *Develop/implement learning garden program *Sign and wayfinding improvements *Gunbarrel corner library opens *Implement uniform service levels *Expand maker facilities *Canyon Theater rental program *Patron satisfaction survey *Implement marketing plan Projected timing for evaluating staffing levels *These evaluations likely will recommend FTE increases in the out years. Evaluate impact of the BLFgrant-funded Community Partnership Manager *Canyon Theater Rental program pilot - Community Engagement and Enrichment *Materials budget increase/ holds limit increase -Resource Services and Materials Handling *Technology plan - eServices and Public Services *Assess ratio of desk time, off desk time andmeeting time- Public Services *Maker program and space expansion - eServices and Public Services *Temporary personnel budget. *Uniform service levels at branch libraries - Public Services Estimated Personnel Increase 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Initial salary and benefits cost ⱡ 5 year FTE Total ⱡ Using 2017 salary info assuming 10% above min and 30% benefits Programs, Events and Outreach and Youth Services 2 2 $216,000 4 To build sustainable programs and outreach to senior, Latino and youth populations. 2 FTE to support youth programs (boots on the ground) (2020), 2 FTE to support Programs, Events and Outreach (2019). [BE] Public Services 4 3 $350,000 7 Front line staff for NoBo Branch Library (2020) and Gunbarrel Corner Library (2021) [BD]. Upgrade from M4 to M6 for NoBo manager included. 1-2 FTE may support maker activities. eServices 2.5 $127,500 1.5 0.5 FTE Additional tech support. 1 FTE Creative Technologist (convert fixed-term to standard), not a net add to budget. 1 FTE additional Creative Technologist [M5] Communications and marketing 0.5 0.5 $58,000 1 0.5 FTE Increase graphic designer to full time (2019) and 0.5 FTE marketing/communications (2021). [M2] FTE TOTAL 4 6 3.5 $751,500 13.5 2018 Total FTE = 77.50. 2021 Total FTE = 91.0 , a 17% increase in FTE. 30% increase in hours open to the public with the expansion of the NoBo Branch Library and adding the Gunbarrel Corner Library. Note: This brings staffing levels back to 2001 (91.39 FTE). Total FTE 2002 = 88.01 SALARY & BENEFIT ESTIMATE TOTAL $264,500 $311,000 $176,000 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST INCREASES 5 year total Description Security $75,000 $80,000 $4,000 $159,000 * 30% increase to Main Library contract for officers trained at a higher level and additional services (2019). *Daily branch stops added (2019) *Main Library closing support costs to increase by 50% of current rate. (2018) *Add full-time security coverage at North Boulder branch library *Add security and alarm response for Gunbarrel. Surveys or consultant support $252,500 $25,000 $277,500 2019 (Survey $25,000, North Building feasibility study $105,000, Technology Plan $75,000, EDGE subscription $2500) Collection $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $500,000 Courier $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 $2,000 $12,000 5% general increase *Additional stop and volume for Gunbarrel. Technology $10,000 $4,000 $14,000 *Investment in WiFi internet access is expected beginning in 2019. Cost unknown. Started with $10K. *Automated Materials Handling annual service contract (10% increase) *Increase in new public computing is not anticipated given the decline in usage. Resources will likely be shifted from Main to NoBo and Gunbarrel. Janitorial $52,000 $24,000 $8,000 $84,000 *25% increase to meet higher standards (2019). Is this a day porter, additional contract janitors, or episodic deep cleaning? *Increase sf in north Boulder. Additional facilitiy in Gunbarrel. Public furniture replacement $25,000 $25,000 * Replace furniture in public spaces due to wear and tear Literacy festival project management *Need to estimate city's costs both in library and other departments New facility ongoing operating costs $10,000 $10,000 Ballpark, not an official estimate: supplies, security system, furniture replacement Building maintenance and utilities $156,000 $192,000 $200,000 $548,000 ESTIMATED OPERATING COST INCREASE TOTAL $10,000 $541,500 $311,000 $360,000 $327,000 $1,619,500 CAPITAL & ONE TIME* PROJECTS Main Library restroom renovation $600,000 Studiotrope Design Consultants estimated $566,000 plus 10% for final design and construction documents. 3/10/2017 Marketing campaign - 1st amendment, privacy, open for all $30,000 Public computing area reconfiguration - Main and Reynolds Branch*$50,000 Ballpark for both projects, not an official estimate: need to consider costs for electrical, minor construction/carpet, and furniture. Improved signage and wayfinding*$100,000 Ballpark not an official estimate for design time and materials for Main, GRB, Meadows. May be coordinated with design of North Boulder Branch Library to consolidate work and reduce costs. Main Library north building improvements Dependent upon outcome of feasibility study - Canyon Theater, Gallery, Gardens, Makerspace, etc. Main Library space modifications*$20,000 Ballpark, not an official estimate: Paint, carpet repair, furniture, electrical. Main Library banquet seating New facility opening collection $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 New facility furniture and fixtures $40,000 $20,000 Ballpark, not an official estimate. Based on NoBo startup budget for furniture, and shelving New facility makerspace equipment $75,000 New facility technology infrastructure $329,000 $71,000 $400,000 Network, Need to add cost of AMH for NoBo. New facility construction $5,000,000 $150,000 $5,150,000 2018 (NoBo Branch), 2020 (Gunbarrel Corner Library based on NoBo initial estimate) ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST TOTAL $6,054,000 $50,000 $401,000 $0 $0 $5,570,000 20 ATTACHMENT C. DRAFT MP Goals to Address Safety and Security; Emergency Preparedness, and Outreach to Homeless Patrons BUILDING COMMUNITY AND PARTNERSHIPS Cultivate community awareness about how the library is a welcoming and inclusive public place for all and protects all patrons’ first amendment rights and privacy. o 2018 – Design and implement an engaging and inclusive campaign (e.g. blog, newsletter, dialogues) on these topics (e.g. What the library means to me?). Invite a group of library patrons who are experiencing homelessness to improve the community’s perception and cultivate respect for individuals who are transient/homeless o 2019 – Engage a group of library patrons who are experiencing homelessness in a dialogue to: learn how the library can better serve individuals who are homeless, help to cultivate a more positive public perception of persons who are homeless or transient, and get their input on supporting individuals to manage behavioral issues in the library. o 2019 – Partner with patrons from the dialogue group (above), colleagues from human services organizations and local artists to create an educational exhibit, campaign, and/or programs about the human issue of homelessness. FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY Create a plan to Address safety/security in all facilities. o 2018 - Conduct an analysis of need and peak times to provide appropriate level of security personnel and equipment at all facilities. o 2019 – Evaluate design and management options (e.g. time limits) to provide amicable and equitable use of space in areas of concern such as: Main Library banquet seating, Main Library public restrooms, secluded window-facing seating at the Main Library, Seeds café. Devise standards for management of spaces that apply to all facilities. o 2019 – Conduct further analysis on cost and structure of contracting versus hiring employees for security services. o 2019 – Fund additional contract security personnel and social workers who are trained to de- escalate disruptive situations. o 2019 – Evaluate enforcement practices of rules of conduct ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS Emergency preparedness. o Annual. Review and update safety procedures and Person-In-Charge manual. o Annual. Provide training or drills for staff to handle urgent or emergency situations. o 2018 – Training on rules of conduct enforcement and suspensions. o 2021 - Provide AED and emergency first aid units and guidelines for use in all facilities. 21 Commission​ ​Memo  Meeting​ ​Date:​ ​November​ ​1,​ ​2017​ ​–​ ​Main,​ ​Canyon​ ​Meeting​ ​Room  Upcoming​ ​Special​ ​meetings:  Council​ ​study​ ​session​ ​on​ ​Library​ ​master​ ​plan/fiscal​ ​sustainability  Tuesday,​ ​November​ ​28​ ​@​ ​6pm,​ ​Council​ ​Chambers  Interesting​ ​Upcoming​ ​Dates​ ​(from​ ​​​ ​ALA​ ​Website​)  Picture​ ​Book​ ​Month​ ​-​ ​November  The​ ​American​ ​Association​ ​of​ ​School​ ​Librarians​ ​(AASL)​ ​will​ ​celebrate​ ​the​ ​picture​ ​book​ ​during​ ​the  month​ ​of​ ​November​ ​as​ ​a​ ​partner​ ​of​ ​the​ ​third​ ​annual​ ​Picture​ ​Book​ ​Month.​ ​Founded​ ​by​ ​author​ ​and  storyteller​ ​Dianne​ ​de​ ​Las​ ​Casas,​ ​Picture​ ​Book​ ​Month​ ​is​ ​an​ ​international​ ​literacy​ ​initiative​ ​that  celebrates​ ​the​ ​print​ ​picture​ ​book​ ​in​ ​an​ ​increasingly​ ​digital​ ​age.​ ​Contact​ ​Picture​ ​Book​ ​Month​ ​with  questions.  ALA​ ​Midwinter​ ​Meeting​,​ ​Denver,​ ​CO:​ ​February​ ​9-13,​ ​2018  1.​ ​Items​ ​from​ ​Commission 2.​ ​BLF​ ​Update 3.​ ​Updates​ ​from​ ​Commissioners​ ​Representing​ ​the​ ​Commission in​ ​other​ ​Venues​ ​(verbal) A.​ ​BVCP B.​ ​Civic​ ​Area C.​ ​Canyon​ ​Complete​ ​Streets D.​ ​EcoDistricts E.​ ​​ ​Central​ ​Broadway​ ​Corridor​ ​Design​ ​Framework. 22 4.​ ​Update​ ​on​ ​Emails​ ​&​ ​Phone​ ​Calls​ ​to​ ​Library​ ​Commission October​ ​4,​ ​2017 Hi​ ​Joni,​ ​​ ​I​ ​sent​ ​this​ ​to​ ​Alicia,​ ​but​ ​see​ ​that​ ​she​ ​is​ ​not​ ​receiving​ ​emails​ ​at​ ​this​ ​time.​ ​​ ​I​ ​hope​ ​you​ ​will consider​ ​this​ ​issue.​ ​​ ​Thanks! Hi​ ​Alicia, I​ ​am​ ​writing​ ​you​ ​in​ ​your​ ​capacity​ ​as​ ​Chairwoman​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Boulder​ ​Public​ ​Library​ ​Commission. My​ ​dad,​ ​Joel,​ ​is​ ​turning​ ​87​ ​on​ ​Monday,​ ​October​ ​9.​ ​​ ​He​ ​has​ ​dementia​ ​but​ ​with​ ​assistance​ ​is​ ​able to​ ​exercise​ ​quite​ ​a​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​independence.​ ​​ ​He​ ​likes​ ​to​ ​go​ ​out​ ​to​ ​eat,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​still​ ​likes​ ​to​ ​read,​ ​so​ ​he finds​ ​his​ ​way​ ​to​ ​the​ ​library​ ​occasionally.​ ​​ ​He​ ​is​ ​not​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​drive​ ​anymore. Joel​ ​moved​ ​to​ ​Boulder​ ​in​ ​the​ ​winter​ ​of​ ​1972-73.​ ​​ ​He​ ​bought​ ​a​ ​fourplex​ ​in​ ​North​ ​Boulder​ ​within​ ​a couple​ ​of​ ​years​ ​after​ ​that​ ​and​ ​has​ ​been​ ​paying​ ​property​ ​taxes​ ​in​ ​Boulder​ ​ever​ ​since,​ ​over​ ​40 years​ ​of​ ​property​ ​taxes.​ ​​ ​He​ ​was​ ​a​ ​successful​ ​engineer​ ​and​ ​entrepreneur​ ​and​ ​employed​ ​dozens of​ ​people​ ​in​ ​Boulder​ ​County​ ​over​ ​the​ ​years.​ ​​ ​He​ ​has​ ​been​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​health​ ​and​ ​wealth of​ ​Boulder​ ​for​ ​all​ ​these​ ​years. Last​ ​Tuesday​ ​I​ ​came​ ​up​ ​to​ ​Boulder​ ​and​ ​we​ ​caught​ ​up​ ​on​ ​chores,​ ​the​ ​grocery,​ ​the​ ​barber,​ ​lunch, etc.​ ​​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​chores​ ​was​ ​to​ ​return​ ​a​ ​book​ ​to​ ​the​ ​library.​ ​​ ​One​ ​book,​ ​an​ ​older​ ​mystery.​ ​​ ​It's​ ​due date​ ​was​ ​7/17/17,​ ​so​ ​we​ ​were​ ​about​ ​two​ ​months​ ​late.​ ​​ ​I​ ​dropped​ ​him​ ​at​ ​the​ ​front​ ​door​ ​and parked​ ​my​ ​car. I​ ​found​ ​him​ ​just​ ​as​ ​he​ ​was​ ​just​ ​finishing​ ​up​ ​at​ ​the​ ​account​ ​desk.​ ​​ ​He​ ​had​ ​paid​ ​$10.00​ ​because​ ​his account​ ​had​ ​been​ ​turned​ ​over​ ​to​ ​a​ ​collections​ ​agency.​ ​​ ​I​ ​was​ ​pretty​ ​surprised.​ ​He​ ​said​ ​he​ ​wasn't sure​ ​what​ ​the​ ​$10.00​ ​bill​ ​was​ ​for. It's​ ​unconscionable​ ​to​ ​turn​ ​anyone​ ​over​ ​to​ ​collections​ ​for​ ​a​ ​very​ ​small​ ​past​ ​due​ ​amount.​ ​​ ​It's​ ​not just​ ​$10.00,​ ​it's​ ​a​ ​person's​ ​credit​ ​rating! Further,​ ​accessibility​ ​at​ ​the​ ​library​ ​includes​ ​more​ ​than​ ​wheelchair​ ​access​ ​and​ ​braille​ ​dots​ ​on​ ​the restroom​ ​doors.​ ​​ ​There​ ​must​ ​be​ ​ways​ ​to​ ​help​ ​identify​ ​less​ ​able​ ​folks​ ​like​ ​my​ ​dad,​ ​and​ ​help​ ​make the​ ​library​ ​available​ ​to​ ​them​ ​without​ ​unfair​ ​penalties​ ​(like​ ​put​ ​a​ ​helper's​ ​email​ ​and​ ​phone​ ​on​ ​his account). I​ ​hope​ ​you​ ​will​ ​reconsider​ ​the​ ​the​ ​library's​ ​policy​ ​regarding​ ​use​ ​of​ ​collection​ ​agencies. Thanks​ ​for​ ​all​ ​you​ ​do,​ ​the​ ​library​ ​looks​ ​fantastic. Lyn​ ​Crenshaw Cloud​ ​Valley​ ​Cashmere​ ​Farm Westcliffe,​ ​Colorado 719-371-0513 23 October​ ​5,​ ​2017 Hi,​ ​Linda​ ​- Thanks​ ​for​ ​bringing​ ​this​ ​matter​ ​to​ ​our​ ​attention.​ ​Alicia​ ​is​ ​out​ ​with​ ​a​ ​3-week​ ​old​ ​baby,​ ​so​ ​emails are​ ​not​ ​at​ ​the​ ​top​ ​her​ ​list​ ​right​ ​now.​ ​:) I'm​ ​very​ ​sorry​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​about​ ​your​ ​father's​ ​experience.​ ​I​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​"accessibility"​ ​in​ ​libraries​ ​has many​ ​aspects,​ ​and​ ​accessibility​ ​for​ ​elderly​ ​patrons​ ​is​ ​a​ ​core​ ​value​ ​for​ ​Boulder​ ​Public​ ​Library.​ ​Our library​ ​staff​ ​are​ ​usually​ ​very​ ​good​ ​at​ ​helping​ ​people​ ​navigate​ ​through​ ​"library-land,"​ ​so​ ​I'm​ ​not sure​ ​what​ ​happened​ ​here.​ ​Ive​ ​forwarded​ ​your​ ​note​ ​to​ ​our​ ​Director,​ ​David​ ​Farnan,​ ​so​ ​his​ ​team can​ ​look​ ​into​ ​this​ ​incident.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​them​ ​will​ ​likely​ ​contact​ ​you​ ​very​ ​soon. Can​ ​you​ ​please​ ​share​ ​your​ ​father's​ ​name​ ​so​ ​staff​ ​can​ ​check​ ​his​ ​records​ ​and​ ​begin​ ​figuring​ ​out what​ ​happened? Boulder​ ​Public​ ​Library​ ​does​ ​not​ ​charge​ ​late​ ​fees​ ​to​ ​people​ ​over​ ​60.​ ​However,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​part​ ​of​ ​a consortium​ ​of​ ​libraries​ ​who​ ​share​ ​collections,​ ​giving​ ​patrons​ ​access​ ​to​ ​a​ ​broader​ ​range​ ​of​ ​library materials.​ ​Other​ ​libraries​ ​in​ ​the​ ​consortium​ ​do​ ​charge​ ​late​ ​fees​ ​on​ ​their​ ​materials,​ ​so​ ​it's​ ​possible that​ ​this​ ​book​ ​was​ ​from​ ​another​ ​library.​ ​It's​ ​also​ ​possible​ ​that​ ​the​ ​book​ ​was​ ​registered​ ​as​ ​"lost," which​ ​automatically​ ​triggers​ ​referral​ ​to​ ​a​ ​collection​ ​agency.​ ​​ ​One​ ​thing​ ​you​ ​don't​ ​have​ ​to​ ​worry about​ ​is​ ​impacts​ ​to​ ​your​ ​father's​ ​credit​ ​rating:​ ​by​ ​law,​ ​library​ ​fines​ ​don't​ ​show​ ​up​ ​on​ ​credit reports,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​a​ ​collection​ ​agency. As​ ​an​ ​aside,​ ​your​ ​email​ ​was​ ​timely,​ ​since​ ​one​ ​of​ ​our​ ​discussion​ ​items​ ​at​ ​last​ ​night's​ ​Commission meeting​ ​was​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​a​ ​policy​ ​change​ ​to​ ​eliminate​ ​late​ ​fees​ ​altogether.​ ​​ ​We​ ​tabled​ ​that item​ ​for​ ​discussion​ ​sometime​ ​next​ ​spring,​ ​after​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​library​ ​master​ ​planning process​ ​currently​ ​underway. Again,​ ​I'm​ ​very​ ​sorry​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​about​ ​your​ ​father's​ ​experience.​ ​I​ ​am​ ​confident​ ​that​ ​staff​ ​will​ ​get​ ​to the​ ​bottom​ ​of​ ​this​ ​and​ ​get​ ​back​ ​with​ ​us​ ​shortly. Thanks​ ​so​ ​much​ ​for​ ​reaching​ ​out! -​ ​Joni​ ​Teter Vice-chair,​ ​Boulder​ ​Library​ ​Commission October​ ​5,​ ​2017 Good​ ​morning​ ​Joni, Thanks​ ​for​ ​your​ ​quick​ ​response!​ ​​ ​I​ ​am​ ​really​ ​glad​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​that​ ​my​ ​dad's​ ​experience​ ​was​ ​not library​ ​policy,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​credit​ ​reporting​ ​is​ ​not​ ​an​ ​issue.​ ​​ ​Those​ ​were​ ​my​ ​primary​ ​concerns. His​ ​name​ ​is​ ​Joel​ ​Kiester.​ ​​ ​I​ ​don't​ ​actually​ ​think​ ​he​ ​needs​ ​any​ ​personal​ ​resolution​ ​with​ ​this incident,​ ​however​ ​I​ ​am​ ​wondering​ ​if​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​have​ ​my​ ​name,​ ​phone​ ​and​ ​email​ ​added​ ​to his​ ​account.​ ​​ ​Since​ ​I​ ​live​ ​a​ ​few​ ​hours​ ​away​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​good​ ​for​ ​me​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​heads​ ​up​ ​to​ ​add​ ​his library​ ​books​ ​to​ ​my​ ​to-do​ ​list​ ​when​ ​I​ ​am​ ​in​ ​town​ ​about​ ​every​ ​two​ ​weeks. 24 Thanks​ ​again​ ​for​ ​your​ ​help! Best,​ ​Lyn​ ​C October​ ​11,​ ​2017 Hi,​ ​Linda​ ​- Sorry​ ​for​ ​the​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​getting​ ​back​ ​to​ ​you​ ​about​ ​your​ ​Dad’s​ ​library​ ​account.​ ​Here’s​ ​the information​ ​provided​ ​by​ ​Antonia​ ​Gaona,​ ​BPL’s​ ​Public​ ​Services​ ​Manager.​ ​She​ ​is​ ​happy​ ​to​ ​discuss this​ ​further​ ​with​ ​you​ ​if​ ​you’d​ ​like.​ ​303.441.3107 gaonaa@boulderlibrary.org Your​ ​email​ ​can​ ​be​ ​added​ ​to​ ​your​ ​Dad’s​ ​account​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​receiving​ ​courtesy​ ​(i.e.,​ ​“your book​ ​is​ ​due​ ​in​ ​3​ ​days”)​ ​and​ ​overdue​ ​notices.​ ​If​ ​you’d​ ​like​ ​to​ ​do​ ​this,​ ​you​ ​can​ ​call​ ​the​ ​patron services​ ​number​ ​(303-441-3100)​ ​​ ​with​ ​your​ ​Dad’s​ ​library​ ​card​ ​number​ ​in​ ​hand,​ ​and​ ​request​ ​that staff​ ​add​ ​a​ ​second​ ​email​ ​address​ ​to​ ​the​ ​account.​ ​​ ​(For​ ​patron​ ​privacy​ ​reasons,​ ​the​ ​card​ ​number is​ ​needed​ ​to​ ​add​ ​an​ ​email​ ​address.) ​ ​Antonia​ ​also​ ​suggested​ ​that​ ​I​ ​bring​ ​the​ ​library’s​ ​homebound​ ​services​ ​program​ ​to​ ​your​ ​attention. If​ ​visiting​ ​the​ ​library​ ​on​ ​on​ ​his​ ​own​ ​presents​ ​challenges​ ​for​ ​your​ ​Dad,​ ​a​ ​team​ ​of​ ​volunteers​ ​is available​ ​to​ ​help​ ​with​ ​selection,​ ​pickup​ ​and​ ​return​ ​of​ ​materials.​ ​​ ​They​ ​could​ ​also​ ​help​ ​him​ ​keep current​ ​with​ ​his​ ​returns.​ ​​ ​Here’s​ ​a​ ​link​ ​to​ ​the​ ​brief​ ​description​ ​of​ ​this​ ​program. https://boulderlibrary.org/services/homebound-delivery/ Here’s​ ​a​ ​summary​ ​of​ ​how​ ​the​ ​library’s​ ​return​ ​process​ ​works​ ​FYI. ●Patrons​ ​receive​ ​a​ ​courtesy​ ​email​ ​notice​ ​3​ ​days​ ​before​ ​materials​ ​are​ ​due. ● ●Overdue​ ​notices​ ​are​ ​sent​ ​when​ ​materials​ ​are​ ​7​ ​days​ ​late,​ ​and​ ​again​ ​at​ ​14​ ​days. ●When​ ​an​ ​item​ ​is​ ​21​ ​days​ ​late,​ ​patrons​ ​are​ ​mailed​ ​(US​ ​postal​ ​service)​ ​a​ ​bill​ ​for replacement​ ​costs.​ ​(Replacement​ ​costs​ ​are​ ​not​ ​assessed​ ​if​ ​the​ ​book​ ​is​ ​returned.) ● ●When​ ​an​ ​item​ ​is​ ​5​ ​weeks​ ​late,​ ​that​ ​account​ ​is​ ​sent​ ​to​ ​a​ ​collection​ ​agency.​ ​​ ​Patrons​ ​are assessed​ ​a​ ​$10​ ​fee​ ​for​ ​collection​ ​agency​ ​costs. As​ ​I​ ​noted​ ​previously,​ ​seniors​ ​over​ ​60​ ​are​ ​not​ ​assessed​ ​fines,​ ​but​ ​they​ ​are​ ​still​ ​expected​ ​to return​ ​materials​ ​on​ ​time.​ ​The​ ​$10​ ​collection​ ​fee​ ​was​ ​triggered​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​two​ ​month​ ​delay in​ ​returning​ ​the​ ​item. I​ ​hope​ ​this​ ​information​ ​is​ ​helpful.​ ​Do​ ​consider​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​homebound​ ​program​ ​would​ ​be helpful​ ​to​ ​your​ ​Dad​ ​-​ ​I​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​great​ ​things​ ​about​ ​it. Thanks​ ​again​ ​for​ ​reaching​ ​out! 25 Joni Thanks,​ ​Joni I​ ​really​ ​appreciate​ ​your​ ​help.​ ​We​ ​will​ ​gladly​ ​follow​ ​your​ ​suggestions.​ ​​ ​I​ ​am​ ​sure​ ​that​ ​between​ ​the homebound​ ​services​ ​program​ ​and​ ​some​ ​additions​ ​to​ ​his​ ​account​ ​we​ ​can​ ​make​ ​things​ ​go​ ​much more​ ​smoothly. Best,​ ​Lyn 26 DATE: November 1, 2017 TO: Library Commission FROM: David Farnan, Director of Library and Arts Department Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Devin Billingsley, Senior Budget Analyst SUBJECT: 2017 2nd Adjustment to Base Budget The 2nd Adjustment to Base (ATB) is the Library’s second, and final, opportunity to modify its 2017 budget to accommodate changing conditions. This adjustment to base is scheduled to be presented to Council on November 21, 2017 for appropriation on December 5, 2017. City executive management requested that all departments limit any 2nd ATB budget additions to those that are being supported by additional revenue that cover the cost. Library Staff submitted the following list of proposed adjustments to the 2017 budget. 2017 Library 2nd Adjustment to Base Title Amount Type Source Description Overdrive Cost Sharing $8,582 Budget Supplemental General Fund The Library has a cost-sharing arrangement with Loveland, Lafayette, Broomfield, Westminster, Louisville and Longmont for use of the Overdrive downloadable content service. These additional revenues offset additional costs of materials. Bookshop Sales $16,235 Budget Supplemental General Fund Revenues from used books sales surpassed initial projections. The proceeds will be used to supplement volunteer programming. Career Online High School Grant $27,375 Budget Supplemental Library Fund The Colorado State Library awarded BPL with funding to support its Career Online High School program. Total Adjustment to Base $52,192 27 DIRECTOR REPORT NOVEMBER 2017 Staff Day Friday, October 20 was our annual staff day. This is our only opportunity each year to bring all staff together at one time for training and important updates and team building. This year’s day was fantastic and well received by everyone. Our keynote speaker was David Bondarchuck, a formerly homeless teen who was inspired by Martha Stewart. David spent a lot of time in his youth hanging out all day at Denver Public Library, reading all the cookbooks and entertaining books he could find. He later moved in with a family, got his high school diploma, started cooking for friends and co-workers, and eventually opened a catering business. In time, David was invited to decorate the White House for the holidays in 2011 and 2012, and he met Martha Stewart. Great story. Great speaker. Staff also had the opportunity to attend sessions on diversity and inclusion, safety and de- escalation tactics, and had the opportunity to discuss the city of Boulder’s new homeless strategy with staff from Bridge House and the Boulder Shelter. There were also a number of great teambuilding activities that were both physical and humorous. The Library Foundation gave all staff members a gift certificate to Sweet Cow in appreciation of their work. Foundation The Library Foundation will meet later this month to discuss their 2018 budget. They have experienced a good year as the stock market has done very well. We plan to request $250K in funds for the period April 2018-March 2019. Given that the city has funded BLDG 61 at the rate of $60K per year for materials, we anticipate an opportunity for us to shift some foundation funds to new and expanding programs. Some items of note, expansion of the popular “Reading Buddies” program to include an off-site program at University Hill Elementary, continuation of the teen apprentice programs in BLDG 61, expansion of STEAM programs to the branches, and a few other ideas. Civic Area Update and Library Plaza The Civic Area is on pace for opening in December. As I am sure you have seen, they are laying sod and putting the finishing touches on a number of items. There is still some consideration being given to more permanent, pre-fabricated bathrooms somewhere in the Civic Area. 28 I wanted to give the commission a heads-up that I have also been approached by a private funder who would like to pay to redevelop the library plaza in front of the south building of the Main Library. The plaza was initially slated for redesign in the current park project but was value engineered out and not touched. The potential donor is a longtime [50+ years] resident of Boulder and would like to pay for design and re-construction of the plaza to acknowledge the importance of learning and, specifically scientific education and Boulder’s legacy of Nobel prize winners in a plaza that attracts people to gather and serves as an entryway to the library. This idea is somewhat in its early stages, but I have met with the gentleman on five occasions over the last two years and he is determined. He has recently formed a non-profit and this past week, brought a nationally known artist to Boulder to view the site and to talk about what steps are needed to turn his idea into reality. The Office of Arts + Culture has a clearly defined policy for accepting donations of public art – for which this would qualify. I have informed the donor of the challenges we faced with the YES sculpture, and encouraged he and the artist to do a robust public engagement prior to beginning work on any design. If they decide to proceed, [and I believe they will] they will schedule time to meet with the Library Commission to hear your ideas and concerns in the 1st quarter of 2018. The Library Commission’s input will be critical at all stages if we are to proceed. Given that the dollar amounts that the donor is talking about are significant, and the plaza is in need of some work, I think it is a good idea to hear him out. This process is complicated in that if we accept a private donation on public land, we circumvent the public art selection process, meaning a public panel assembled by the Office of Arts + Culture does not choose the artist. The donor does. It is further complicated by the fact that we do not actually control the budget for the project. It is unknown at this time what amount the donor will contribute and what amount he is projecting to be contributed through fundraising. The dollar amount for the project that he has thrown out exceeds any amount the public art program could afford for a single project. One thing we do control in total is setting parameters for the site. At the very least, it is imperative that we maintain good ingress and egress to the library, not obstruct the architectural integrity of the current façade, and that the space continue to serve as a plaza. We are the busiest public building in the City of Boulder. It is not my place to say if I like the artistic merit of a project or not. But in some ways, the Library Commission and Arts Commission will need to ensure that the public will find the proposal a positive addition. Q3 Statistics Report Gina’s Q3 stats and report is Attachment A. As usual it is a very thoughtful report. We continue to try to decipher program attendance numbers with the new metrics provided by the state. I do believe our overall program and outreach attendance numbers are slightly down 29 from last year. That is concerning, but I also sense that the change in the way we tabulate the data has disrupted not only the accuracy of the count but caused staff to be more conservative in the way they count. This is not a bad thing. I think it will take us a few years to find the balance. This is to be expected when the way we count changes. I am surprised to see circulation up by 3%. This is inconsistent with most libraries in the Front Range who are experiencing a decline in circulation. Our increase is almost fully attributable to growth in e-book circulation, and an increase in holds through the expanded FLC. Please keep in mind that all of our stats are compared on a year to year basis. So numbers are somewhat depressed by the previous year’s expansive growth. For example, the data shows our new borrowers are down by 6%. Even still, we show 10,000 new borrowers thus far in 2017. Again, from experience I will say that for a community our size, with limited population growth, this is an astoundingly high number. My supposition continues to be that people in the community are finding their way back – some through new uses, like BLDG 61 which requires a library card to access – but also that the number is buffeted by ‘transient’ populations made up primarily by university students and people who travel to Boulder for work or as a regional destination. I am happy for the growth, but still a little befuddled on how to explain it. Revised date for observance of the 2018 Veteran’s Day holiday The 2018 official Veteran’s Day holiday falls on Sunday, Nov. 11, 2018. The City of Boulder will observe the holiday on Monday, Nov. 12, 2018 . The Library will close on Monday, Nov. 12, 2018 in observance of the holiday with other city services instead of Sunday which was originally proposed. Staff thinks this will be in line with patrons will expect for the holiday closure and it will also minimize costs for the personnel budget. 30 ATTACHMENT A. 2017 Q3 BPL Quarterly Performance In Person Visits Doors counts for BPL system held steady YTD over last year, with Meadows showing increases of 11%. New Traf-sys door counters were installed in March which will support accuracy in future quarterly reporting. Fig. 1 Door Counts Running Total YTD 2017 and percent change from 2016 *Note: NoBo counts adjusted by averages in March and April due to counter not tracking small children. Patrons and Programs: PEOPLE & PLACE HIGHLIGHTS Q3: Jaipur Festival, Master Plan community outreach; Summer Reading wrap up; Summerfest & Pollinator events • The Library moved into Phase 3 of the Master Plan, analyzing the data gathered, seeking community feedback on issues, goals, mission, vision, and guiding principles, and hosted several community outreach events to showcase the planning and timeline. • Youth services and branch staff concluded another amazing Summer Reading season with nearly 4,000 registrants and almost half completing the entire program. • Summertime is all about bees, music, and enjoying the outdoors. Many events were held outside the library walls with large attendance at Summerfest, Pollinator Activities in September, and an Edible Garden for patrons to harvest. • Favorite Concerts and Cinema programs continue to attract interest and attendance from the community including the popular Lunchtime Concerts including a drumming workshop and Friday Films. • Seed to Table Program events were launched this quarter, a combination of events and resources from the library and community partners with a focus on sustainable living. • Another wonderful Jaipur Festival wrapped up the quarter with literature, performances, ideas, and dialogue. _______________________________________________________________________ New patron registrations still slightly down YTD over 2016 this quarter, but less so than Q2. Most of the decrease occurred in January with online registrations, so we may close the gap by year end. Fig. 2 Running totals for new patron accounts YTD 2016-2017 Programs & Storytime This Q3 report includes Program and Outreach events/attendance as compared to 2016 with the exception of BLDG61, which will be standardized for YE report. Annual State reporting requires that Outreach events [such as parades, 2016 2017 Percent Performance Indicator Jul Aug Sep Jul Aug Sep Change Door Counts 576755 664274 751916 583537 669133 754677 0.4% Main 388187 447859 509976 393258 451798 511975 0.4% Meadows 75196 87444 99111 85150 98046 110322 11% Reynolds 87059 99452 109943 81665 92212 101816 -7% NoBo 24594 27591 30710 22356 25785 29125 -5% Carnegie 1719 1928 2176 1108 1292 1439 -34% 2016 2017 Percent Performance Indicator Jul Aug Sep Jul Aug Sep Change New Patrons 8199 9593 10795 7503 8761 10177 -6% 31 ATTACHMENT A. conferences, fair booths, school assemblies, etc. are counted as distinct and with separate audience reach from Programs]. 2017 to date is compliant to this measure and 2016 Programs and internal events (tours, class visits, etc.) were standardized for this report. BLDG61 2016 Outreach events still need to be separated. We continue to standardize our program categories and follow best practices for data reporting. In 2018, BLDG61 will be folded under library locations (not showing as separate metric) and so recognized as a distinct library facility with programs and outreach activity like a branch. Fig. 3 Programs & Outreach Summary 2016-2017 32 ATTACHMENT A. ***Note: I inadventently left off two outreach events, will include next quarter. Circulation and Collections: 2016 2017 Row Labels # of events Sum of Attendance/Reach # of events Sum of Attendance/Reach Main Library 1840 75990 1394 173451 Outreach: Exposure 1 3300 3 122015 Storytime 555 26690 430 19150 Performances & Presentations 187 23479 91 11589 Classes & Activities 877 13773 661 8486 Outreach: Direct Contact 59 4724 65 8245 Passive Programming 24 1605 19 1784 Book & Discussion Groups 104 1351 98 1178 On-site Class Visit 14 427 24 968 Tour 19 641 2 25 Meadows Branch 436 9384 407 7327 Storytime 204 2344 233 2599 Book & Discussion Groups 58 2433 49 2157 Outreach: Direct Contact 9 1886 13 995 Classes & Activities 145 1464 77 658 Performances & Presentations 18 657 11 557 Outreach: Exposure 2 600 1 112 On-site Class Visit 13 227 Passive Programming 10 22 George Reynolds Branch 536 9643 376 6082 Storytime 328 4808 262 3323 Classes & Activities 158 2301 89 1351 Outreach: Direct Contact 13 1414 9 940 Performances & Presentations 12 606 8 240 On-site Class Visit 10 399 Outreach: Exposure 1 180 NoBo Corner Library 146 2910 206 2647 Storytime 139 2015 157 1587 Outreach: Direct Contact 3 320 4 600 Outreach: Exposure 2 431 1 15 Classes & Activities 1 5 42 383 Performances & Presentations 1 139 2 62 BLDG 61 Makerspace*13 4040 Outreach: Exposure 6 2650 Outreach: Direct Contact 7 1390 Book Bike 2 400 Outreach: Direct Contact 2 400 Carnegie 9 233 On-site Class Visit 5 121 Outreach: Direct Contact 1 76 Classes & Activities 2 24 Tour 1 12 Grand Total 2967 98160 2398 193947 * Note: 2016 BLDG 61 calendar activities have not yet been standardized with program categories/outreach BLDG 61 Makerspace OUTREACH is now reported in the same calendar as other programs, so shows 2017 YE summary will combine all facilities, from the exported data of 3 calendars. 33 ATTACHMENT A. Jan – Sep 2017 YTD circulation increased +3% overall. Fig. 4 Circulation and Filled Holds YTD Comparison 2016-2017 Holds Filled (collections) shows the flow of collections from each branch going to fulfill a hold, regardless of where the request originates. FLC borrows and loans are consortium member libraries borrowing from, or lending to, BPL. Likewise, Prospector Borrow and Loans are incoming or outgoing. As the consortium grew this year, it is noted that Prospector requests/borrows fall off while FLC activities grow. eCollections & databases: eCollections (Overdrive, hoopla, Kanopy, Zinio, etc.) are up 16% YTD over 2016. Database usage shows an increase as well, this based on the new LRS metric which reports on full text/record views—rather than sessions. Fig. 5 eCollection & Database Usage SUMMARY “MEASURING OUTCOMES. For a long time, the impact of the public library has been measured by what the library could count— patrons who walked through the doors, books and other materials checked out, the number of people in seats at training classes or other programs. But the measurements that matter most—to government officials, foundations, donors, and community stakeholders—are outcomes that report how the library is helping to achieve community goals and objectives. This will require libraries to think differently about data and to assess, on a broad scale, the outcomes they achieve and the impact they make on the lives of individuals and the community.” Aspen Report While reconciling our program, event and outreach activities and gathering this quarter’s highlights, it is striking just how much the library does each day. Numbers, while impressive, do not really do it justice; quantifiable data is important and required, yet the quality of what we do and the impact of our service to the community is at once both hard to measure and yet also, common knowledge. The library falls under the COB sustainability framework of Healthy and Socially Thriving Community which recognizes that we are cultivators, active partners in the well-being of our community, and conduits that enrich and engage across generations. We do this through our collections and our programs, as well as by opening our doors to sponsored programs, and engaging the community with outreach activities. 2016 2017 Percent Performance Indicator Jul Aug Sep Jul Aug Sep Change Circulation (Collections)806833 923440 1030762 838256 955100 1064425 3% Main 523337 597456 665254 537717 612929 682046 3% Meadows 119383 138043 155663 138010 156638 174564 12% Reynolds 139001 159252 178028 138353 157715 176643 -1% NoBo 25112 28689 31817 24176 27818 31172 -2% Holds Filled (Collections)100832 116104 130071 109357 124681 139302 7% Main 65079 74861 83914 70366 80066 89612 7% Reynolds 19403 22350 24913 20520 23492 26085 5% Meadows 16350 18893 21244 18471 21123 23605 11% Prospector Borrows 16174 18335 20096 11716 13397 14830 -26% Prospector Loans 10799 12518 13962 9132 10594 11908 -15% FLC Borrows incoming 37393 43789 50443 52227 59617 66537 32% FLC Loans outgoing 29510 34609 39200 40596 46511 52426 34% Performance Indicator Jul Aug Sep Jul Aug Sep Change eCollection Use 83808 95307 106048 93961 108469 122701 16% Database Use†65801 72073 90278 94337 104274 123736 37% 34 ATTACHMENT A. Attendance/Reach based on primary category of activity [primary categories are general program types] Attendance/Reach based on secondary category [secondary categories add description related to library goals and/or BLF-funded programs] 35 ATTACHMENT A. **Note two storytime appear because of extra space in cell, these are secondary description (e.g. a Tour with a Storytime) 36 ATTACHMENT A. BPL YTD Running Total 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 Percent Performance Indicator Jul Aug Sep Jul Aug Sep Change Circulation (Collections)806833 923440 1030762 838256 955100 1064425 3% Main 523337 597456 665254 537717 612929 682046 3% Meadows 119383 138043 155663 138010 156638 174564 12% Reynolds 139001 159252 178028 138353 157715 176643 -1% NoBo 25112 28689 31817 24176 27818 31172 -2% Door Counts 576755 664274 751916 583537 669133 754677 0.4% Main 388187 447859 509976 393258 451798 511975 0.4% Meadows 75196 87444 99111 85150 98046 110322 11% Reynolds 87059 99452 109943 81665 92212 101816 -7% NoBo 24594 27591 30710 22356 25785 29125 -5% Carnegie 1719 1928 2176 1108 1292 1439 -34% Web sessions*432836 493450 549288 772112 888137 1002098 82% New Patrons 8199 9593 10795 7503 8761 10177 -6% Holds Filled (Collections)100832 116104 130071 109357 124681 139302 7% Main 65079 74861 83914 70366 80066 89612 7% Reynolds 19403 22350 24913 20520 23492 26085 5% Meadows 16350 18893 21244 18471 21123 23605 11% Prospector Borrows 16174 18335 20096 11716 13397 14830 -26% Prospector Loans 10799 12518 13962 9132 10594 11908 -15% FLC Borrows incoming 37393 43789 50443 52227 59617 66537 32% FLC Loans outgoing 29510 34609 39200 40596 46511 52426 34% eCollection Use 83808 95307 106048 93961 108469 122701 16% Database Use†65801 72073 90278 94337 104274 123736 37% Storytime Attendance 22890 25650 28445 21097 23938 26529 -7% Main 16739 18920 20931 15188 17234 19020 -9% Reynolds 3525 3861 4264 2587 3003 3323 -22% Meadows 1418 1553 1763 2004 2270 2599 47% NoBo 1208 1316 1487 1318 1431 1587 7% Carnegie 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a Storytime Events 710 814 923 835 970 1084 17% Main 328 378 423 331 384 427 1% Reynolds 205 235 265 204 238 267 1% Meadows 111 121 144 179 208 233 62% NoBo 66 80 91 121 140 157 73% Carnegie 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a Programs Attendance-Children 10209 10596 12578 7268 7552 9086 -28% Main 5647 5873 6875 4693 4872 6039 -12% Reynolds 2269 2349 3102 1006 1039 1300 -58% Meadows 2187 2268 2364 1224 1266 1356 -43% NoBo 0 0 131 345 375 391 198% Carnegie 106 106 106 0 0 0 n/a Programs Offered-Children 297 324 367 284 306 358 -2% Main 139 148 175 152 162 194 11% Reynolds 64 67 75 31 32 40 -47% Meadows 90 105 112 74 81 90 -20% NoBo 0 0 1 27 31 34 3300% Carnegie 4 4 4 0 0 0 n/a Programs Attendance-Teen 3053 3385 3704 3439 3587 4018 8% Main 1792 2086 2353 3097 3227 3624 54% Reynolds 270 296 348 241 259 282 -19% Meadows ǁ 957 969 969 58 58 58 -94% NoBo 0 0 0 43 43 54 new Carnegie 34 34 34 0 0 0 n/a Programs Offered-Teen 130 145 161 138 150 166 3% Main 61 69 79 70 76 84 6% Reynolds 45 51 57 45 50 56 -2% Meadows 22 23 23 16 16 16 -30% NoBo 0 0 0 7 8 10 new Carnegie 2 2 2 0 0 0 n/a Programs Attendance-Adult 15156 17337 24207 10465 12043 16773 -31% Main 13480 15343 21965 8793 10051 14509 -34% Meadows 1324 1627 1862 1627 1947 2207 19% Reynolds 201 216 223 45 45 57 -74% Carnegie 12 12 18 0 0 0 n/a NoBo 139 139 139 0 0 0 n/a Programs Offered-Adult 587 663 758 546 611 685 -10% Main 519 587 675 496 555 623 -8% Meadows 38 44 49 43 49 54 10% Reynolds 28 30 31 7 7 8 -74% Carnegie 1 1 2 0 0 0 n/a NoBo 1 1 1 0 0 0 n/a BLDG 61 attendance‡ 11734 12164 12527 3830 4425 5052 -60% BLDG 61 events 194 220 250 286 318 350 40% Outreach Events (all facilities)0 0 0 97 99 103 new metric Outreach: Exposure 0 0 0 132757 132757 132772 new metric Outreach: Direct Contact 0 0 0 9279 9324 9444 new metric SUBTOTAL PROG ATTEND/OUTREACH 40152 43482 53016 167038 169688 177145 234% SUBTOTAL PROG/OUTREACH EVENTS**1208 1352 1536 1351 1484 1662 8% GRAND TOTAL: attendance/reach w/storytime 63042 69132 81461 188135 193626 203674 150% inlcudes program and outreach attend. not Storytime GRAND TOTAL: events w/storytime 1918 2166 2459 2186 2454 2746 12% includes program and outreach events not Storytime * Web Sessions now include URL boulder.flatironslibrary.org [i.e. the catalog] † Database usage now standardized both years to reflect new LRS reporting requirements ‡ BLDG61 attendance 2/2016 reflects Grand Opening programs/events 37 ATTACHMENT A. 38