Loading...
Agenda_2020_2_11_Meeting STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Jane Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager Tom Carr, City Attorney Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Christian Driver, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Open Space and Mountain Parks DATE: February 11, 2020 SUBJECT: Study Session for Tribal Consultation Background and Preparation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this document is to help prepare Boulder City Council members for the city’s upcoming consultation with Federally Recognized American Indian tribes scheduled for March 17-18, 2020 to be held at the Millennium Harvest House in Boulder. This memo provides general information on what tribal consultation is, the city’s history in participating in consultation, and an overview of the agenda and topics for discussion for the upcoming 2020 consultation. BACKGROUND Tribal consultation is broadly defined as a process of meaningful government-to- government communication and coordination between U.S. government agencies and tribal governments prior to an agency taking actions or implementing decisions (“undertakings”) that may affect tribes or tribal interests. Although consultation was originally established as a federal government policy (EO 13175), numerous states and municipalities have sought to include input from tribal governments when their actions are thought to affect tribal interests. In addition to existing federal guidance, consultation with federally recognized American Indian tribes in Colorado is also guided by the State of Colorado Tribal Consultation Guide prepared by the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs (Attachment A). The City of Boulder currently has four legal agreements with thirteen Native American tribes (Attachment B). These agreements resulted from formal city-tribal consultations between the late 1990s and the mid-2000s. Consultations initially began because of issues related to the construction of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) building in the 1990s, eventually resulting in a 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between the federal government and the tribes that, among other things, protected part of the property from development and allowed members of federally recognized tribes to conduct ceremonies at the site. The city joined in these early negotiations and assumed responsibility for overseeing a conservation easement designed to protect the undeveloped portions of the NIST property. After 1998, the city continued to consult with the tribes independently, and later agreements recognized that the tribes and the city had common interests in: • Preserving open space and cultural resources on city land • Providing opportunities for ceremonial practice on city open space • Establishing yearly government-to-government consultations when financially feasible • Protecting the city’s Jewell Mountain open space property • Establishing a procedure to notify the tribes if Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land ANALYSIS Regular consultations between the city and the tribes ceased in the mid to late 2000s. In 2016, the Boulder City Council adopted the Indigenous People’s Day resolution (Resolution No.1190; Attachment C). The resolution acknowledged that: • Indigenous People in Boulder have, as in all parts of Americas, endured centuries of cruelty, exploitation and genocide • The Boulder area encompasses ancestral homelands of Indigenous Peoples' Nations • Facing and acknowledging our past, good as well as bad, makes our community stronger and more resilient • Those now living on these ancestral lands recognize that harm was done and acknowledge that we have a shared responsibility to forge a path forward to address the past and continuing harm to the Indigenous People and the land The resolution declared the second Monday in October of each year to be Indigenous Peoples' Day in Boulder and it directed the City Manager to work with City departments, Native Americans and historians to correct omissions of the Native American presence in public places, resources and cultural programming. As a first step in that process, the resolution seeks to receive input regarding a name that “commemorates the Indigenous presence on the park land known as Settlers Park.” The adoption of the Resolution and the city’s desire to re-establish relationships with Tribes who signed previous agreements with the city led the city to host another formal government-to-government consultation with American Indian Tribes in Boulder in March 2019. During the first day of the 2019 consultation, City of Boulder staff informed tribal representatives about the City’s Indigenous People’s Day Resolution and there was a review of the existing agreements the city has with 13 American Indian Tribes. On the second day, city and tribal representatives visited Settler’s Park and discussed the desired renaming of the area. At the close of the 2019 consultation, the city and tribes agreed to a 2020 consultation to continue discussions of the renaming of Settler’s Park and to discuss amending the existing agreements. To prepare for the 2020 consultation, a city-tribal working group was established. The working group, composed of city staff and tribal government representatives, was tasked with drafting revisions to the existing agreements, including how best to merge these agreements into a single Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The working group also had further discussion of the potential renaming of Settler’s Park. The working group met via conference call three times between May and August 2019. The suggestions from the working group will be presented and considered at the 2020 consultation. For the March 2020 consultation, the city has invited representatives from all 14 tribes previously invited to participate in the 2019 consultation, in addition to two additional tribes as suggested by the Rosebud Sioux (Attachment D). For the 2020 consultation, the city has put forward an agenda (Attachment E) that includes a proposed renaming for Settler’s Park and continuing discussion of a revised MOU. During the 2019 consultation, tribal representatives requested that future consultations include opportunities for representatives to visit cultural resources on open space land. Therefore, plans for the 2020 consultation include a field visit to city open space that will inform discussions related to cultural resource protection on city lands and how the city can best make cultural resource information available to approved tribal representatives. ATTACHMENTS A. State of Colorado Tribal Consultation guide B. Existing Agreements C. Indigenous People’s Day Resolution D. List of invitees and confirmed attendees to-date E. Consultation agenda State-Tribal Consultation Guide: An Introduction for Colorado State Agencies to Conducting Formal Consultations with Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes To consult means to ask for advice or to seek an opinion—consultation does not mean obtaining consent. Prepared by the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 2 | P a g e State-Tribal Consultation Guide: An Introduction for Colorado State Agencies to Conducting Formal Consultations with Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes By Chantalle Hanschu, AmeriCorps VISTA Ernest House, Jr. Executive Director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs Lieutenant Governor Joseph A. Garcia Chair of Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs 130 State Capitol Denver, CO 80203 303-866-5470 www.colorado.gov/ltgovernor July 2014 Cover photo: Inside the Colorado State Capitol Dome Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 3 | P a g e Table of Contents I.Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….4 About this Guide……………………………………………………………...………………….4 About the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs…………………........……………….….4 II. Tribal Sovereignty……………………………………………………………………………………..5 What is “Tribal Sovereignty”? ……………………………………………………………...…..5 Brief History of Tribal Sovereignty…………………………………………………………….6 What is a Government-to-Government Relationship? ………………………………………7 III. Introduction to Consultation………………………………………………………………………...8 What is a Meaningful Tribal Consultation? …………………………………………….…….8 When are State Agencies Supposed to Conduct Tribal Consultations? …………….……..9 Common Federal Laws Affecting American Indian Tribes and Peoples…………….…...10 IV. Current State-Tribal Consultation Agreements in Colorado……………….…………………..13 Are any Colorado State Agencies Already Conducting Tribal Consultations?..................13 What are the Requirements of the Tribal Consultation Agreement? ………..…………....13 Tribal Consultation Agreement……………………………………………………………….14 V. The Steps of Consultation…………………………………………………………………………...21 Step 1: Initiate Consultation…………………………………………………………………...21 Example of Consultation Invitation……..…………………………………………...23 Step 2: Plan the Consultation……………………………………………………………….....26 Examples of Consultation Agendas……………………………………………….....28 Example of Travel Itinerary…………………………………………………………...29 Step 3: Conduct Consultation………………………………………………………………….31 Step 4: Follow-up with the Tribe(s) …………………………………………………………..32 VI. Tips for a Successful Consultation…………………...……………………………………….…...33 VII. Frequently Asked Questions………………………………………………………………………36 Appendices Ute Mountain Ute Tribal directory/contact info Southern Ute Indian Tribal directory/contact info State Laws Associated with Indian Affairs (2011) Demographics of AI/AN Population in Colorado Stay Connected with CCIA! Visit us on for the latest news and events: www.facebook.com/ColoradoCommissionofIndianAffairs Follow us on Twitter: @CCIA_76 Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 4 | P a g e I. Introduction About this Guide The guide is intended to be flexible and dynamic to adapt to the changing partnerships between the State of Colorado and American Indian Tribal governments. The working relationship between the State and Tribes is constantly evolving due to changes in administrations, personnel, and priorities. This guide provides suggestions about how to conduct meaningful State-Tribal Consultations. Please do not hesitate to contact the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs with any questions or concerns regarding consultation, or with any corrections to this guide. About the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs In 1976, the Colorado General Assembly created the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs (CCIA) within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor serves in the statutory role as chair of the CCIA. The CCIA was designed to be the official liaison between the two Ute Indian Tribes located in Colorado (the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes) and the State of Colorado. Since its inception, the CCIA has worked with the two Ute Tribes as well as American Indian individuals who reside in Colorado. The CCIA is fully committed to work on a government-to-government basis with each of the two Tribal governments and to maintain direct contact with the Tribes and urban Indian communities. Specific duties and powers of CCIA are outlined in the CCIA Enabling Statute, C.R.S. 24-44-103. The duties of the CCIA are: To investigate the needs of Indians of this state and to facilitate the provision of technical assistance in the preparation of plans for the alleviation of such needs; To review all proposed or pending legislation affecting Indians in this state; To study the existing status of recognition of all Indian groups, tribes, and communities presently existing in this state; To employ and fix the compensation of an executive director of the commission, who shall carry out the responsibilities of the commission; To petition the General Assembly for funds to effectively administer the Commission’s affairs and to expend funds in compliance with state regulations; To accept and expend gifts, funds, grants, donations, bequests, and devises for use in furthering the purposes of the Commission; To contract with public or private bodies to provide services and facilities for promoting the welfare of Indian peoples; To make legislative recommendations; To form committees as needed to respond to and address the needs of Tribal governments and Indian peoples of the state; and To make and publish reports of findings and recommendations. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 5 | P a g e Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law, supported by a host of decisions, is that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. – Felix S. Cohen II. Tribal Sovereignty What is “Tribal Sovereignty”? The source of tribal sovereignty is American Indian peoples, who mutually consent to self- government by their Tribes since powers of government flow from the consent of the governed; thus, tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent right of tribal peoples to govern themselves. The Institute for the Development of Indian Law defines sovereignty as the supreme power from which all specific political powers are derived. Sovereignty for Native peoples has existed since time immemorial, pre-dating the U.S. Constitution, but has been recognized by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and confirmed through treaties, statutes, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions, Tribes have been recognized in federal law as distinct, independent, political communities with the power to govern their own members and territories. The exercise of governmental powers, also known as “jurisdiction,” is a complex issue in Indian Country. In light of tribal sovereignty and other principles of federal Indian law, states and local governments generally are precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country. Criminal jurisdiction issues are particularly complex, as jurisdiction may rest with different governments – tribal, federal, or state – often depending on identities of the victim and perpetrator, as well as the severity of offense. GENERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED IN INDIAN COUNTRY SUSPECT IDENTITY VICTIM IDENTITY TYPE OF OFFENSE JURISDICTION Indian Indian or Non- Indian Major Crimes Federal Indian Indian or Non- Indian Non-major Crimes Tribal Non-Indian Indian Any Offense Federal Non-Indian Non-Indian Any Offense State Source: 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and 18 U.S.C. § 1153 At least as a matter of federal law, Tribes are not foreign nations in the international sense of sovereignty. Rather, federal law characterizes Tribes as having the status of domestic- Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 6 | P a g e dependent nations, which means Tribes are subject to the legislative authority of the United States. Thus, for example, federal law would not allow or recognize a treaty by a Tribe with a foreign nation. In exchange for entering into treaties or agreements with the United States, the United States assumed some legal obligations to Tribes and is sometimes required to take certain actions on behalf of Tribes. The United States has other self-imposed responsibilities to Tribes in the areas of education, public safety, and health. Tribal sovereignty is the basis of government-to-government relationships between American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and the United States government. Brief History of Tribal Sovereignty The following brief summary provides an overview of the history of various levels of federal support for tribal sovereignty and government-to-government relationships in the United States. Colonial Era (1533–1775): During this period, European countries entered into treaties with Tribes, who were afforded a similar status as colonial governments. Treaties sought to end hostilities, establish the boundaries of Indian lands, and regulate trade. U.S. Federal Era (1776–1823): The national government of the new United States continued treaty-making with Tribes in this period. Unilateral laws of the new nation also began to regulate and restrict interactions between Tribes and States, especially concerning trade and land transactions (e.g., Trade and Non-Intercourse Act of 1790). Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gave power to the Congress to "regulate Commerce with . . . the Indian Tribes." Removal Era (1823–1871): The beginning of this period is characterized by U.S. Supreme Chief Justice John Marshall's opinions, which set the precedent that Tribes are "domestic dependent nations." Federal law continued to maintain that only the federal government, not the states, had authority over Tribes. A major federal law was the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which provided for agreed-upon or even forced removal of many Tribes primarily to western lands on which Indian reservations were created. The end of this period is marked by the Appropriations Act of 1871, which ended U.S. treaty- making with Tribes. Assimilation Era (1871–1934): This period is characterized by federal laws and policies aimed to break up tribes and integrate Indian peoples into mainstream American society. The General Allotment/Dawes Act of 1887, which divided reservation lands into individual parcels, encouraged independent land holding and agriculture. "Surplus" lands were sold to non-Indians. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 conferred citizenship on Indian people who had not already gained that status through service in the armed forces, assimilation, or other methods. Reorganization Era (1934–1953): In 1934, the Wheeler-Howard/Indian Reorganization Act sought to restore some vestiges of tribal sovereignty lost during the Assimilation Era. Tribes were encouraged to establish formal governments and constitutions. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 7 | P a g e Termination Era (1953–1968): House Concurrent Resolution 108 reversed federal policy reorganizing and recognizing tribal governments and abolished federal relations with more than 50 Tribal governments. This period also is characterized by federally funded programs designed to move Indian individuals from reservations to major cities. Self-Determination Era (1968–Present): Stirring of Indian consciousness following the Termination Era led to a dramatic increase in advocacy once again for tribal sovereignty. In 1972, President Nixon announced an official policy of Tribal self-determination. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination Act. Today, the United States officially recognizes 566 separate American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. What is a Government-to-Government Relationship? The concept of a government-to-government relationship is based on the sovereign status of tribal governments. The following is from “Government to Government Models of Cooperation Between States and Tribes,” prepared by the National Conference of State Legislators (the full guide can be accessed at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statetribe/item019417.pdf). A successful government-to- government relationship between a State agency and one or more Tribes involves several areas of understanding and cooperation: There is a mutual—and ongoing—understanding between both parties that each is an independent government that works for respective constituencies. As such, the State- Tribal relationship is fundamentally an intergovernmental relationship. Both States and Tribes understand that the relationship is unique, not only because all Tribal citizens are also State citizens and legislative constituents, but also because of the nature of the Tribal-Federal relationship. One or more mechanisms exist that facilitate the intergovernmental relationship between the State legislature and Tribal leaders. Such mechanisms allow the States and Tribes to maintain their respective governmental roles and responsibilities and to collaborate when appropriate. Both sides try to reach agreement on common issues, but recognize that there will likely be some areas of conflict. These areas of conflict should not be allowed to influence the entire intergovernmental relationship. When the United States gave peace, did they not also receive it? Were not both parties desirous of it? If we consult the history of the day, does it not inform us that the United States were at least as anxious to obtain it as the [Indians]?...This relation [in a treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe] was that of a nation claiming and receiving the protection of one more powerful: not that of individuals abandoning their national character, and submitting as subjects to a master. – Chief Justice John Marshall (1832) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 8 | P a g e Successful consultation is a two-way exchange of information, a willingness to listen, and an attempt to understand and genuinely consider each other’s opinions, beliefs, and desired outcomes. - David Grachen, Project Development Manager, FHWA Georgia III. Introduction to Consultation What is a Meaningful Tribal Consultation? Although there are many different interpretations of “consultation,” one working definition is that consultation is the open and mutual exchange of information integral to effective collaboration, participation, and informed decision making, with the ultimate goal of reaching consensus on issues. Consultation is the development of a relationship based on trust, an effort to understand and consider any effects an undertaking may have on the consulting parties. Meaningful consultations are typically based on mutually agreed-upon written protocols for timely communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. Consultation has become major part of the current U.S. federal policy recognizing and respecting tribal sovereignty and government-to-government relations with Tribes. Some specific federal laws require federal departments and agencies to conduct Tribal Cosultations on specific matters. More generally, Executive Order No. 13175, entitled, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, signed by President Clinton on November 6, 2000, and adhered to by all subsequent Presidents, defines “Consultation” as an accountable process ensuring meaningful and timely input from tribal officials in the development of Department policies that have tribal implications (full text available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13175.html). This Executive Order outlines that: Executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials Executive departments and agencies are responsible for strengthening the government- to-government relations between the United States and tribes Consultation is a critical ingredient of a sound and productive federal-tribal relationship Unlike the federal government, individual States and their agencies are not required by federal law to consult with Tribes. However, States and Tribes may choose to work together on a government-to-government basis to effectively reach consensus on matters that affect both governments. State-Tribal Consultation is not only good practice, but also consultation leads to increased mutual respect, and in effect more effective program planning and implementation. Meaningful consultation is a two way road: it is more than a letter notifying a Tribe about an undertaking, a "legal notice" in a local newspaper, or any other form of unilateral Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 9 | P a g e communication. Meaningful consultation requires in-depth and candid dialogue with and by all the consulting parties. When are State Agencies Supposed to Conduct Tribal Consultations? While most State agencies are not required to consult with Tribes, doing so may be beneficial to both entities if the subject matter could affect the Tribes in any capacity. To assess whether an action, policy, or decision may affect Tribal interests, consider the following questions before taking or making any action, policy, or decision: Is the action, policy, or decision directly targeted toward the Tribes? Is the action, policy, or decision designed to include activities in Indian country? Are federal pass-through dollars designated for Tribes attached to the action, policy, or decision? Does the action, policy, or decision affect Tribal community interests (i.e. human health, ecological, cultural, economic, and/or social impacts) – or is it close enough to potentially affect such interests? Have any of the Tribes expressed interest in and/or concerns with this particular issue? Does the action, policy, or decision affect the relationship between the State government and the Tribe? Does the action, policy, or decision affect the distribution of power and responsibilities between the State government and Tribal government? o Example: Will the action affect the status of Tribes as a co-regulator or the Tribe’s right to self-governance? Are there any special legal considerations such as jurisdiction in Indian country? If the answer is “yes” to any of the questions above, the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs recommends conducting a tribal consultation. In addition to asking the above questions, State agencies should also consider conducting consultation if the agency deals with any federal laws that affect tribal nations or peoples. For specific Colorado laws pertaining to American Indians, please see “State Laws Associated with Indian Affairs” at the end of this guide. This list is not exhaustive, so be sure to check the Colorado Revised Statutes for additional laws. The following is a list of the most common federal laws affecting tribes that may fall under the purview of your state agency; of course, there are many other federal laws affecting tribes. If your state agency deals with any of the following state or federal laws, the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs encourages a State-Tribal consultation. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 10 | P a g e Common Federal Laws Affecting American Indian Tribes and Peoples Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (from www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/) NAGPRA provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony -- to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. In addition, NAGPRA authorizes Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with the documentation and repatriation of Native American cultural items, and establishes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee to monitor the NAGPRA process and facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise concerning repatriation under NAGPRA. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1987 (ICWA) (from www.nicwa.org/) ICWA was passed in response to the alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their homes by both public and private agencies. The intent of Congress under ICWA was to "protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families" (25 U.S.C. § 1902). ICWA sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe. Title VI-E Program (from www.acf.hhs.gov/) The Federal Foster Care Program helps to provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children until the children are safely returned home, placed permanently with adoptive families or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. The program is authorized by title IV-E of the Social Security Act, as amended, and implemented under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 45 CFR parts 1355, 1356, and 1357. It is an annually appropriated program with specific eligibility requirements and fixed allowable uses of funds. Funding is awarded by formula as an open-ended entitlement grant and is contingent upon an approved title IV-E plan to administer or supervise the administration of the program. The title IV-E Agency must submit yearly estimates of program expenditures as well as quarterly reports of estimated and actual program expenditures in support of the awarded funds. Funds are available for monthly maintenance payments for the daily care and supervision of eligible children; administrative costs to manage the program; training of staff and foster care providers; recruitment of foster parents and costs related to the design, implementation and operation of a state-wide data collection system. The fifty (50) States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are eligible to participate in the Foster Care Program awards. Beginning in FY 2010, direct funding will be available to Indian Tribes, Indian Tribal organizations and Tribal consortia (hereafter "Tribes"), with approved plans to operate the program. In addition, $3 million of appropriated funds is reserved for technical assistance and plan development grants to eligible Tribes Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 11 | P a g e beginning in FY 2009. Only the public agency or Tribe designated to provide a program of foster care is eligible to apply for and receive direct title IV-E funding. Individuals and private entities may apply to the title IV-E Agency as sub-grantees or contracted providers. Title VII Indian Education (from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg98.html) “Title VII — Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education” reads: It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children. The Federal Government will continue to work with local educational agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities toward the goal of ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children. (a) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this part to support the efforts of local educational agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students, so that such students can meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards as all other students are expected to meet. (b) PROGRAMS- This part carries out the purpose described in subsection (a) by authorizing programs of direct assistance for — (1) meeting the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives; (2) the education of Indian children and adults; (3) the training of Indian persons as educators and counselors, and in other professions serving Indian people; and (4) research, evaluation, data collection, and technical assistance. For more information about Indian Education, check out the Native American Rights Fund’s “Indian Education Legal Support Project” at www.narf.org/pubs/edu/turquoise.pdf Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (from portal.hud.gov/) NAHASDA reorganized the system of housing assistance provided to Native Americans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development by eliminating several separate programs of assistance and replacing them with a block grant program. The two programs authorized for Indian tribes under NAHASDA are the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) which is a formula based grant program and Title VI Loan Guarantee which provides financing guarantees to Indian tribes for private market loans to develop affordable housing. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization 2013 (from www.justice.gov/tribal/vawa-tribal.html) On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, or "VAWA 2013." VAWA 2013 recognizes tribes' inherent power to exercise "special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction" (SDVCJ) over certain defendants, regardless of their Indian or non- Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 12 | P a g e Indian status, who commit acts of domestic violence or dating violence or violate certain protection orders in Indian country. This new law generally takes effect on March 7, 2015, but also authorizes a voluntary "Pilot Project" to allow certain tribes to begin exercising SDVCJ sooner. On February 6, 2014 the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Umatilla Tribes of Oregon Information were selected for this Pilot Project. In addition to these laws, State agencies should be aware that some federal programs administered by State agencies and boards may provide for specific “pass through” or “set aside” funds for Tribes. One example is the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council (JJDPC). The JJDPC is comprised of up to 33 citizens, system professionals, and youth members, who are appointed by the governor and charged with the responsibility of administering the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act program. The Council is responsible for: setting funding priorities; approving and denying grant applications under each program (Formula Grants, Title V, and Challenge); developing recommendations to the governor on the state of juvenile justice and suggestions on how to improve the system; monitoring justice trends; approving an annual juvenile justice plan; funding and policy decisions. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 13 | P a g e IV. Current State-Tribal Consultation Agreements in Colorado Are any Colorado State Agencies Already Conducting Tribal Consultations? Yes. Two agencies, Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), signed a Tribal Consultation Agreement in 2011 to work on a government-to-government basis with the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes on health and health care related issues. The Denver Indian Family Resource Center is a consulting party and should be included in communications as needed. This Tribal Consultation Agreement is reprinted in full on pages 14- 19. In 2012, the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) signed on to this Tribal Consultation Agreement. The 2012 Addendum appears on page 20. In addition to the Tribal Consultation Agreement between HCPF, CDPHE, CDHS, and the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes, History Colorado, a State agency under the Department of Higher Education, has also been conducting consultations with the 48 Tribes with historic ties to the State of Colorado, mostly in regard to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). The consultative process between History Colorado and these Tribes is a good example of when State agencies may need to consult with Tribes about federal laws. What are the Requirements of the Tribal Consultation Agreement? The two main requirements of the Tribal Consultation Agreement of 2011 are: 1. For the Tribes and selected State agencies to meet at least once each fiscal year 2. For each State agency to provide a Programmatic Action Log Update on a bi-monthly basis The CCIA urges State agencies to consider the written requirements of any formal agreement to be a minimum guideline for consultations, government-to-government relationships, and other partnerships and communications with Tribes. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 14 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 15 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 16 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 17 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 18 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 19 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2011) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 20 | P a g e Tribal Consultation Agreement (2012 Addendum) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 21 | P a g e V.Steps of Consultation Once your State agency has decided to conduct a Tribal consultation, you may contact the CCIA for advice on how to proceed. Additionally, the steps below will help guide you through the Tribal consultation process. Step 1: Initiate Consultation A.Determine Whom to Invite Depending on the issue, your agency may decide to consult with multiple tribes at the same time or to consult with each tribe individually. Decide if you want to hold consultations jointly or individually. The CCIA recommends hosting a full day of consultation with each tribe. A formal consultation must include the most senior leaders of each party. Ensuring appropriate staff members are present at initial and, if necessary, follow-up meetings with tribal governments, shows a commitment to the government-to-government relationship. Consultations with tribal council officials and tribal program staff should, if possible, be conducted between the same levels of officials. Because of frequent elections at the tribal level, it is important to include specific tribal department heads and staff in additional to elected officials, as department personnel tend to be more consistent over time. Please contact the CCIA for updated tribal contact information. o From the state agency side, invite: The Executive Director, or equivalent highest position Department Directors, or equivalent management Any necessary topic specialists to answer questions during consultation o From the tribal side, invite: Tribal Chairperson, Governor, or President, depending on tribal structure. The Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes both have Chairpersons All of Tribal Council, although not all council members may attend (many council members focus on certain issues, and it may be Remember: the goals with Tribal governments are to include them early, invite them always, follow-up every time, meet with them regularly, and ask them how to best work together. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 22 | P a g e beneficial to find out which council members are assigned to issues relevant to your state agency)  Any relevant Tribal Council Committees  Tribal Program/Department Directors (if you would like to invite departmental staff, you may want to talk with the Directors to be sure their staff are invited) You may also want to consider the role of third party participants, particularly urban American Indian organizations involved in similar services or issues as your state agency. Also consider inviting local or state representatives or contractual partners of your agency. B. Select Options for Dates/Times Check with your state agency’s calendar to select three to four possible consultation dates. Contact the Tribal Councils’ Executive Assistants to propose the consultation dates, and limit the possible dates to two options. Include your two options in the initial letters to the tribes. The Tribal Council Executive Assistants will most likely know of any conflicting community events and will be able to access Tribal Council’s calendar, but may not have access to any specific department calendars. C. Provide Written Invitation/Notification of the Consultation Separate letters need to be addressed and sent to each tribe, even if you plan to hold a joint consultation. Letters should be addressed to the Tribal Chairperson/Governor/President and Tribal Council, with the Tribal Program/Department Directors copied on the letter. Likewise, the letter should be sent from the state agency’s senior level leadership, with other attendees from your state agency copied on the letter. Include the language of “State (or Department Specific)/Tribal Consultation” in every written document. Tribes must be able to distinguish a formal consultation from a meeting, so be sure to use the word “consultation,” and not “meeting.” It is best to provide at least a 30 day notice, but the earlier the notification can be sent, the better. The letter or notice should include an overview of the issue at hand, the reason for the consultation, and the two options for consultation dates. Notice should be sent by both email and snail mail. Please feel free to contact CCIA with any questions, or if you would like CCIA to review the letter before you send it. D. Confirm with the Tribes About a week or two after the letter has been sent, consider calling the Tribal Executive Assistant or Tribal leaders directly to determine their desire to consult. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 23 | P a g e Continue contacting the Tribe until a firm decision about consultation has been determined. A note on timeframe for communication: communication early and often with Tribes is critical to a successful consultation. The time frame for developing relationships, conducting consultations, and negotiating protocols with Tribes are frequently time consuming, particularly when relations have not been established or maintained. Plan to spend substantial amounts of time and personal involvement to develop relationships that will lead to productive consultations. Sometimes, before a Tribe can take an action, approval must be obtained from the Tribal Council/Government. When planning meetings with a tribal government, or placing matters before them for their consideration, attention needs to be given to the Tribal Council’s schedule. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 24 | P a g e Example of Consultation Invitation (page 1) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 25 | P a g e Example of Consultation Invitation (page 2) Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 26 | P a g e Step 2: Plan the Consultation A. Create the Agenda and Consultation Materials The two Ute Tribes in Colorado are familiar with the following format: welcome, invocation, introductions, updates from State Agents, updates from each Tribe, additional comments, and closing. o One of the first items on the agenda always should be introductions. It is important to let everyone in the room have a chance to speak. Tribal leaders may be used to federal consultations, which normally have a formal order of speakers, but this order of speakers for state consultations is not necessary; going around the room in a circle for introductions is fine. o It may be appropriate to ask a tribal leader to elder to deliver an invocation. It is common for the invocation to be given in both the speaker’s native language and in English. It is recommended to ask someone to give an invocation when preparing the agenda, before consultation day. The format for the first consultation (or first few consultations) may conform to tribal procedures, but subsequent consultations should ideally reflect a mutually agreed upon format. Other possible consultation formats include: presentation followed by discussion, listening session, small group “breakout” discussions, question and answer session, or a combination of these. Communicate with Tribes early on and directly ask about preferred agenda items. Consider creating name tags or tents so everyone is easily identifiable. Print all necessary consultation materials, including the agenda and handouts. Send out the agenda prior to the consultation so everyone has a chance to review the items and make any necessary preparations. Have an attendance or sign-in sheet prepared and made available at the consultation. Once the list is complete and everyone has signed in, copies should be made available to the attendees. At any point during the consultation, be prepared for tribal leaders to request a tribal caucus, which provides a time for the tribal leadership to privately discuss an issue. The amount of time taken for a tribal caucus can vary, so be patient. If you are planning to conduct a consultation with multiple tribes at the same time, ask tribal leadership prior to the consultation if they would like time for a tribal caucus. Sometimes tribal representatives from different tribes need a little time to get on the same page with each other. Be flexible! Understand that there are different ways of communication. Seemingly extraneous data may be reviewed and re-reviewed. During negotiations, prepare to discuss all aspects of an issue at hand simultaneously rather than sequentially. Regardless of how carefully planned the agenda is, it is very likely that the conversation will not end up following the agenda precisely. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 27 | P a g e B. Determine the Location If budget and time allow, face-to-face consultations are certainly preferred, particularly for initial consultations. Communication between formal consultations and after the initial consultations does not necessarily need to be in person and can rely on mail and email correspondence, teleconference, video conference, webcasts, and telephone calls. Tribal input should be solicited before determining the consultation location. Because of the distance between the two American Indian reservations in Colorado and the state Capitol of Denver, selecting the consultation location requires attention to both the state’s and tribes’ financial and logistic limitations. Typically, the first consultation should be held at tribal headquarters, either in Towaoc (Ute Mountain Ute reservation) or Ignacio (Southern Ute Indian reservation). This also allows for state agents to become familiar with the reservation, culture, and people. CCIA will also help you schedule tours of various places on the reservations, such as the Southern Ute Cultural Center, the Ute Mountain Tribal Park, or tribal health facilities. After the initial consultation, the parties could consider alternating consultation locations between southwest Colorado and the Denver area. If consultations do occur outside the Four Corners area, state agencies are expected to incur the partial or whole cost of travel for tribal representatives, when possible. CCIA recommends trying to find a date when tribal representatives will already be in the Denver area for other engagements, “piggy-backing” the consultation onto another previously scheduled meeting. This is more convenient for tribal leaders and will help minimize expenses. It is best to simply ask the tribal executive assistant about this possibility. When planning travel to consultations, CCIA recommends creating a travel itinerary for all those involved. Please see the following example. C. Confirm the Consultation Confirmation can be sent via email or be done via phone and should include all parties. Confirm the consultation date a few weeks and reconfirm a couple of days before the consultation. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 28 | P a g e Example of a Detailed Agenda Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 29 | P a g e Example of Agenda Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 30 | P a g e Example of Travel Itinerary Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 31 | P a g e Step 3: Conduct Consultation A. Be Clear About Consultation Logistics When the consultation is held at an unfamiliar location, initiate the consultation by providing the attendees with building logistical information, including a brief explanation of what to do if an alarm goes off and the smoking, beverage, food, and restroom arrangements. Provide a travel schedule, if necessary. B. Document Everything Document your efforts from the planning stages through final consultations, including who attended, what topics were discussed, follow-up items, and any other relevant information. During the consultation, the state agency and the Tribe will normally reach agreement about which party will be responsible for preparing and distributing consultation notes or summaries (in most cases, it will be the state agency). Agreement should also be reached about the appropriate state-tribal authority to contact in the follow-up phase. Circulate the consultation notes or summaries for review and comment to all participants before distributing them as a final document. This review will help to ensure that the views and interests of both parties are accurately characterized. Make a specific list of follow-up items, and confirm with individuals on any specific items that require follow-up. C. Offer Refreshments If the budget and space allow, consider offering refreshments, including healthy options. This is a cultural characteristic that is still strong in Indian Country. D. Media are not typically involved in Consultations Unless both the Tribe and the state agency agree otherwise, no media should be present at a government-to-government consultation. If the media will be present at a non-consultation meeting, or if the state agency and the Tribe expect to be dealing with the media, consider working with the Tribe to prepare a joint media handout or news release prior to the scheduled consultation. Be sure to facilitate contact between each party’s communications coordinator. E. Wrap Up the Consultation Before leaving the meeting, it is recommended to assess the following: o Did everyone have the opportunity to contribute? o Did everyone understand the issues? o Did everyone understand the process for action? o Did everyone understand what will happen next? o Did the participants make any commitments about what will happen next (i.e., is another meeting warranted)? Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 32 | P a g e Step 4: Follow-up with the Tribe(s) A. Send a Response Letter After consultation, the State agency should develop a response letter to the tribal leadership involved. The letter should explain how the tribes’ input was or will be incorporated into the decision making process and/or how their comments and concerns were or will be addressed. If appropriate, be sure to include a method of follow-up for the next consultation. The letter should be signed by the highest-level state official involved and sent to the most senior tribal official involved in the consultation, with other participants copied on the letter. B. Reflect on the Consultation How do I know if we have had a successful consultation? o Success can be measured from several levels or aspects. For example, simply obtaining a consultation with a particular Tribe might be considered a success in one situation. In another, a written agreement might cap a series of negotiations. If there is an opportunity to talk informally with someone from the tribal delegation, ask for his or her assessment of the consultation. Find out what he or she expects will happen next. What if there is a difference of opinion about what happened at the consultation? o Avoid putting off an oral inquiry to reconcile this difference. Since oral communication is the preferred means of information exchange among many tribal cultures, expect most contacts to be face-to-face and, to a lesser degree, by telephone or e-mail. When is consultation complete? o Consultation is an ongoing process; rarely are all concerns and issues addressed in a single, or even a few, consultations. o There are no legal requirements regarding the duration of consultations. o CCIA encourages state agencies to continually engage Tribes in decision- making processes and other initiatives. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 33 | P a g e I would consider any consultation successful in which there has been a collaborative effort and all parties acknowledge and respect the observations, comments and concerns of the other. - Dr. Richard L. Allen, Policy Analyst, Cherokee Nation VI. Tips for Successful Consultation When dealing with Tribes on a government-to-government basis, it may be helpful to: Make sure that your consultations offer a value that is worthy of every person’s time, effort, and expense and applies to reservations, Tribes and tribal members. Be prepared to accommodate the family members of tribal leaders and elders, as tribal representatives often travel with their families. You may need to include the family in the consultation or designate a comfortable waiting area. Get informed and stay informed. Brief yourself and your representatives on tribal histories and contemporary issues. Many tribes provide brief histories on their websites. Please see the appendices with information about the Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, as well as information about the American Indian population in Colorado. Consider appointing a special liaison or point of contact if you will regularly consult with Indian tribes. This will help streamline the process for all consulting parties. Recognize, respect, and encourage cultural differences. Be honest and straightforward. Don’t make promises that you or your agency/sponsor cannot keep. Get involved in the community in as many ways possible. Attend community events and public meetings. The more you and the community are familiar, the more trust builds, contributing to successful consultations. Make yourself available – not only as visible in the community, but also be sure to promptly respond to phone calls, emails, etc. Allow adequate time for participant groups to consider the project and its implications. Consultation is a process, not a single meeting. Share a meal or plan a social outing. Don’t restrict your time to just business; engage and learn from native participants to get a better understanding of their perceptions of the matters at hand. Similarly, consider planning tours of community areas before or after the formal consultation. Consider bringing gifts. Check with your agency/sponsor and applicable state and federal laws to determine what is appropriate. Be aware of tribal political changes. Tribal governments, like national and state government, have periodic leadership changes. The Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribal governments hold elections every year. As such, do not pin your idea or Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 34 | P a g e program to one particular tribal leader. Instead, engage multiple tribal council members and be sure to establish sustainable working relationships with departmental directors and staff. Keep in mind that you are asking for time from tribal leaders who already juggle many responsibilities. You did not elect the tribal leaders and are not a constituent, so be prepared to be particularly patient and persistent. Do not assume one Tribe or one leader speaks for all. Take the time to find the key players. Truly address, negotiate, and find ways to accommodate the Tribe’s concerns. American Indians object to being ‘consulted’ or ‘studied’ by people who have little intention of doing anything in response to their opinions. Be prepared to respond with reasons why the advice may or may not be followed. Be mindful that each tribe is a unique and distinct cultural entity, and they should not be treated as though they are alike. Attend cross-cultural awareness trainings about American Indian culture. Be aware of your own personal biases at all times. Always try to have an open mind. Keep in mind that the history of federal-tribal relations has left an undeniable mark on the outlook of American Indian tribal members, often in the form of distrust and apprehension. Be aware of the historical lens from which many tribal representatives view governmental-tribal relations and know that an emotional response about historical events or past government interactions might arise. If negative emotions are escalating, the best thing to do is to display sensitivity by respectfully listening and by not becoming defensive. Do not take it personally, but rather, try to think of the issue from the other person’s perspective. Consider the cultural differences of time. Typically, American Indian people start meetings when everyone arrives, and the meeting is finished when everyone has had a say. “Indian time,” as it is sometimes called, references the cultural differences in priorities; American Indians most likely want to attend the meeting on time, but perhaps a family issue took priority. Consultations may start fifteen minutes to an hour late, but be patient during this time, and use it as an opportunity to interact with tribal representatives. Consider some cross cultural communication tips o When elders speak, give them the courtesy of your patience and respect. Your regard of tribal elders is a reflection on your department and the state. o Avoid overly rapid speech, acronyms, and jargon. o Pay attention to word choices. For example, the term “prehistoric” may be offensive to native peoples as it implies that tribes had no “history” prior to contact with Europeans. o Never check your watch or the clock while someone is speaking. o Sometimes American Indians will speak very little during meetings, often because many American Indian cultures value introspective personalities and also because they made need to consult with others before making a statement. Assume your audience is listening, even though they may not be engaging you Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 35 | P a g e verbally. Tribal representatives may be waiting to have a conversation about the issue with other tribal members, elders, or an attorney before making any verbal statements. o Always use proper title for tribal delegates. Doing so shows respect to the government-to-government relationship. The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers’ “Tribal Consultation Best Practices In Historic Preservation,” published in May 2005, surveyed a large body of Agencies and Tribes regarding their empirical experiences about what constitutes consultation, how it should be conducted, and what constitutes a successful consultation (full study available at http://www.nathpo.org/PDF/Tribal_Consultation.pdf). Below are some of the study’s conclusions: The parties must engage in a dialogue predicated on mutual respect and understanding of the priorities of the other and the challenges that each face. Coming to a final agreement is not as important as building ongoing channels of communication. Reaching a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was rarely seen as the indicator of success. Successful consultation begins early in the planning stages, and is predicated on each party being knowledgeable about the project and the priorities and desires of the other parties. Both sides must plan ahead for consultations and be informed of the project scope and effect prior to attempting consultation. Consultation is more likely to be successful when the agency employs a Tribal Liaison. Cultural sensitivity training for agency leadership fosters more successful consultations. Similarly, having a third party facilitator who is familiar with the methods of formal consultation contributes to better consultations. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 36 | P a g e VII. Frequently Asked Questions What are other ways, besides formal consultations, that state agencies can foster good relationships with Tribes? Invite council members to events they may find interesting or relevant. Meet with the Tribal Council on a regular basis. Be sure to follow proper procedure to get listed on the council’s agenda to present the state agency’s information. Provide regular written information to the Tribal Council. Tour the community with someone who knows the land and some of the history of the tribe. Attend a council meeting to learn the method of interaction between the departments and the council. Introduce yourself to council members and youth council members, if applicable, when the opportunity presents itself. What is the preferred term – Native American or American Indian? “Indian” is a legal term and is often found in federal government legal documentation. Native American is a term that can encompass people born anywhere on U.S. soil, including Native Hawaiians, American Samoans, people from Canada First Nations, and indigenous people in Mexico, Central, and South America, and is not always interpreted as referring to American Indian/Alaska Native people specifically. The most accurate term to use is American Indian/Alaska Native (or AI/AN). These terms also recognize the cultural and historical distinctions between persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the continental United States (American Indians) and the indigenous tribes and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives, i.e., Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians). How do you make a presentation to Tribal Council? First, you will need to arrange a time to present. Contact the tribal executive assistant for council scoping and meeting dates, as well as when to get the materials to him/her for distribution to the council prior to the meeting date. The council may receive a document one week and act on it in the next week or two depending on whether additional information is required. Sometimes action on a request is delayed because the information provided to the council is incomplete. The council receives mountains of documents and information on a weekly basis, so consider including a one-page summary of the information at the front of the packet. This is most helpful to a council member who would prefer a summary to reading an entire report just to determine what is being requested. Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 37 | P a g e There is formality in addressing the council. Usually the protocol is to greet the council in this manner: “Good evening, (afternoon, morning), President _________, Vice President _________, and members of the council. Thank you for this opportunity to come before you today to present….” Or words to that effect. Introduce yourself and relax! A lot of people get nervous, but there is no need to be concerned that the council is judging you or your presentation. If your information was complete and included all the points that needed to be covered, they most likely will ask questions or may feel comfortable enough to entertain a motion to approve your request. While it is a great opportunity, it is wise to keep your presentation to a limit and conclude long before the members of the council get that glazed look in their eyes. You want to be remembered for having a great program and not for being that “long-winded” person. If you have to go before council again in the future or on a regular basis, this makes a big difference. What is the federal Indian trust responsibility? (From the Bureau of Indian Affairs) The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942). This obligation was first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law. The federal Indian trust responsibility is also a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. In several cases discussing the trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course of the relationship between the United States and the federally recognized tribes. What does it mean for a tribe to be “federally recognized”? Federal recognition signifies that the U.S. government acknowledges the political sovereignty and Indian identity of a tribe and from that recognition flows the obligation to conduct dealings with that tribe’s leadership on a “government-to-government” basis. As of May 2014, there are 566 federally recognized American Indian Tribes, over half of which are Alaska Native villages. There are approximately 245 non-Federally recognized tribes, many of which are recognized by individual states and are seeking federal recognition. What is a federal Indian reservation? (From the Bureau of Indian Affairs) In the United States there are three types of reserved federal lands: military, public, and Indian. A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 38 | P a g e or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe. Approximately 56.2 million acres are held in trust by the United States for various Indian tribes and individuals. There are approximately 326 Indian land areas in the U.S. administered as federal Indian reservations (i.e., reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.). The largest is the 16 million-acre Navajo Nation Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The smallest is a 1.32-acre parcel in California where the Pit River Tribe’s cemetery is located. Many of the smaller reservations are less than 1,000 acres. What is Public Law 280 and where does it apply? (From the Bureau of Indian Affairs) In 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588) to grant certain states criminal jurisdiction over American Indians on reservations and to allow civil litigation that had come under tribal or federal court jurisdiction to be handled by state courts. However, the law did not grant states regulatory power over tribes or lands held in trust by the United States; federally guaranteed tribal hunting, trapping, and fishing rights; basic tribal governmental functions such as enrollment and domestic relations; nor the power to impose state taxes. These states also may not regulate matters such as environmental control, land use, gambling, and licenses on federal Indian reservations. The states required by Public Law 280 to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal Indian lands were Alaska (except the Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Island Reserve, which maintains criminal jurisdiction), California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin. In addition, the federal government gave up all special criminal jurisdiction in these states over Indian offenders and victims. The states that elected to assume full or partial jurisdiction were Arizona (1967), Florida (1961), Idaho (1963, subject to tribal consent), Iowa (1967), Montana (1963), Nevada (1955), North Dakota (1963, subject to tribal consent), South Dakota (1957-1961), Utah (1971), and Washington (1957-1963). Subsequent acts of Congress, court decisions, and state actions to retrocede jurisdiction back to the Federal Government have muted some of the effects of the 1953 law, and strengthened the tribes’ jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters on their reservations. I want to learn more about American Indian Tribes and culture. What should I read? News sources Indian Country Today Media Network: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com Indianz.com Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 39 | P a g e The Southern Ute Drum: sudrum.com Turtle Talk Indigenous Law and Policy Center Blog Michigan State University College of Law: http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/ Native News Online: http://nativenewsonline.net/ Navajo Times: navajotimes.com General Resources National Indian Law Library: http://www.narf.org/nill/resources/index.html Wilkinson, Charles F. Blood struggle: The rise of modern Indian nations. WW Norton & Company, 2005. Bureau of Indian Affairs: http://www.bia.gov 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created by Charles C. Mann. Knopf 2011. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. Knopf. 2005. Collected Wisdom: American Indian Education by Linda Miller Cleary, Thomas D. Peacock. Allyn & Bacon. 1997. Power and Place: Indian Education in America by Vine Deloria, Daniel R. Wildcat. University Press of Kansas. 2001. Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World by Jack Weatherford. Crown Publishers. 1988. Everything You Wanted to Know About Indians But Were Afraid to Ask, by Anton Treuer (Borealis Books, 2012). David Treuer, Rez Life: An Indian’s Journey Through Reservation Life (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2012). Canby, William C., Jr. American Indian Law in a Nutshell, 3d ed. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Group, 1998. Cohen, Felix S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 ed.) Charlottesville, Virginia: LEXIS Law Publishing, 1982. Wilkinson, Charles F., American Indians, Time and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Tribal Consultation Resources Each Federal Agency’s Consultation Materials, prepared by the National Congress of American Indians: http://www.ncai.org/resources/consultation- support/consultation-letters-and-materials-by-agency List of Federal Tribal Consultation Statutes, Orders, Regulations, Rules, Policies, Manuals, Protocols and Guidance, prepared in January 2009 by the White House – Indian Affairs Executive Working Group (WH-IAEWG), Consultation and Coordination Advisory Group (CACAG). The list contains those federal Tribal Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide 40 | P a g e consultation statutes, orders, regulations, policies, manuals, and protocols that specify procedures as to how Departments, agencies and bureaus are to carry out consultation: http://www.achp.gov/docs/fed%20consultation%20authorities%202- 09%20ACHP%20version_6-09.pdf State-Tribal Consultation, Collaboration and Communication Policies, prepared by the New Mexico Indian Affairs Department: http://www.iad.state.nm.us/statetribal_policies.html Wisconsin State Tribal Relations Initiative: http://witribes.wi.gov/section.asp?linkid=283&locid=57 The Federal Indian Consultation Right: A Frontline Defense Against Tribal Sovereignty Incursion, by Gabriel S. Galanda: http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL121000pub/newsletter/201101 /galanda.pdf Best Practices in State-Tribal Consultations, Findings from Minnesota, prepared by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS): http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/American-Indian-Alaska- Native/AIAN/State-Consultation-Additional-Resources/CMS-Task-E- Report_MN.pdf Attachment A - CO State Tribal Consultation Guide Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( 1111111111111111 111111 ~): 1::~l~i\?A Boulder County Clerki CO AG R 45 . 88 D 8. 88 (6) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding o n the Tribes which execute it, and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions. AGREED, as of the date first above written . THE TRIBES The Southern Ute The Ute Mountain Ute The Apache of Oklahoma The Kiowa of Oklahoma The Comanche of Oklahoma The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma K;\ALPHAIOS\OSIX•MOU.IQF 2 1111111111111111 111111 Rn11lrJ0"' r,,,,,..,., r1 .... 1,. rn or.:: o c:c: nn 2044209 Page: 2 of 13 85/11/2888 11 : 33A n n nn Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements 11111111 1111 · 1111 lllll II Boulder County Clerk, co AG R 45 . as 2016160 Page: 3 of 11 81/21/2888 11 : 57A o a.as (6) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the Tribes that execute it, and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions. AGREED, as of the date first above written. THE TRIBES The Southern Ute The Ute Mountain Ute ( t The Apache of Oklahoma The Kiowa of Oklahoma The Comanche of Oklahoma I, K:\ALPHA \OS\OS\X-MOU l .lQF 2 1111111111 Ill 111 1111 II Q,..,,lrJo" ""''"+,, r1 ..... 1,. rn 0~ C> r:;r:; 1:)1:) 2044209 Page : 3 of 13 85/11/2888 ll:33A n 1:1 1:11:1 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma The Pawnee of Oklahoma The Eastern Shoshone The Northern Arapaho (( The Northern Cheyenne The Oglala Sioux The Rosebud Sioux K:\ALPHA\0S\OS\X-MOU 1.iQfi 3 1111111111 Ill Ill 111111 Rl'llilN.:ots 1'1'111>'1!11 r1,,..,1,_ Nl er:: C, c:c: r,r, 2044209 Page : 4 of 13 S5/ 11/2SSS 11 : 33A n n nn Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( 11111111 1111111 111111 ::~;~ll~ i \1A Boulder County Clerki CO AG R 45 . SS D S. SS The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma The Pawnee of Oklahoma The Eastern Shoshone The Northern Arapaho The Northern Cheyenne The Oglala Sioux ·/#/~L!/5~ ~ Rosebud Sioux K :\ALPHA 10S\OS\X-MOU l .!QF 3 JUILlUJI . I.I Liil 111111 2044209 Page : 5 of 13 S5/ 11/2FlFlFl 11 : 11A Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements 1111111111111111 ·111111 :~t:tl~ i\3A The P~wnee of Oklahoma Boulder County Clerk, CO AG R 55 .SS D S.SS / .. 1 "1;1/' // .J// -/;: . .,,-%7· !'(./2' ,-/0i 1 ' "(:_-~ / / . .' 'vr/ ,-,;, ,., _.,J(_/_ ·-J -/~-,,,_ ---,.., .. / i ... ! (';/////.,/ /.' I (!Cl { l r j / ,: (. u.. 1-r...·· -c't;, //{t· -t--_ _...&';,' .,C<:. The EJStern Shoshone The Northern Arapaho The :'iorthem Cheyenne ( The Oglala Siou.x The Rosebud Sioux THE :tvf:EDICINE WHEEL COALITION FOR SACRED SITES K:\ALPHAIOS ,OS\X-MC{j,JQF 3 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ~-08 -9 8 WED 01 :07 PM BOUL DER OPEN SPAC E ro~vn c nv Mn ~n0 AA1 A A~n 11111111 11111111 111111 ::~; ~ii! i \1A Boulder County Clerk , CO AG R 45 . 88 D 8. 88 n "" The Pawnee of Oklahoma The Eastern Shoshone The Northern Arapaho The Northern Cheyenne r T he Oglala Sioux The Rosebud Sioux THE :MEDICINE WHEEL COALITION FOR SACRED SITES K,\ALPHA \QS\OS\X-MOU.I(ff' 3 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements 1111111111 Ill 111 111111 B01.llder County Clerk, CO AG R 55 . BB The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma The Pawnee of Oklahoma The Eastern Shoshone The Northern Arapaho ( The Northern Cheyenne The Oglala Sioux The Rosebud Sioux 3 11 2044209 Page : 8 of 13 B5 / 11 /2BBB 11 : 33A DB. BB Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( I CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO By~~-lc ityManager Directo of Finance and Record Ex-Offi/io City Clerk Approved as to fonn : . K :\A LP HA \0S10S\X-MOU 1.lQF 11111111 II lllll 11111111 ~; 1 ;:~li\1A Boulder County Clerk i CO AG R 45 . SS D S. SS 1111111111111111 111111 !:Jt~2!l /\~ Bou l der County Clerk i CO AG R 55 .SS D S.SS 4 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements a: ~B ------ ...;;;;;;;;.,, ;;;;;;;;;ac -8 -.,. -~ -'-' -~ ~§ ~8 ;.....- ~ ] m:; n~t r&p rm!ucc le i,H,lf. N W*E Stream (~~! Lake/Reservoir Railroad Highway/Arterial Other Roads EXHIBIT A 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111 111 -·~illlfitr,i ~ ~~!i,c' B.LM. Other Public Land Eatement held by City of Boulder Open Spaco City of Boulder Opon Space -Boulder City Parks '11JlJlJ!Jii; Boulder Mountain Park, ~~~ Boulder County Open Space State of Colorado 1111111 IIIII IIIIIII IIII IIIIII Ill lllllll Ill llllll Ill llll 0 ~-- 2016160 Page • 18 of 11 1 2 111111111111111111111111111111111 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING I\ THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("Agreement"), made this ~ day of "I=:$. 2s, ,:§,-:\, . , 2002, by and between The Southern Ute, The Ute Mountain Ute, The Jicarilla Apache, The Kiowa Nation, The Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, The Southern Cheyenne Tribe of Oklahoma, The Southern Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma, The Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, The Eastern Shoshone, The Northern Arapaho, The Northern Cheyenne, The Oglala Sioux, and The Rosebud Sioux (the "Tribes"), the Medicine Wheel Coalition for Sacred Sites, and the United Tribes of Colorado (collectively, the "Representatives") and the City of Boulder (the "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, American Indians had an historic presence on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands; and WHEREAS, the City is trustee of the Open Space and Mountain Parks land; and WHEREAS, Section 176 of the City Charter limits the use of Open Space and Mountain Parks land as follows: Sec.176. Open space purposes-Open space land. Open space land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes: (a) Preservation or restoration of natural areas characterized by or including terrain, geologic formations, flora, or fauna that are unusual, spectacular, historically important, scientifically valuable, or unique, or that represent outstanding or rare examples of native species; (b) Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or vistas, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems; ( c) Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing; ( d) Preservmion of agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural production; ( e) Utilization of land for shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl, and disciplining growth; (f) Utilization of non-urban land for spatial definition of urban areas; s:\osmp\agents\doug\tribal\final rnou.doc 9/19/02 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements (g) Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains; and (h) Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution to the quality of life of the community. Open space land may not be improved after acquisition unless such improvements are necessary to protect or maintain the land or to provide for passive recreational, open agricultural, or wildlife habitat use of the land. WHEREAS, the City is committed to the preservation of the Open Space and Mountain Parks land and the cultural resources located thereon and desires to protect areas of religious and cultural significance; and WHEREAS, the Representatives have a unique capacity to gather information and advice concerning cultural resources; and WHEREAS, no party is obligated by this Agreement to any expenditure of funds or any participation in litigation; and WHEREAS, the Representatives and the City seek by this agreement to create a partnership for ( the protection of any cultural resources that may exist on Open Space and Mountain Parks land and ( particularly the Jewel Mountain located in Jefferson County across Colorado Highway 93 from Rocky Flats. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: (I) The Representatives agree to provide cultural resource evaluation and advice in support of Open Space and 11/{ountain Parks land acquisition in accordance with the City Charter. (2) The Representatives agree to provide cultural resource evaluation and advice in support of Open Space and Mountain Parks land management. (3) The Representatives and the City agree to an ongoing consultation about cultural resources on Open Space and Mountain Parks land for the purpose of identifying and protecting areas of religious and cultural significance and recognizing cultural resources in the area. ( 4) The City agrees, subject to annual budget appropriations, to host an annual consultation with the Representatives in Boulder to facilitate the ongoing consultation contemplated by this agreement. (5) Open Space is closed to public vehicular traffic. The City agrees that the Tribes need no prior permission for pedestrian use of Open Space and Mountain Parks. Ceremonies requiring the building of a temporary structure (for example a sweat lodge or tipi) do require permission from the City. The permit procedure for ceremonies requiring a temporary structure is as follows: final MOU.021502 2 ( \ ; Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements (a) At least 30 days prior to the ceremony, a letter of request from a participating Tribe must be submitted to the Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306, outlining the activity, the number of people expected to attend, the duration of the activity and how the Tribal members have addr_essed and will address issues of safety, environmental hazards, restoration of the use area and parking. (b) The Tribal contact list in effect as of the date of this agreement is attached as Exhibit A. Such list shall be revised from time to time upon the request of any Tribe. ( c) The City will notify the requesting Tribal contact of permit approval or denial in writing, with any restrictions or conditions included in the permit. The City will approve any bona fide Tribal request providing it involves no monetary gain whatsoever, does not interfere with previously scheduled activities and does not conflict-with the City Charter and ordinances. ( d) No permanent structures will be permitted. Temporary structures must be removed within seven days after the ceremony is concluded. Tribal members using the site will be responsible for leaving the area in the same condition as they found it. ( e) The City agrees to provide reasonable fire protection services for any authorized Tribal cultural use on Open Space and Mountain Parks land. Such fire protection may include fire extinguishers, wildfire suppression apparatus or other preventative measures. (t) The area must be fully restored after the activity. The requesting Tribe is responsible for any restoration. ( 6) The City agrees that bicycle and pedestrian trails, parking lots, plowing or cultivating, intentional burning, and mineral extraction, to the extent of City mineral ownership, on the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area shall be reviewed by the Tribes prior to authorization by the City. Should it be determined that there is a conflict, the City and the Tribes shall meet to resolve the conflict or provide measures by which the conflict can be resolved. Such uses shall not be authorized by the City unless and until at least fifty percent of the Tribes signing this agreement shall have approved a management plan for such use, including without limitation monitoring to safeguard cultural resources during the construction process. Note: the City does not own the mineral rights under all of its land. Whoever owns the mineral rights has certain rights to extract the minerals against the wishes of the City. (7) The City agrees that inadvertent discovery on Open Space and Mountain Parks land of American Indian cultural resources, including funerary objects and human remains shall be reported to the Tribes and protected by the City until the Tribes can advise the City about reinterment. The City shall comply with federal and state law. (8) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the City and the Representatives that execute it, and the City and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions with the consent of at least ha"if of the Representatives. final MOU.021502 3 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( 6) The City agrees that bicycle and pedestrian trails, parking lots, plowing or cultivating, intentional burning, and mineral extraction, to the extent of City mineral ownership, "'on the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area shall be reviewed by the Tribes prior to authorization by the City. Should it be determined that there is a conflict, the City and the Tribes shall meet to resolve the conflict or provide measures by which the conflict can be resolved. Such uses shall not be authorized by the City unless and until at least fifty percent of the Tribes signing this agreement shall have approved a management plan fur such use, including without limitation monitoring to safeguard cultural resources during the construction process. Note: the City does not own the mineral rights under all of its land. Whoever owns the mineral rights has certain rights to extract the minerals against the wishes of the City. (7) The City agrees that inadvertent discovery on Open Space and Mountain Parks land of American Indian cultural resources, including funerary objects and human remains shall be reported to the Tribes and protected by the City until the Tribes can advise the City about reinterment. The City shall comply with federal and state law. (8) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the City and the Representatives that execute it, and the City and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions with the consent of at least half of the Representatives. AGREED, as of the date first above written. SIGNATURE THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE DATE THE KIOWA OF OKLAHOMA DATE THE JICARILLA APACHE DATE Final MOU 2002 ( ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements AGREED, as of the date first above written. SIGNATURE: JayKniifu-Frank,ribal Chairman The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe CITY OF BOULDER By: Ronald A. Secrist City Manager .ATTEST: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Date Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE UNITED TRIBES OF COLORADO CITY OF BOULDER By:-=---,----------,------- Ronald A. Secrist City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office final MOU.021502.doc 6 7-S:::-0,:2, DATE DATE ( ( ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements (6) The City agrees that bicycle and pedestrian trails, parking lots, plowing or cultivating, intentional burning, and mineral extraction, to the extent of City mineral ownership, on the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area shall be reviewed by the Tribes prior to authorization by the City. Should it be detennined that there is a conflict, the City and the Tribes shall meet to resolve the conflict or provide measures by which the conflict can be resolved. Such uses shall not be authorized by the City unless and until at least fifty percent of the Tribes signing this agreement shall have approved a management plan for · such use, including without limitation monitoring to safeguard cultural resources during the construction process. Note: the· City does not own the mineral rights under all of its· · land. Whoever owns the mineral rights has certain rights to extract the minerals against the wishes of the City. (7) The City agrees that inadvertent discovery on Open Space and Mountain Parks land of American Indian cultural resources, including funerary objects and human remains shall be reported to the Tribes and protected by the City until the Tribes can advise the City about reinterment. The City shall comply with federal and state law. · (8) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the City and the Representatives that execute it, and the City and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions with the consent of at least half of the Representatives. AGREED, as of the date first above written. SIGNATURE THE SOUTHERN UTE DATE THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE DATE DATE THE ,TICARILLA AP ACHE DATE final MOU.021502.doc 4 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( 6) The City agrees that bicycle and pedestrian trails, parking lots, plowing or cultivating, intentional burning, and mineral extraction, to the extent of City mineral ownership, on the Jewel Mountain Open Space Area shall be reviewed by the Tribes prior to authorization by the City. Should it be determined that there is a conflict, the City and the Tribes shall ineet to resolve the conflict or provide measures by which the conflict can be resolved. Such uses shall not be authorized by the City unless and until at least fifty percent of the Tribes signing this agreement shall have approved a management plan for such use, including without limitation monitoring to safeguard cultural resources during the construction process. Note: the City does not own the mineral rights under all of its land. Whoever owns the mineral rights has certain rights to extract the minerals against the wishes of the City. (7) The City agrees that inadvertent discovery on Open Space and Mountain Parks land of American Indian cultural resources, including funerary objects and human remains shall be reported to the Tribes and protected by the City until the Tribes can advise the City about reinterment. The City shall comply with federal and state law. (8) Initially, this Agreement shall be binding on the City and the Representatives that execute it, and the City and additional Tribes may agree in any form to its provisions with the consent of at least half of the Representatives. AGREED, as of the date first above written. SIGNATURE THE SOUTHERN UTE THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE THE KIOWA OF OKLAHOMA THE JICARILL17APA HE . DATE DATE DATE j-/7-0;;;._ DATE C ,RSI ?{/i,Uf ,:ucdcJ-t0ef Final MOU 2002 / / . ( ( ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ~c~ TH OMANOF OKL HOMA THE SOUTHERN CHEYENNE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THE PAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE NORTHERN ARAPAHO THE OGLALA SIOUX THE ROSEBUD SIOUX final MOU.021502.doc 5 2.-2..7-o-Z- DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE COMANCHE OF OKLAHOMA ~~· ~~RNCHEYEN THE SOUTHERN CHEYENNE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THE PAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE NORTHERN ARAPAHO THE OGLALA SIOUX THE ROSEBUD SIOUX MOU.021502.doc 5 ( DATE DATE DATE ( DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE COMANCHE OF OKLAHOMA ~;i rfl,J,j,:., ~· T SOU HERN CHEYEN 0 OKLAHOMA Lj~P~~ THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THE J>A WNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE NORTHERN ARAJ>AHO THE OGLALA SIOUX THE ROSEBUD SIOUX final MOU.021502.doc DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 5 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE COMANCHE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN CHEYENNE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THEPAWNEEN OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE NORTHERN ARAPAHO THE OGLALA SIOUX THE ROSEBUD SIOUX final MOU.021502.doc 5 DATE DATE DATE 3 -I -0 ,,;z___ DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE ( ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE COMANCHE OF OKLAHOMA THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE THE SOUTHERN CHEYENNE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THE PAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE y~~c THE OGLALA SIOUX THE ROSEBUD SIOUX Final MOU 2002 --·-· "' , .,, .. vu.._ , UJ1,;;, 1 J .,.iv.vu l"\lVI 5 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE S:-.-?/-02_ DATE DATE DATE Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE COMANCHE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN CHEYENNE OF OKLAHOMA THE SOUTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA THE PAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE NORTHERN ARAPAHO THE ROSEBUD SIOUX final MOU.021502.doc 5 ( · DATE DATE DATE DATE ( DATE DATE DATE ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements THE MEDICINE WHEEL COALITION FOR SACRED SITES THE UNITED TRIBES OF COLORADO CITY OF BOULDER ~v-,,1ristine Andersen Acting City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office final MOU,021502 5 DATE DATE Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wil11oss my han<l a1td official seal. My commission expires: [SEAL] \ ( Cl TY OF BOULDER, a Colorado home rule city By: Ronald A. Secrist, City Manager ~n&dn __ ,_ Notary Public 19 ( 05/31/02 FRI 14:09 [TX/RX NO 8396] Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Listing of Consulting Tribes: James Pedro, Chainnan Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma P.O. Box41 Concho, OK 73022 William L. (Lee) Pedro Southern Arapaho of Oklahoma P.O. Box41 Concho, OK 73022 Home: 405-422-3270 Work:405-262-1770 Joe Big Medicine The Southern Cheyenne 500 South Leech, Apt 36 Watonga, OK 73772 Hbme: 580-623-2810 work: 405-262-0345 FAX 405-262-0745 Billy Evans Horse, Chairman The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box297 Hobart, OK 73651 580-654-2300 George Daingkau NAGPRA Representative The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma 118 N. Stephens Hobart, OK 73651 Ph: 580-726-3708 Fax: 580-726-3708 Cell: 580-550-0040 Email: delaware ed@hotmail.com Francis B. Brown, President Exhibit A Medicine Wheel Coalition for Sacred Sites of Northern America P.O. Box 601 Riverton, WY 82501 s:\osmp\agents\doug\tribal\final mou.doc 9/19/02 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ' . ( ( ( Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Boulder and the Tribes dated August 17, 2002 WHEREAS, this First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Boulder and the Tribes dated August 17, 2002 is intended to clarify the traditional use ceremonies on City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks lands when structures are used; and WHEREAS, the following provisions were recommended to the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, City of Boulder (the "City") at the Consultation Meeting, February 18, 2004, with representatives of federally recognized Tribal governments (the "Tribes"); and WHEREAS, the Tribes recommended that the policy for ceremonies requiring structures as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Tribes and the City, dated August 17 , 2002, be amended as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, Paragraph (5) of the Memorandum of Understanding is hereby rescinded in its entirety a nd amended to read as follows: (5) Open Space is closed to public vehicular traffic. The City agrees that the Tribes need no prior permission for pedestrian use of Open Space and Mountain Parks. Ceremonies requiring the building of a temporary structure (for example a sweat lodge or tipi) do require permission from the City. The permit procedure for ceremonies requiring a temporary structure is as follows : (a) At least 15 days prior to the ceremony, a letter of request from a participating Tribe must be submitted to the Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks, PO Box 791, Boulder, CO 80806, outlining the activity, the number of people expected to attend, the duration of the activity and how the Tribal members have addressed and will address issues of safety, environmental hazards, restoration of the use area and parking; (b) The Tribal contact list in effect as of the date of this agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the original agreement. Such list shall be revised from time to time upon the request of any Tribe; (c) The City will notify the requesting Tribal contact of permit approval or denial in writing, with any restrictions or conditions included in the permit. The City will approve any bona fide Tribal request providing it involves no monetary gain whatsoever, does not interfere with previously scheduled activities and does not conflict with the City Charter and ordinances. (d) The City agrees to provide reasonable fire protection services for any authorized Tribal cultural use on Open Space and Mountain Parks land. s:\osmp\agents\doug\tribal\mou I st am e nd.doc Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements ( e) Such fire protection may include fire extinguishers, wildfire suppression apparatus or other preventative measures . (f) No permanent structures will be permitted. Temporary structures must be removed within seven days after the ceremony is concluded. Tribal members using the s ite will be responsible for leaving the area in the same condition as they found it. (g) There will be no cutting of trees or any other destruction of vegetation allowed. Individuals must provide their own wood. (h) The lodge area must be kept clean. (i) The sweat lodge at Valmont Butte may remain up due to the difficulty in obtaining willows. Frequent users are requested to take down and rebuild the lodge with fresh willows periodically. 1. The area must be fully restored after the activity. The requesting Tribe is responsible for any restoration. 2. There will be no use of the area for any individual monetary gain or profit. Reasonable traditional gift giving is acceptable. 3. The following persons may use the area for traditional use ceremonies requiring structures and/or a fire: i. Enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. ii. Sponsored individuals of federally recognized tribes who show an enrollment card. iii. Individuals or groups sponsored by the tribal branch of the Native American Church as long as a letter of sponsorship is provided on appropriate tribal or church letterhead. 1v. And anyone else who meets one of these standards. 4. The request for use must be made in writing, 15 days in advance. This request must include: 1. Identification of group leader including a tribal enrollment card or appropriate sponsorship. 11. A short narrative about the type of activity planned and the number of people involved. 5 . Use of the various areas including Valmont Butte will be reviewed by the Tribes periodically. s :\osmp\agcnts\doug\tribal\mou I " ame nd.doc 2 Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements 6. Only ceremonies or traditional practices that require the building of a structure and/or a fire require permission from the City. AGREED, as of the __ day of ______ , 2004. ~Jf,k£i,,? '--signature The Northern Cheyenne Tribe CITY OF BOULDER By: ____________ _ Frank Bruno City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office s:\osmp\agcnts\doug\tribnl\mou I" amend.doc 3 ? / DATE Attachment B - City Tribe Agreements Attachment C - Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution Attachment C - Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution Attachment C - Indigenous Peoples Day Resolution CityofBoulder2020ConsultationTribeRepresentative1Representative2AdditionalNotesRosebud Sioux Tribe Ben Rhodd, THPO Eastern Shoshone Tribe (Wind River Reservation) Wyman Weed, Traditional Cultural Specialist Joshua Mann, THPO (TENTATIVE) Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Kristopher Killsfirst, Vice-Chairman Darrin Cisco, VR Culture Specialist Northern Arapaho Tribe Lee Spoonhunter, Chairman Steven Fasthorse, council member Oglala Sioux Tribe Mike Catches The Enemy (TENTATIVE) Ricky Gray Grass, Council Member Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Darrell Wildcat N/A SouthernUteIndianTribeVice-Chairwoman Cheryl Frost Alden Naranjo Representative #3: Garrett Briggs Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Jicarilla Apache Nation KiowaTribeofOklahomaNorthernCheyenneTribeUteMountainUteTribeStandingRockSiouxTribeCheyenneRiverSiouxTribeAttachment D - COB Consultation 2020 Invitees City of Boulder 2020 Consultation Agenda Monday, MARCH 16 4 to 5:30 p.m. – Optional Settler’s Park Informational Visit TUESDAY, MARCH 17 8 to 8:30 a.m. – Registration 8:30 to 10 a.m. – Consultation Public Opening 10 to 10:30 a.m. – Organize for field trip 10:30 to 1 p.m. – Jewel Mountain visit 1 to 2 p.m. – Lunch at Millennium 2 to 3:30 p.m. – Settlers Park Discussion 3:30 to 4 p.m. – Other Business 4 to 4:30 p.m. – Preview of Wednesday MOU Discussion WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. – Review Settler’s Park Discussion and Decisions 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. – MOU Discussions 10:30 to 10:45 a.m. – Break 10:45 to Noon – MOU Discussions Noon to 1 p.m. – Lunch 1 to 2:30 – MOU Discussions 2:30 to 2:45 - Break 2:45 to 4 p.m. – MOU Discussions 4 to 4:30 p.m. – Draft Joint Statement 4:30 p.m. – Consultation Public Closing Thursday, MARCH 19 8:00 to 10:30 a.m. – Optional White Rocks Field Trip Attachment E - 2020 COB Tribal Agenda 1 STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager David Farnan, Director of Library and Arts Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney Janet Michels, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kara Skinner, Assistant Director of Finance Alyssa Dinberg, Management Analyst DATE: February 11, 2020 SUBJECT: Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the July 24, 2018 City Council study session, staff presented an overview of the draft Boulder Public Library Master Plan including a summary of community input and master plan goals. The Library Commission’s conclusions and recommendations about the master plan and library funding were also presented. Council provided direction that staff should move forward with hiring a consultant to perform a balanced and impartial analysis of all funding needs and options for funding each service level outlined in the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan. Based on council direction, and in-depth financial analysis was conducted by the George K. Baum & Company (GKB). Council also requested information on governance, process, structure, and asset allocation related to the formation of a library district. A legal analysis was conducted to determine the governance issues required under Colorado law for creating and operating a library district. Library districts have their own section of Colorado law - Colorado Library Law, C.R.S. § 24- 90-101, et seq. The law firm Seter Vander Wall P.C provided a report about the formation of a library district (Attachment C). Staff and the Library Commission submitted questions about the report which the law firm answered (Attachment E). The law firm compared library district formation by ordinance and by petition and provided information about the Poudre River Public Library District (Fort Collins), the Berthoud Public Library District and Jefferson County Public Library (Attachment D). 2 Questions for Council 1. Does Council have questions about library district governance, structure, process or financing? 2. Is there additional information council directs staff to prepare for the March 17 public hearing? BACKGROUND The Library Master Plan outlines three proposed service levels: maintain service levels, meet community demand, and service expansion/vision. A priority issue identified in the master plan is the need to develop stable ongoing revenues to fund programs and services. As with most master plans, in-depth financial analysis is not the focus. Since the master plan highlighted funding needs, staff recommended, and council agreed to hire an independent outside consultant to complete this in-depth financial study. This analysis, presented on November 27, 2018, also supplements and expands on the city’s initial financial analysis conducted for the April 12, 2018 information packet item. The 2019 budget provided ongoing funding for the maintain service level of the master plan. The 2020 budget continued council direction and provided funding to achieve items within the “meet community demand” service level including: North Boulder Branch Library Manager regrade; New bilingual Youth Services Specialist (1.0 FTE); Increase Volunteer Services Specialist from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE; and George Reynolds Branch Library collection and public space reconfiguration. The 2020 ongoing budget for the library division is $9.1 million dollars with roughly $1.5 million coming from the dedicated 0.333 mills for the library (Attachment G). Additionally, anticipating the completion of the new North Boulder (NoBo) library, ongoing, annual NoBo library operating expenses are planned for and incorporated into the General Fund financial plan beginning in 2021 for the following items: Creative Technologist (2.0 FTE); Library Technology Support Specialist (1.0 FTE); Service and Circulation Specialists (3.5 FTE); Security Officer (1.0 FTE); and General operating costs. In mid 2019, council reviewed results from a community telephone poll and online survey that was conducted in early 2019. The results of this poll can be found in Attachment K. Depending on potential library district negotiations, the advocates for the district are estimating the need for 3.85-4.56 mills for an independent district. 3 ANALYSIS Library District Governance A library district may be formed by resolution or ordinance by one or more existing governmental entities (“establishing entities”), or by initiative of citizens through a petition and election process. A library district is an autonomous government and subdivision of the state and is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the establishing entities. After appointment of the Board of Trustees, the establishing entities and trustees must enter into an intergovernmental agreement describing their rights, obligations, and responsibilities to one another (IGA). The Board of Trustees may adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations for its own guidance and policies for the governance of the library as it deems expedient. Library District is an Independent Single Purpose Government A library district is a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State and not a branch, department or service of the establishing entities. It obtains its own financial support through an ad valorem property tax levy authorized and approved in a TABOR Election. The taxes are collected on property with the library’s legal service area. Operational Governance The powers, duties and responsibilities of library district governing boards and their relationship to city and county governments is set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The establishing entities select the first Board of Trustees once the library district is established. Succeeding trustees are appointed by the establishing entities following procedure established by the Colorado Library Law and the IGA. The Board of Trustees is the sole, autonomous legislative body of the district, with the establishing entities retaining the power to appoint. Trustees are not in elected positions. A district board of trustees will receive property tax revenues and spend the resulting revenues to further library purposes. The establishing entities may not place restrictions on the library’s use of funds, so long as the funds are being used legally and in the interest of the library. However, the establishing entities can ensure the continuation of services that an existing library may provide when it is merged into the district through the IGA. The IGA can be used to allow intergovernmental cooperation to perform functions that each unit is authorized to provide. Library districts have power and authority to conduct its business in a manner consistent with other limited power districts, including legislative powers, acquisition, acceptance and disposal of property, employment, budget and tax collection and the ability to enter into contracts. 4 Table 1 Comparison of Governance, Funding, and Boundaries for a Municipal vs. a Library District MUNICIPAL LIBRARY LIBRARY DISTRICT Establishing Entity City Council City Council and County Commission Governing Entity City Council Board of Trustees Library Board Appointment* Members appointed by City Council to serve on advisory commission Members appointed by establishing entities to serve on a Board of Trustees Funding Mechanism Mostly General Fund (sales & use tax/property tax) and a dedicated 0.333 property tax Ad valorem property tax levy authorized and approved in a TABOR Election Boundary City of Boulder Service area identified by establishing entities *State law prohibits ex officio status on the library board by a council member. There is nothing in the Colorado library law that prohibits a council member from being appointed to the library board in the same manner as any other resident of the library district. OPTIONS FOR FORMING A LIBRARY DISTRICT A library district can be formed by resolution or ordinance of one or more existing governments (i.e., the city, the county, or both) (the “establishing entities”); or, by initiative of citizens through a petition process. Establishing the District by Resolution/Ordinance If a district is a desirable outcome, establishing the library district by resolution or ordinance allows greater control of the process by the establishing entities. This allows the establishing entities determine the appropriate boundaries of the district. To initiate the process, public hearings are held by the establishing entities after published notice to discuss the purpose of the district, its powers; and the financial and other obligations of the establishing entities, if any. The entity that wishes to propose a district is required to give 90 days’ written notice of the proposed establishment to other “governmental units” that maintain a public library so that they may determine whether to participate in the district. Governmental entities that intend to establish a library district are required to adopt a resolution or ordinance that describes the district’s legal service area and provides that the electors must approve the proposed mill levy. The library district is established upon adoption of the resolution or ordinance. 5 The ordinance or resolution establishes that the establishing entities appoint the first board of trustees (5 or 7 members) to the library district. Within 90 days after appointment of the trustees, the establishing entities and trustees must enter into an intergovernmental agreement describing their rights, obligations, and responsibilities to one another, if any (“IGA”). The IGA can be used to: 1) Establish a deadline for the district to obtain funding from its electors at an election authorized by the TABOR Amendment (i.e., at the November 2020 election); 2) Provide terms to transition library services from the establishing entities to the district including: a) Any conveyance by donation, lease or sale of real and personal property used to provide library services; b) The transition of library employees from the establishing entity to the library district addressing earned leave, benefits, retirement funds, etc.; c) Interim funding, if any, for the existing libraries and the district; d) Whether the district will temporarily or permanently purchase or otherwise acquire administrative, maintenance, personnel, procurement, insurance, employee benefits etc. through contract with establishing entities; e) Establishing procedures for future library trustee selection and appointment within the confines established by the Library Law; and f) Generally providing for a mutually beneficial relationship or separation as the parties’ desire. 3) If the district does not obtain funding within the time allowed, the IGA may require the district to dissolve leaving the municipal library to continue operations. Establishing the District by Petition of Registered Electors One hundred electors residing in the proposed library district “service area” can trigger an election to form a district by petition. The petition is required to be addressed to the county commissioners of each county proposed to be included in the district and must be filed at least 90 days before a TABOR election. The petition is required to have all the following elements: a. The petition must comply with C.R.S.§ 24-90-107(3)(a), including a request for establishment of the district, name of the district, the governmental units involved and contain a description of the “service area” and proposed mill levy. b. A bond must be filed to pay election expenses in the event the election is unsuccessful unless waived by the county. c. Once in receipt of the petition, the establishing entities must pass a resolution or ordinance establishing the district or submit the question of establishment to a vote. Either way, a TABOR election will be required to establish the mill levy. d. After a successful election, library trustees must be appointed, and an Intergovernmental Agreement is to be negotiated to address the same matters discussed for a library district that is formed pursuant to an ordinance or resolution. 6 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) In any library district scenario, the City Council and the Boulder County Commission would negotiate the terms of an IGA with the library district. The IGA defines several aspects of the district structure and operations. Governance concerns and operational parameters should be established in the IGA at the time the library district’s first board of trustees is appointed and prior to the district obtaining its own mill levy funding. The district is required to file an annual report with the establishing governmental entities and the Colorado State Library. Summary of Library Assets and Options for Transfer to a Library District The community’s library building and property assets include the Main Library, the George Reynolds Branch Library, the Carnegie Library for Local History, and upcoming North Boulder branch library. The Meadows Branch Library is a rented facility. Other community assets include the book and media collections; computer, business, and materials handling equipment; furnishings and fixtures. There are options (below) regarding how library assets could be transferred from the city to a library district. The options selected would be part of the IGA. Deed library buildings, properties, and other assets to the library district at no cost, minimal annual cost, or one-time cost. Lease library buildings and properties to the library district at a determined rate such as, fair market value, original cost, or a different rate set by council. Library monetary assets in the Library Fund and any other funds that have been collected for the library (e.g. Development Excise Tax, Impact fees, proceeds from the sale of the Blystat-Laesar House, and direct contribution from the Library Fund to Facilities Renovation and Replacement (FRR) would be transferred to the library district. Changes Required for The Charter of the City of Boulder, Colorado If a library district is formed changes to the City Charter would be required later to update information about the library and remove the sections about the library commission. The charter sections that would need to be removed include: Section 69 - Department of Library and Arts Section 130 - General provisions concerning advisory commissions. Remove references to the library commission. Section 132 - Library commission established. Section 133 - Powers and duties of library commission. Section 134 - Library fund. Impact on city employees of the Boulder Public Library If a library district is formed, City of Boulder employees could be transferred from the city to the library district. If the library district contracts for services with the city, library district employees may retain identical benefits as they had as city employees. Staff 7 discussed with Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) the impacts on employee retirement benefits if a library district formed. The conclusion was no changes are required to the employee or employer status and employees would retain all their vesting and coverage rights. Proper timing of the transfer is necessary to insure no break in service. Staff also researched impacts on employee benefits with the Social Security Administration. The conclusion was neither the employer (the library district) nor the employee would be required to contribute to Social Security. NEXT STEPS There will be a public hearing on March 17 with council direction on the future state of the library service model. ATTACHMENTS A. Library District Service Area Map: Patron Locations within Boulder County B. Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report C. Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report D. Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation – Ordinance/Resolution v. Petition and Case Studies E. Library Commission memo to City Council regarding the financial analysis F. Library Assessed Property Values G. Library and Arts 2020 Approved Budget H. Library Financial Analysis Presentation I. Boulder Public Library Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo J. Financial Analysis Assumptions K. Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 1820 Attachment A - Library District Service Area Map October 2, 2018 City of Boulder City of Boulder Colorado Library Commission 1001 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Attn: David Farnan, Director Via Email: farnand@boulderlibrary.org Re: Report on Library District Formation and Operations Dear Mr. Farnan and Library Commissioners: You have requested a report on the formation and operations of library districts under the Colorado Library Law, C.R.S. § 24-90-101, et seq. An outline of topics to address was provided by Mr. Farnan on August 11, 2018 (copy attached). Additional enquiries were made by Commissioners Teter and Koenig by email and at a meeting on July 27, 2018. This report generally follows the outline provided by Mr. Farnan but I have restated and rearranged some topics for clarity. Responses to the Commissioners’ questions are incorporated in the outline where appropriate. The information in Sections II. and III. is repetitive of information contained in the discussion of the library district formation process in Section I. However, we deemed repetition appropriate to ensure that we responded to your questions in the manner they were presented. REPORT I.Summary of Colorado Library Law on Library District Formation. A.Municipal v. District Libraries. The City’s library and a library district differ in significant ways. 1. The Boulder Public Library is a “municipal library” which is a “public library” established by the City. See, C.R.S. § 24-90-103 (11). a.It is governed by a Board (advisory in Boulder) known as the Commission. See, C.R.S. § 24-90-109 (2)(a). b.It is funded as part of the City budget. Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report 2.A “library district” is also a “public library.” It is established by one or more cities and/or counties, school districts, etc. See, C.R.S., § 24-90- 104(6). a.It is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the establishing entities. See, C.R.S. § 24-90-108(2)(c). b. It is a “political subdivision of the state of Colorado” created by the establishing entities. The library district is its own taxing authority and is not a division or department of the city or other establishing entities and is not included in the establishing entities’ budgets. B.Establishing a Library District. A library district can be formed by resolution or ordinance of one or more existing governments (i.e., the city, the county, or both) (the “establishing entities”); or, by initiative of citizens through a petition process. 1. Boundaries. The geographic boundaries of the district are determined by the establishing entities or in the citizen-initiated petition. a.Boundaries should provide sufficient tax base to support library services and include the area actually utilizing those services. b.Aggregating existing government entity boundaries to create the library district boundary is cost efficient because geographic, demographic and financial information already exists in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and from other sources. 2.Establishing the District by Resolution/Ordinance. Establishing the library district by resolution or ordinance is cost effective and allows greater control of the process by the establishing entities. a.The establishing entities determine the appropriate boundaries of the district. b. A public hearing or hearings is held by the establishing entity(ies) after published notice to discuss the purpose of the district, its powers; and the financial and other obligations of the establishing entities, if any. c.90 days written notice of the proposed establishment is given to other “governmental units” that maintain a public library so they may determine whether to participate in the district. Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report d.The resolution or ordinance must describe: i.The district’s legal service area; ii. identify and provide that the electors must approve the proposed mill levy. e.The library district is established upon adoption of the resolution or ordinance. i.The establishing entities appoint the first board of trustees (5 or 7 members) to the library district. ii.Within 90 days after appointment of the trustees, the establishing entities and trustees must enter into an intergovernmental agreement describing their rights, obligations, and responsibilities to one another, if any (“IGA”). We utilize the IGA to: (a)Establish a deadline for the district to obtain funding from its electors at an election authorized by the TABOR Amendment (i.e., at the November 2019 election); (b)Provide terms to transition library services from the establishing entities to the district including: (1)Any conveyance by donation or sale of real and personal property used to provide library services; (2)The transition of library employees from the establishing entity to the library district addressing earned leave, benefits, retirement funds, etc.; (3)Interim funding, if any, for the existing libraries and the district; (4)Whether the district will temporarily or permanently purchase or otherwise acquire administrative, maintenance, personnel, procurement, insurance, employee benefits etc. through contract with an establishing entity; and, Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report (5)Establishing procedures for future library trustee selection and appointment within the confines established by the Library Law; and, (6)Generally providing for a mutually beneficial relationship or separation as the parties’ desire. (c)If the district does not obtain funding within the time allowed (we prefer 2-3 election cycles), the IGA may require it to dissolve leaving the municipal library to continue operations. 3.Establishing the District by Petition of Registered Electors. One hundred electors residing in the proposed library district “service area” can trigger an election to form a district by petition. a.The petition is addressed to the commissioners of each county proposed to be included in the district and must be filed at least 90 days before a TABOR election. b.The petition must comply with C.R.S.§ 24-90-107(3)(a), including a request for establishment of the district, name of the district, the governmental units involved and contain a description of the “service area” and proposed mill levy. c.A bond must be filed to pay election expenses in the event the election is unsuccessful unless waived by the county. d. Once in receipt of the petition, the establishing entities must pass a resolution or ordinance establishing the district or submit the question of establishment to a vote. Either way, a TABOR election will be required to establish the mill levy. e. After a successful election, library trustees must be appointed and an IGA is to be negotiated to address the matters discussed in I.B.2.e. above. II.Summary of Colorado Library Law on Library District Structure, Governance and Operations. A. Governance Options in the Library District. The establishing entities select the first “Board of Trustees” once the library district is established. Succeeding Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report trustees are appointed by the establishing entities following procedure established by the Library Law and the IGA. 1.The Board of Trustees is the sole, autonomous legislative body of the district, with the establishing entities retaining the power to appoint. Trustees are not in elected positions. 2. Governance concerns and operational parameters should be established in the IGA at the time the library district’s first board of trustees is appointed and prior to the district obtaining its own mill levy funding. 3.A district board of trustees is guaranteed to receive its property tax revenues and may spend the resulting property tax revenues to further library purposes. The establishing entities may not place restrictions on the library’s use of funds, so long as the funds are being used legally and in the interest of the library. However, the establishing entities can ensure the continuation of services and some control through the IGA. B.The Library District is an Independent Single Purpose Government. Structurally, the library district is a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State and not a branch, department or service of the establishing entities. It obtains its own financial support through an ad valorem property tax levy authorized and approved in a TABOR Election. 1.Its “Legal Service Area” means the geographic area for which a public library has been established to offer services and from which, or on behalf of which, the library derives income. This includes areas served pursuant to contract. C.R.S. § 24-90-103(4.5). The “Legal Service Area” is the same as its corporate boundary. The size of the legal service area is at the discretion of the establishing entities if established by resolution or ordinance. The petition will identify the legal service area if established by petition. 2.Library districts are funded by a mill levy approved by the electors within its boundary. As an autonomous political subdivision of the state it will have complete control over legal spending of its tax revenues. However, some control and mutual financial benefits can be determined and fixed in the IGA. 3. The library district will be subject to TABOR to the same degree as the City and County. C.Operational Governance. The powers, duties and responsibilities of library district governing boards and their relationship to city and county governments is set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report 1. C.R.S. § 24-90-109 delegates the power and establishes the duties of a library Board of Trustees along with any implied powers derived from the express powers below described below: a.To adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations for its own guidance and policies for the governance of the library as it deems expedient; b. Have custody of all property of the library, including rooms or buildings constructed, leased, or set apart therefore; c.Employ a director and, upon the director’s recommendation, employ such other employees as may be necessary; d. Submit an annual budget to legis. body and certify a mill levy; e.Have exclusive control and spending authority over the disbursement of library funds; f.Accept such gifts of money or property for library purposes, as it deems expedient; g.Hold and acquire land by gift, lease, or purchase for library purposes; h. Lease, purchase, or erect any appropriate building for library purposes and acquire such other property as needed; i.Sell, assign, transfer or convey real or personal property which may not be needed in the foreseeable future; j.Borrow funds for library purposes; k. Authorize the bonding of persons entrusted with library funds; l. Conduct annual audit of district financial statements; m.Adopt a policy for the purchase of library materials and equipment on the recommendation of the library director; n. Hold title to property given to or for the use or benefit of the library; o. Have the authority to enter into contracts; Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report p.Maintain a current, accurate map of the legal service area and provide for it to be on file with the State Library; q.Receive copies of all school district collective bargaining agreements submitted and create a repository of same available to the public for inspection; r.Make an annual report to the establishing entities and provide response to State Library survey; s.The Board may allow nonresidents to use library materials and equipment; t.The Board may request that the establishing entities authorize an election be held to alter the maximum tax levied to support the district. The City shall cause the vote to be held. III.Colorado Case Studies. We have formed library districts in rural communities and the metropolitan area. The variety of issues and processes varies widely and is very difficult to generalize because much of the process depends on the separate needs or desires of the parties involved. A.We have utilized both the petition and the resolution/ordinance process. The petition process is adequate for smaller rural communities; but, we have always used the resolution/ordinance process for larger library districts. Arapahoe Library District, Rangeview Library District (Anythink), and Poudre River Regional Library District utilized this process to move from county and city service to the district model. Under the terms of IGAs, Rangeview (Anythink) separated from Adams County within approximately 5 years; however, Poudre River has maintained a close relationship under its IGA with Fort Collins since 2005. Both of these arrangements have been beneficial to the parties involved. B.You have specifically enquired as to options for distribution of assets under C.R.S. § 24-90-107 “library’s real and personal property, personnel, and the provision of administrative services during the transition.” The distribution of assets is the subject of negotiation. 1.Almost all of the establishing entities have conveyed real and personal property to the library district without charge. However, some buildings have been leased by the district and some have had title restrictions that require payment if the property ceases to be used to provide library services, or upon sale. The statutes do not preclude the parties from negotiating a long-term purchase option. Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report 2. As for personnel, we have discussed leasing city employees but did not implement that procedure. In the most efficient process we have used, the library district made employment offers to all city/county library employees that offered the same benefits and salary, accumulated leave and vacation pay. Simultaneously, the city/county issued notices of termination. 3. As for administration, Poudre River continues to utilize and pay the city for many administrative and contracting services, janitorial and maintenance, personnel (until very recently), financial services etc. Rangeview (Anythink) and Poudre River continue to contribute to the county and city retirement programs despite the fact that they are independent in many other ways. 4. In short, all of the transition items have been worked out in other districts and, because of the mutual benefits available, some “transitions” continue after more than thirteen years. We are looking forward to discussing these matters with you and we have reserved the evening of November 27 to engage directly with the Commissioners and Council. In the meantime, please let me know what additional information you would like. Sincerely, SETER & VANDER WALL, P.C. Kim J. Seter Cc: Commissioner Teter Commissioner Koenig E. Dauer, Esq. M. Barrasso Attachment B - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report MEMORANDUM TO: City of Boulder, City of Boulder Colorado Library Commission, David Farnan FROM: Seter & Vander Wall, P.C.; Kim J. Seter, Esq. DATE: October 15, 2018 RE: Response to Questions Regarding Report on Library District Formation and Operations You requested a report on the formation and operations of library district under the Colorado Library Law, C.R.S. § 24-90-101, et. seq. with responses to specific questions. We provided responsive correspondence on October 5, 2018. The following is a list of questions generated from your review of the correspondence followed by our responses in italics. 1.If a library district is initiated by a citizen petition, does the Board of County commissioners have any discretion about whether to place it on the ballot or not? Could they choose to place only the formation question and not the tax question on the ballot? C.R.S. § 24-90-107 (3)(d) provides that upon receipt of the petition, the legislative body or bodies shall either establish the District through an ordinance/resolution or submit the question of the establishment of the District to a vote at the earliest election permitted by law. Upon adoption of the resolution/ordinance or the successful formation election, the law requires that the establishing entities provide for the district’s financial support by January 1 of the year following the election or the passage of the ordinance/resolution. Accordingly, (1) the county commissioners must certify the formation question upon receipt of a proper petition; and, (2) the establishing entities must then provide financial support by some means, typically this would be accomplished by a tax question rather than through the entities’ budgets. 2.I.A.2.a.: With regard to the establishing entity and board of trustees. Is there a difference if it is formed by city/county or petition? There is no difference in the appointment process or composition of the Board of Trustees, whether it is formed the city/county or by petition. A petition, like the establishing resolution, must identify the establishing entities. The establishing entity or entities then have the duty and authority to appoint the Board of Trustees. Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report 3.Can a combination of city council and county commissioners be established as the board of trustees? A combination of the city council and county commissioners cannot be established ex officio as the board of trustees. There is nothing in the Library Law or Colorado law that prohibits an individual resident of the district who is also a commissioner or city council member from being appointed to the library board. However, the appointment process established in the Library Law would not allow the establishing entities to provide that any trustee position is filled by a commissioner or city council member by virtue of holding (ex officio) that county or city office. 4.B.1 Boundaries. What section of Colorado library law spells this out? Or is there a specific case wherein a boundary has been drawn that did not overlap a county line, or school district or some other previously established boundary? The Library Law utilizes the phrase “legal service area” instead of legal boundary. Petitioners or establishing entities may draw any legal service area for the library district they deem appropriate. Statutes define the library’s legal service area as the geographic area for which a public library has been established to offer services and from which, or on behalf of which, the library derives income. The area in which the district will offer services and the area needed to derive sufficient income are the considerations that should determine the library district boundary. Once an appropriate boundary is determined, we recommend looking at established entity boundaries to avoid the cost of mapping and the time needed to acquire population, voter and other data. There are many small governments, special districts and administrative areas already overlapping one another in Colorado. Each has established boundaries for which a great deal of information already exists. The boundaries of these entities can be pieced together to approximate the boundary that you deem appropriate for the library district. Library districts have been formed that do not overlap another entity or that overlap portions of many different entities. The Arapahoe Library District boundaries contain a portion of Adams County and the City and County of Denver, and exclude portions of the City of Aurora. Poudre River Regional Library District generally overlaps the boundaries of a fire district but excludes portions of the fire district that are in the Estes Valley Library District. Rangeview Library District includes all of Adams County but excludes portions of Westminster that are in the county. There are many other examples. Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report 5.Case studies: Are there libraries in Colorado that have determined a district was not in their best interest and maintained as a municipal library? The Jefferson County Public Library explored the possibility of forming a district, but the board of county commissioners chose to keep the library as part of the county. There have been enquiries from other entities but JCPL was the only entity we are aware of that formally determined not to convert the county library to a district. We can discuss that with you at our meeting on October 18th if you wish. 6.2.A. Since the county and city would appoint the board members. Can they appoint a council member or county commissioner to be on the board? [In accounting rules interlocking boards or commissions is one of the main determinates of if a governmental organization must be reported on as a component unit and is included in the CAFR of the appointing organizations. The reason I mention it is accounting requirements are separate from legal requirement. It has been several years since I have been involved in this type of discussion, so I do not know for sure that my concerns are correct (that is, the accounting requirements have changed). It would be best to have this researched and determined up front with the independent auditors of the city and county.] See response to No. 3 as to the appointment of city council members and commissioners. The library district is a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the state of Colorado. It is not a component unit of the establishing entity or entities. 7.II B. 3 states TABOR is the same as the city and county. I would suggest we spend more time on this and make sure there are no TABOR issues. The city is home rule and the county is statutory. On the revenue side voters have de-bruced property tax for both entities so it should not be a concern - just something we need to be aware of and follow up to make sure there are not unknown issues due to differences between the two governments. The district is subject to TABOR as an autonomous government and subdivision of the state. The district must submit its own ballot question to De-Bruce its own revenues. Under most conditions, the district will not assume the voter authorizations of its establishing entities and its mill levy, revenue and TABOR concerns have no affect on those of the city or county. 8.II C 1 q - Receive copies of all school district collective bargaining ...... Not sure why they would need to receive school district collective bargaining contracts. Should it be city collective bargaining agreement? C.R.S.§ 24-90-109 lists the powers and duties of the Board of Trustees. Specifically, C.R.S.§ 24-90-109 (1)(q) provides that the Trustees shall “receive the true and correct copies of all school district collective bargaining agreements submitted pursuant to the “Colorado School Collective Bargaining Agreement Sunshine Act”, Section 22-32- 109.4, C.R.S., and create an electronic or physical repository for all of said current Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report collective bargaining agreements at the library that is available to the public for inspection during regular business hours in a convenient and identified location.” 9.Case studies: are you aware of any Colorado libraries that transitioned from Municipal to District wherein a sizable portion of the employees were members of a municipal employees’ union? No. This would simply be another organization to consult during the preparation of the Intergovernmental Agreement. 10.Timing of starting up a district: Is this January 1 following a successful election to either establish a district or to fund a district (that has already been established by resolution)? When formed by petition, January 1 following the election is the deadline to fund a district after a successful formation election. See C.R.S. § 24-90-107(3)(g). This is easily accomplished because a mill levy question would be included in the November election. When forming by resolution or ordinance, the legislative bodies shall establish the public library and provide for its financial support beginning on or before January 1 of the year following the adoption of the resolution or ordinance or, if any amount of tax levy not previously established by resolution or ordinance nor previously approved by the electors is to provide the financial support, following elector approval of that levy. C.R.S.§ 24-90-107 (2)(d). Therefore, there is not a deadline in the statute to hold a TABOR election to set the mill levy. However, the law seems to imply that establishment and funding should be accomplished within a reasonable timeline, where possible. We have interpreted this to mean that an establishing entity may “provide for its financial support” by certifying a mill levy election for the library district. 11.If a petition is submitted to the County Commissioners, and they decide to create a district by resolution, is there a deadline for the Commissioners to take action in either adopting the resolution or putting the question on the ballot? After submittal of a petition, the deadline to place the question of district formation on the ballot is the date of the next biennial general election or the first Tuesday in November of odd years, whichever is earliest. C.R.S.§ 24-90-(d)(II). In the present case, November 5, 2019. It is unclear whether the above deadline would apply to an election setting the mill levy, but, when reading the statute as a whole, it suggests that the establishment of the district and the mill levy should be accomplished forthwith. Further, we would advise against holding two separate elections (formation and funding) based upon the cost of holding two separate elections and the problems created if one question passes but the other does not. Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report 12.It's clear from the memo that once a district is created by resolution, there is no firm deadline to set an election for funding. If the County and City agree to establish a district by resolution but delay action to put funding on the ballot do petitioners have any recourse? This is a correct observation. See question 10 for further clarification. The district board can request a mill levy election. We have addressed a reluctant board of commissioners in the past and it was determined that the certification of the mill levy question is a ministerial act that must be performed by the commissioners. It is not within the board’s discretion. 13.Do the establishing entities have any say in future funding for the library district once it is established and successfully funded? See memo II.C.1.t which seems to suggest that approval from the City is needed for "alternations" to the tax levied. (Page 7) II.C.1.t. references C.R.S. 24-90-109(4). The Board of Trustees of a district have the authority to request of the BOCC that an election be held to alter the maximum tax levied to support the district, in which case, the BOCC shall cause the vote to be held. The BOCC action is a ministerial act that does not permit the BOCC to exercise discretion whether to place a mill levy increase question on the ballot. See also 24-90- 112(1)(b)(III). 14.We were concerned by I.A.1.a. saying that the BPL is “governed by a Board (advisory in Boulder)…” and we noticed that the authority of a Library Board per CRS is very different than what is described in charter as the authority of the Library Commission. Some clarity around CRS vs. the city’s charter (and if charter changes would be required) would be helpful and also consider modifying the language in the memo – the City Council functions more like the Board (per CRS). We noted some discrepancy but were not engaged to address such concerns. We will obtain a copy of the charter and other documents establishing the municipal library and can address these concerns in the future. 15.Regarding the process for forming a district by ordinance/resolution or petition, it would be helpful to have timelines developed. What happens if multiple governmental units need to agree - city and county - and deadlines aren’t met and there isn’t mutual agreement to extend the deadlines. We will prepare a draft timeline for distribution at the meeting on October 18th for discussion. These concerns should not sidetrack the effort at this time. Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report In one instance we engaged in a petition process while negotiating the ordinance/resolution and IGA in order to provide an incentive and demonstrate a political will to timely complete the necessary steps. 16. If initiated by petition, the only funding mechanism is the mill levy? Is there no obligation by any governmental unit to apply/dedicate other assets? The primary funding mechanism is the mill levy. The District may also receive specific ownership taxes, apply for grants etc. The statutes also provide that a “dedicated mill levy” of the establishing entity[ies] can be transferred to the library district. I have legal concerns about this process but it is provided for in the statutes. 17. If formed via a petition - is the County compelled to be the "governmental unit establishing the library district"? Does the city have the choice whether to participate or not? The petition is required to identify the governmental unit(s) establishing the library district. C.R.S.§ 24-90-107(3)(a). The Petition would be addressed to the BOCC, but the governmental units establishing the district would be limited to those named in the petition. The city could choose to participate if not named. 18. Can they provide more detail on how boundaries are established when formed by resolution/ordinance or petition? Who can participate in influencing those boundaries? Please see response to No. 4. The petition promoters or the establishing entities would participate in the process. They could allow for participation by anyone they choose. 19. It appears if there are multiple governmental units establishing the library district that most of the details are worked out through the IGA – can we have more details around this process, who typically participates in the negotiations, how long it has taken to come to agreement? This observation is correct. The negotiation of the IGA will essentially determine whether and how the district formation will go forward. The participating entities here will be the Library Commission, City Council and governing body of any other establishing entity. Once all of the issues that need to be addressed are determined, it has been relatively easy to obtain consensus in the past. We have always taken the lead in the process incorporating all of the establishing entities. This will be a 6-7month process. 20. We agree with Bob’s comment that we need to better understand TABOR implications and whether a district can “de-bruce” as the city has. TABOR applies to Districts in the same manner as the City. The proposed District may “De-Bruce” upon the passage of an election question authorizing same. We would likely draft the initial debt authorization question to include the language to “De-Bruce.” Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report 21.In II.B.2. it states that “…some control and mutual benefits can be determined and fixed in the IGA.” Are there examples of cases where control over mutual financial benefits are shared? We are not certain what “mutual financial benefits” might mean; however, several of our libraries obtained their own mill levy which then reduced the burden on the city/county budget. In addition, some districts pay the city/county for services like janitorial, building maintenance, personnel, accounting, procurement etc. Each of these arrangements was negotiated with knowledge of the cost of obtaining the services from other sources and was deemed beneficial to all parties. Some of these arrangements were temporary and in others they have endured for 15-20 years, so far. 22.Do you have sample copies of any of the IGAs mentioned in the memo that you could share with us? Yes. We will bring copies with us to the meeting on the 18th and can walk through them with you if there is no objection from the clients involved. 23.I.A.1.b. refers to 24-90-109(2)(a) and I couldn’t find a (2)(a) in that section of CRS. The correct citation is C.R.S. § 24-90-108(2)(a). 24.I.A.2. refers to 24-90-104(6) and I couldn’t find a (6) in that section of CRS. The correct citation is C.R.S. § 24-90-103(6). Attachment C - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report KIM J. SETER BARBARA T. VANDER WALL JEFFREY E. ERB ELIZABETH A. DAUER COLIN B. MIELKE RUSSELL NEWTON CAMERON J. RICHARDS {00374294} 7400 E. ORCHARD ROAD • SUITE 3300 • GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 • 303-770-2700 • FAX: 303-770-2701 www.svwpc.com • e-mail: svw@svwpc.com MEMORANDUM TO: David Farnan, City of Boulder Library Commission, City of Boulder City Council FROM: Seter & Vander Wall, P.C.; Kim J. Seter, Esq. and Elizabeth A. Dauer, Esq. DATE: November 29, 2018 RE: Library District Formation- Ordinance/Resolution v. Petition Library Districts may be formed by resolution or ordinance (“resolution”), or through a petition and election process. The following chart compares the processes. We have also provided brief “case studies” of our experience forming the Poudre River Public Library District and the Berthoud Library District. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION PETITION •Resolution is considered and adopted by each establishing entity. The District is established when the Resolution is adopted. •The Resolution must describe the district’s legal service area (“boundaries”) and provide for electors to approve the proposed mill levy. •100 eligible electors residing in the proposed library district service area may submit a petition addressed to the county commissioners to form a District. •The petition must include a request for establishment, name of the district, the governmental units involved (“establishing entities”) and contain a description of the boundaries and proposed mill levy. •Upon receipt of the Petition, the establishing entities may adopt a Resolution establishing the District (See, column to the left) or submit the question of establishment to a vote. •Does not require an election to form the entity, only a TABOR election for the mill levy, •The establishing entities may require an election to form the District and a TABOR election. 4236 Attachment D - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation David Farnan, City of Boulder Library Commission, City of Boulder City Council Re: Library District Formation – Ordinance/Resolution v. Petition November 29, 2018 Page 2 of 4 {00374294} debt/spending authorizations. •Upon establishment, establishing entities appoint first board of trustees (5-7). •Upon establishment, establishing entities appoint first board of trustees (5-7). •Written IGA between establishing entities entered into 90 days after trustee selection (may be extended through agreement). •Written IGA between establishing entities entered into 90 days after trustee selection (may be extended through agreement). •The IGA describes the terms to transition of library services to the district including transfers of real estate, library employees, administrative, maintenance, procurement, insurance, employee benefits interim funding; future trustee selection methods; and interim funding, if any. •The IGA describes the terms to transition library services to the district including transfers of real estate, library employees, administrative, maintenance, procurement, insurance, employee benefits interim funding; future trustee selection methods; and interim funding, if any. 4337 Attachment D - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation David Farnan, City of Boulder Library Commission, City of Boulder City Council Re: Library District Formation – Ordinance/Resolution v. Petition November 29, 2018 Page 3 of 4 {00374294} POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY Poudre River Regional Public Library District was originally a municipal library. A petitioner’s committee was formed to promote a district to increase funding and services by spreading the cost over the entire user base, extending far outside the city. The committee worked with library user data, library service need information, voter data and demographic data to develop a proposed district boundary. The city and the county commissioners were approached at the same time with a request to form the district by resolution to simplify the campaign and election process. The city and county chose to establish the district by resolution with a condition that it would be dissolved if it did not obtain funding from the voters by a specified date. An interim intergovernmental agreement was entered into with the city to ensure that representations to the voters in a mill levy campaign as to the future of the library facilities was accurate. The mill levy was approved by the voters within the proposed district which was much larger than the city boundaries. An intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) was entered into that included a process for transferring real and personal property to the library district along with employee rights and obligations, retirement funds, etc. The IGA provided for the district to purchase many services from the city including personnel, training, building and grounds maintenance, contracting, contract administration, procurement and accounting. Some these services have been taken over by the district but others continue to be provided by the city on an hourly or annual fee basis. The IGA remains in place for these services. The District has remodeled and expanded its facility in Library Park in downtown Ft. Collins, added to its collections and services, purchased and remodeled an administration building, entered into an agreement with Front Range Community College for a shared library facility and constructed a new library on the south end of the city. It is engaged in a facilities study to determine a fourth branch location to be constructed in the next two years. 4438 Attachment D - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation David Farnan, City of Boulder Library Commission, City of Boulder City Council Re: Library District Formation – Ordinance/Resolution v. Petition November 29, 2018 Page 4 of 4 {00374294} BERTHOUD PUBLIC LIBRARY Berthoud was formed through a petition process utilizing the city boundary as the district boundary. The formation and the mill levy questions were asked at the same election. After some confusion it was determined that the district formation had been approved but mill funding had failed. The library district successfully sought funding at a subsequent election. The city continued to fund and operate the municipal library until district revenues were realized from the new mill levy. There may have been some repayment to the city thereafter, but I do not recall. A simple IGA was utilized to transfer the single library building and assets to the library district, and it then began operations on its own. The city council continues to ratify appointments to the library district board. JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBRARY We have been asked to comment on the failed attempt to form a library district for Jefferson county. This comment is solely from our perspective. We are not aware of the discussions that may have taken place outside meetings in which we were involved. The county library board of trustees requested the formation of the district by resolution. The County already had a mill levy dedicated to the library. I believe it is approximately 3.5 mills. However, the election question that approved the dedicated levy said the county could use “up to” 3.5 mills solely for library purposes. Accordingly, the dedicated levy was part of the aggregate county levy and part of its TABOR calculation for levy and revenue limitations. The expectation was that the dedicated levy would support the library district until it obtained its own levy at which time it would lapse or continue to be paid to the district. In either event, it was solely available to the county for library purposes. Library Trustees believed the library portion of the county levy was utilized by the county as the variable to adjust for TABOR limitations. The ability to utilize the library levy in this way became an issue in the formation of the district and appeared to be the greatest concern about the formation of a district. There was no effort to form the library district through the petition process and the county commissioners declined to approve a formation resolution. 4539 Attachment D - Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation To: Mayor and Members of Council City Manager From: Boulder Public Library Commission Date: November 14, 2018 Our thanks to Council members and the City Manager for your continued support of the library. From our conversations with each of you we know that you recognize the library’s value as an essential community institution, and that you sincerely want to solve the library’s funding problem. You have the dubious honor to be the third City Council briefed on the library’s ongoing financial needs and available funding options. In two previous study sessions, one in 1997 and another in 2010, Council dutifully reviewed similar findings, heard from this Commission, and took no action. We are hopeful that this time the community will see a different result. After 25 years of benign neglect, you have the opportunity to make a lasting impact by finally putting the library on a path to long term financial sustainability. A. Comments and questions about the data and analysis presented in the November 9, 2018 version of the “Financial Analysis memo and presentation for the November 27, 2018 City Council Study Session.”1 There are four key questions to address in finding a long-term sustainable funding solution for our library: 1.What does it cost to run the library? 2.What options are available to fund those costs? 3.What are the relative impacts to taxpayers under different funding scenarios? 4.What are the relative impacts and benefits to the library and the city’s budget under different funding scenarios? We appreciate the work GK Baum has done in developing the background data and analysis for this memo. However, we note that the scenarios and tables presented in the memo do not present commensurate comparisons of either base costs or impacts to taxpayers. The true cost of running the library system is the sum of three components: Costs to deliver programs and services. The recently adopted master plan establishes a framework to determine the costs of program and service delivery over the next five years. Administrative costs necessary to operate the library system. This category includes communications/marketing; legal services; finance’ risk 1 reviewed by the Library Commission at a special meeting on November 14, 2018. 4640 Attachment E - Library Commission Memo to City Council Re Financial Analysis 2 management/insurance; payroll administration; human resources; staff support to Commission & Council; IT; and ongoing facilities maintenance. The memo titles this category as “cost allocation” and assigns a cost of $3.3 8 million to this category (based on the 2019 budget). Costs to address the substantial backlog of deferred maintenance in library facilities. Funding for the facilities backlog is represented as an annual cost in the model, with large repairs and small capital projects spread out over 15 years. The model includes $3.9 million in backlog for the next five years (based on a list identified by FAM during the course of the master plan), allocated as $778, 000 annually between 2020-2024. There are additional costs in facilities backlog in subsequent years ranging from $200,000 in 2020 to $1.3 million in 2023. Beginning in 2026, the model assumes an average annual cost of around $600,00 to address the backlog. The library's portion of deferred maintenance is 25% of the City's total, as reported by FAM. The “municipal governance” scenarios do not reflect the “true cost” of running the library because they exclude administrative costs (i.e. the $3.38 million in “cost allocation” noted in Table 2). Administrative costs ARE included in the “district governance” scenarios, a fact that is not disclosed in the memo. Removing administrative costs from the municipal scenarios understates the dollars needed by the city to run the library and is equal to about one mill of property tax. The rationale offered in the memo is that administrative costs would continue to be paid by the city’s general fund. But these are actual costs of running a library--whether they are currently distributed across property taxes, or sales taxes, or fees doesn’t matter: taxpayers pay them. For an equivalent comparison, the true costs of running the library should be the same in all scenarios 2. In addition, when addressing impacts to taxpayers, “municipal governance” scenarios #4 & #5 exclude the current dedicated .333 mill levy collected for library services (or assume that it continues)3. Again, an equivalent comparison of impacts to taxpayers should include all property taxes paid and not just new assessments. These problems are most clearly seen by comparing Municipal Scenario 4 / Table 5 and District Scenario 1 / Table 6. These scenarios should be identical: both address fully funding the library through dedicated property taxes assessed only against City of Boulder taxpayers. In both scenarios the taxing boundaries are identical. By failing to include administrative costs and the current .333 mill, Table 5 substantially understates both revenues needed and taxpayer impact. B. Library Commission Recommendations to Council As stated in our forward to the 2018 Library Master Plan, th is Commission believes that the community is best served by funding the library through dedicated property tax 2 Moreover, the question of whether to fund administrative costs through the general fund or through cost allocation from a dedicated fund is a policy decision for Council. 3 Please reference Table 4 on Page 8 of the memo. 4741 Attachment E - Library Commission Memo to City Council Re Financial Analysis 3 assessed within taxing boundaries that provide a better alignment between the library’s user base and its funding base. A majority of libraries in the state of Colorado have achieved this more equitable approach to funding by forming library districts . The Library Commission believes that this offers the most sustainable approach for long term library funding. From an equitable perspective, we would never recommend that city of Boulder residents alone bear the cost of running the library in a district. Fully 1/3rd of active Boulder library users reside outside of city limits. Relative impacts to city of Boulder residents alone versus taxpayers in a broader district can be clearly seen by comparing Table 6 and Table 8. A district is also advantageous for people outside the City limits because it offers them the opportunity of direct representation and accountability. Expanding the library’s funding base also allows the library to better serve all of its patrons. Taxes assessed solely within the city of Boulder at the level of “Maintain Service” [see Table 6, line 1, column 1] would o nly yield funds sufficient to maintain the status quo. This means no operating costs for the new North Bo ulder branch, nor equalizing library hours, nor opening a corner library in Gunbarrel. In a district based on the “expanded boundary” (scenario 3 on page 11) the library could achieve the Master Plan’s “service expansion” goals at a cost of 0.2 mills less per household for Boulder taxpayers, and still have dollars in hand to address the increased service demands associated with a broader population base. Funding the master plan at the vision/expansion level will cost City of Boulder residents roughly 20% more per household than a district model which matches the user base and funding base. It’s simple math: if you broaden the funding base from approximately 65% of library users to 90% of library users you decrease the price that individual homeowners pay. Finally, we would note that establishing a library district could provide some relief to our oversubscribed city budget, freeing up annual revenues cu rrently used for the library for other purposes--around $6.7 million in general fund revenues and approximately $1.7 million in property taxes (based on the 2019 budget). The library commission believes that the decision about how to best fund the library is ultimately up to the community. Six of the eight options before you require an election, so we anticipate a library funding election in 2019 or 2020. Polling is an essential step in planning for an election. We therefore request that council authorize the library to fund a poll aimed at gauging support for library funding, using monies from the library reserve to fund the effort. Thank you for your willingness to tackle this challenging issue - and for your support of our wonderful library system. 4842 Attachment E - Library Commission Memo to City Council Re Financial Analysis LIBRARY VALUE ESTIMATES Meadows, Main, Reynolds and Carnegie October 8, 2018 INTENDED USE OF THE APPRASAL The intended use of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject properties as part of an examination of the value of Library assets for planning purposes. METHODOLOGY The value of the library properties was estimated by adding together the estimated value of the library buildings and the estimated values of the parcel or parcels of land necessary to include all portions of the library building. Buildings The value of the buildings were adopted unchanged from City of Boulder records that indicate the value of city buildings for insurance purposes. Land Land values were estimated using known comparable sales and Boulder County Assessor records. Definition of market value Market value is the most probable price which a property should sell for in an open market under fair sale conditions where the buyer and the seller act prudently with knowledge and neither has an undue stimulus to complete the transaction. Data Sources The sources for the data relied on in this report are: City of Boulder View Reports, City of Boulder Laserfiche records, building insurance values reported in FAM’s Excel table, Boulder County Assessor’s Office, Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Multiple Listing Service and recently reviewed appraisal reports. MEADOWS LIBRARY Estimated Market Value = none The City does not own the 7,812 sq ft building or the land under it that is used as the Meadows Library. The Meadows Library has been leased to the city rent free since 1988. Below are snapshots of portions of the lease that negatively affect the marketability and value of the Meadows Library. In my opinion the terms of the lease prevent the Meadows Library from being used as anything other than a branch of the City Library. According to the lease terms, the lease is not assignable. Therefore, my value conclusion is the property has no market value unless the lease terms are revised. LEASE TERM The lease term is uncertain. How long will the Safeway or a comparable anchor tenant remain? 4943 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values PERMITTED USE The Permitted use is limited to a branch of the City’s public library. LEASE ASSIGNMENT The lease is not assignable. It would be assignable if the Landlord would agree but in my opinion that would not happen because the library is a large rentable space not bringing in rent in a shopping center where vacancy already challenges expected rent revenues. MAIN LIBRARY Estimated Market Value = $24,073,000 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the Main Library includes one building and two parcels of land: Building 1- the entire building on both sides of the creek Land 1- the parcel of land south of the creek that includes Building 1 Land 2- the parcel of land adjacent to the east of Land 1 that includes the plaza and the vehicle pick-up / drop-off lane on the east edge of the plaza. Note- additional parcels of land to the east that include the associated shared parking lot were not included. Note- no land north of the creek was included ZONING Public (surrounded by RMX-1) BUILDING VALUE Adopted value Building 1: $17,305,000 (88,672 sq ft @ $195/sq ft) LAND VALUE Estimated value Land 1: $5,046,400 (50,464 sq ft X $100 /sq ft Estimated value Land 2: $1,721,600 (17,216 sq ft X $100/ sq ft TOTAL $6,768,000 TOTAL VALUE = $24,073,000 5044 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values REYNOLDS LIBRARY Estimated Market Value = $3,383,200 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the Reynolds Library includes one building and one parcel of land. ZONING RM-2 Residential Medium Density 2 BUILDING VALUE Adopted value of the Building: $1,585,844 (10,371 sq ft @ $/153sq ft) LAND VALUE One parcel of land includes the entire building and the entire associated parking lot. Estimated value of the Land: $1,797,400 (47,300 sq ft X $38 /sq ft) TOTAL VALUE = $3,383,244 rounded to $3,383,200 CARNEGIE LIBRARY Estimated Market Value = $1,534,900 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the Carnegie Library includes one building and one parcel of land. ZONING RH-2 Residential High 2 BUILDING VALUE Adopted value of the building: $892,299 LAND VALUE One parcel of land included the building and 2 parking spaces off the alley. Estimated value of the Land: $642,620 (5,588 sq ft X $115/sq ft) TOTAL VALUE $1,534,919 rounded to $1,534,900 Building the entire building Land the parcel of land that includes the entire building and the 2 off-alley parking spaces Zoning RH-2 Residential High Density 2 DISCLOSURES The appraiser has not inspected the title to the properties. The appraiser has not inspected the buildings. The appraiser does not guarantee that the properties are free of defects or environmental problems. Hiring a professional building inspector is recommended. The appraiser provides an opinion of value. Unavailable information may confirm or change the appraiser’s opinion of value. 5145 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct, the analyses, opinions and conclusions are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. Sincerely, Doug Newcomb City Property Agent, Appraiser Real Estate Broker, Realtor Ofc 720-564-2033 Cell/Text 303-520-0565 Email: newcombd@bouldercolorado.gov ADDENDUM MEADOWS LIBRARY 5246 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values SHOWN IN YELLOW MAIN LIBRARY 5347 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values Reynolds Library 5448 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values CARNEGIE 5549 Attachment F - Library Assessed Property Values Attachment G – Library and Arts 2020 Approved Budget Library and Arts 2020 Budget Library and Arts 2020 Approved Budget $ 18,333,789 Minus Capital (primarily NoBo) $ (7,728,823) Operating Library & Arts $ 10,604,966 Minus Arts $ (1,494,845) 2020 Library Operating Budget $ 9,110,121 General Fund $ 7,549,216 Library Fund $ 1,560,905 Library Financial Analysis City of Boulder GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY | 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 800 | Denver, CO 80202 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Background Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer Library Financial Analysis Robyn Moore and Matthew Dempsey, George K. Baum & Company •Key assumptions •Cost estimates and funding scenarios •Tax impact analysis for sustainable library funding for each scenario and service level •Council questions and discussion District Formation and Governance David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney •Council questions and discussion Agenda 1 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation 2016 through 2017 Extensive public outreach to develop master plan goals June 6, 2018 Library Commission endorsed draft master plan July 24, 2018 City Council study session on draft master plan Aug. 16, 2018 Planning Board endorsed draft master plan Sept. 4, 2018 City Council accepted draft master plan Nov. 27, 2018 Obtain City Council direction on sustainable funding for the library •Library financial analysis and sustainable funding options •Information on library district governance and structure Background: Master Plan Process 2 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Maintain Service Levels (Fiscally-constrained) Primary goal: maintain service level and quality •Continue to make the most of existing resources •Essential operational changes that requires limited funding to accomplish Examples: •Reinstating the 2019 proposed staffing reductions •Adding staff, operating and maintenance budget to maintain current service levels •Funding for a Main Library north building renovation feasibility study and modest reconfigurations •Support funding of the facilities maintenance backlog Background: Master Plan Service Levels 3 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Meet Community Demand (Action) Primary goal: implement service or capital improvements when additional funding is available •Strategically enhance existing programs, begin new alternative programs •Address unaccomplished 2007 Library Master Plan vision plan goals •Initiate other strategic changes that require additional operating or capital funding Examples: •North Boulder branch library (NoBo) •Expand youth programs at all branches •Increase materials budget •Add staff for NoBo and system-wide to meet demand Background: Master Plan Service Levels 4 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Service Expansion (Vision) Primary goal: Service expansion by way of new programs, services and facilities •Expand services and implement new programs identified from community input that were not included in the 2007 Library Master Plan Examples: •Gunbarrel Corner Library •Add staff for Gunbarrel Corner Library and system-wide outreach programs •Canyon Theater activation pilot program Background: Master Plan Service Levels 5 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation September-October, 2018 2019 budget additions approved by Council: •$380,000 to meet “maintain service level” master plan goals •$5,000 to reinstate the library’s work study program •$126,000 for library programs and to support volunteer services (reallocated special events salary) George K. Baum & Company hired to conduct financial analysis in October 2018. Background: Analysis of Library Funding Needs 6 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Background: 2019 Total Library Costs 7 $8.9M Operating budget $800,000 Capital budget $380,000 Facilities (maintenance & capital) $3.4 M Cost Allocation 2019 Library Approved Budget (direct costs) $9.7 M 2019 Facilities Capital and Cost Allocation (indirect costs) $3.78 M 2019 Total Cost $13.4 M Figure 1. • • • • • • • • • Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library Financial Analysis Robyn Moore and Matthew Dempsey George K. Baum & Company 8 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •Compile all current operating and capital costs to determine total cost for running the library •Identify key assumptions for the analysis •Evaluate funding requirements for Master Plan Service Levels –Maintain Service Levels –Meet Community Demand –Service Expansion •Develop funding scenarios for a Municipal Library –Identify funding needs –Determine tax options and levels for each scenario •Develop funding scenarios for Library District service areas –Identify funding needs –Determine tax levels for each service area Financial Analysis: Purpose 9 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Key Assumptions Service Costs •Operating •Cost Allocation •Capital Outlay Grow th Rates and Fund Balance •Revenue and Expense Possible Library District Service Areas and Assessed Values Additional Library Materials Cost for Library District 10 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Operating includes personnel and non-personnel recurring costs •Personnel and non-personnel costs were inflated, separately •Recurring costs reflect the library service levels Cost Allocation •The analysis begins in 2019 •2018 estimates for cost allocation from the General Fund were used Key Assumptions: Service Costs 11 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Key Assumptions: Capital Outlay 12 Capital and Maintenance Backlog •$780,000 annually from 2020-2024 to account for $3.9M backlog •Typically allocated to Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Annual Capital and Maintenance Expenses •Average of $670,000 from 2019-2033 •Typically allocated to Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) North Boulder Branch Library •$5.0M of construction costs from 2019-2023 funded by Community, Culture, Safety Tax •$1.7M of development costs in 2020 funded by Development Excise Tax Major Library Renovations •$2.5M in 2024 •$5.0M in 2029 Materials Handling Machine Replacement •$1.3M in 2024 Gunbarrel Corner Library (Only in Master Plan Service Expansion) •$468,000 in 2024 Additional Corner Library (Only in Library District Expanded Boundary Scenario) •$486,000 in 2024 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Key Assumptions: Growth Rates and Fund Balance 13 Growth Rates Revenues Property Tax –Assessed Value •5.0% in tax years 2020 and 2022 (aligns with City’s budget model) •4.0% in reassessment years thereafter Sales & Use Tax –Taxable Sales •Aligned with City’s budget model from 2019-2024 (1.00% -1.75%) •2.0% annually after 2025 Expenses •Personnel:3.0% annually •Non-Personnel/Capital Outlay: 1.0% annually Fund Balance –Municipal Library aligned with city’s fund balance goal of 20% –Library District assumes 20% fund balance Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation City of Boulder •All properties within the City City of Boulder Planning Area (BVCP) •All properties within the City •Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area Expanded Boundary •This boundary most closely aligns the library’s patron base with a funding base •All properties within the City •Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area •Several voting precincts within Boulder County including portions of Niwot as well as the mountain communities west of the City Key Assumptions: Library District Service Areas 14 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Key Assumptions: Library District -Materials and Facilities Needs 15 Library Master Plan Goal Materials budget reaches $14 per capita over ten years If a Library District is formed with a larger service area, additional budget for library materials is required to meet this goal due to an increased population base •Costs grow each year from 2019-2024 until $14 per capita is achieved Additional Corner Library Facility in Expanded Boundary Scenario only •$486,000 one-time library construction cost in 2024 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Funding Requirements for Master Plan Service Levels and the Gap •Maintain Service Levels (Fiscally-constrained) •Meet Community Demand (Action) •Service Expansion (Vision) 16 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Municipal Library Scenarios: Total Budget Needs by Service Level 2020-2024 17 Notes: •Capital outlay = total one-time capital and ongoing facilities costs •2020-2021 includes capital outlay for North Boulder branch library $18.3M $21.0M $21.3M $15.5M $17.4M $18.2M $14.9M $16.8M $17.8M $15.9M $17.8M $18.6M $19.3M $21.4M $22.1M $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 Operating Expenses Capital Outlay Cost Allocation 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Figure 2. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Additional budget needs by service level to fund the gap between the 2019 budget and 2020 funding requirements. Note: •Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. Municipal Library Scenarios: 2020 Additional Budget Needs by Service Level 18 Service Level Maintain Service Levels Increase to Meet Community Demand Meet Community Demand Increase for Service Expansion Service Expansion Ongoing Operating Expenses $243,582 $1,468,477 $1,712,059 $125,000 $1,837,059 New Capital Outlay Identified in Master Plan $173,417 $1,321,030 $1,494,447 $102,010 $1,596,457 Facilities Backlog, Replacement and Soft Costs $1,043,717 -$1,043,717 -$1,043,717 Total Unfunded in 2020 $1,460,716 $2,789,507 $4,250,223 $227,010 $4,477,233 Table 1. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Additional budget needs and estimated tax rates by service level to fund the gap between base year 2019 compared to each year after 2020-2024. Municipal Library Scenarios: Funding the Gap 2020-2024 19 Notes: •Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. •Total in 2024 increase due to $2.5 major renovation. 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Maintain Service Levels Dollar Cost ($)$1,460,716 $1,857,862 $2,320,043 $3,275,954 $7,494,338 Property Tax (Mills)0.379 0.483 0.574 0.810 1.782 Sales Tax Rate (%)0.039%0.048%0.060%0.083%0.186% Meet Community Demand Dollar Cost ($)$4,250,223 $3,709,622 $4,242,952 $5,247,445 $9,515,777 Property Tax (Mills)1.104 0.963 1.049 1.298 2.263 Sales Tax Rate (%)0.113%0.097%0.109%0.132%0.236% Service Expansion Dollar Cost ($)$4,477,233 $4,575,950 $5,196,972 $5,970,808 $10,258,782 Property Tax (Mills)1.163 1.188 1.285 1.477 2.440 Sales Tax Rate (%)0.119%0.119%0.133%0.151%0.254% Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •The map and Assessed Valuations on the following two slides serve as a basis for the tax impact analysis. •Modifications to these service area boundaries could change the mill levy required for sustainable library funding. Key Assumptions: Library Service Areas 20 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library Service Areas Map 21 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library Service Area Assessed Values 22 (1)Assessed value estimated based on Boulder County Assessor data for properties within the boundaries of BVCP and the expanded area. City of Boulder Service Area BVCP Outside City Limits BVCP Service Area Outside BVCP Area Expanded Service Area Population 109,775 19,761 129,536 31,759 161,295 Residential Assessed Value $1,775,917,940 $400,194,382¹$2,176,112,322 $279,643,529¹$2,455,755,851 Non-Residential Assessed Value $1,891,116,139 $283,217,830¹$2,174,333,969 $58,460,454¹$2,232,794,423 Total Assessed Valuation $3,667,034,079 $683,412,212¹$4,350,446,291 $338,103,983¹$4,688,550,274 Revenue Generated by 1 mill $3,667,034 $683,412 $4,350,446 $338,104 $4,688,550 Revenue Generated by 0.10% Sales Tax $3,682,650 N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Municipal Library Scenarios •Funding options •Taxes needed for sustainable funding 23 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Municipal Library: Funding the Average Gap (2020-2024) 24 Notes: •All scenarios assume that Library Fund 0.333 mill levy is maintained. •Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. •Gap includes both operating and capital outlay expenses. Scenario Revenue Source Service Level Impact/IssuesMaintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion #1 No tax increase $3.3 million $5.4 million $6.1 million •$ must be reallocated from other General Fund services #2 Dedicated tax rate •Reallocated •New 0.806 Mills or 0.083% sales tax 1.336 Mills or 0.137% sales tax 1.511 Mills or 0.155% sales tax Reallocation from General Fund services: •$ amount and impacts same as Scenario #1 •Reduces General Fund’s revenue diversity Charter change required for Meet & Expansion levels Table 2. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Municipal Library: Additional New Taxes to Fund Direct Library Costs Only 25 Scenario Revenue Source Service Level Impact/IssuesMaintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion #3 Sales Tax Only (%)0.275%0.325%0.345%•Vote required #4 Property Tax Only (Mills)2.620 mills 3.150 mills 3.330 Mills •Vote required • Charter change required to increase the mill levy limit #5 Sales and Property Tax Combination Sales Tax (%)0.150%0.150%0.150% •Vote required • Charter change required to increase the mill levy limit Property Tax (Mills)1.160 mills 1.690 mills 1.860 mills Notes: •All scenarios assume that 0.333 mill Library Fund mill levy is maintained. •Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. •All scenarios assume a dedicated municipal library fund would have a 20% fund balance goal. Table 3. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Property tax increase for Scenario #4 on the prior slide. Municipal Library Scenario #4 -Increase for Property Owners 26 Service Levels Maintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion Property Tax (Mills)2.620 mills 3.150 mills 3.330 mills Residential Property Tax Increase Annual Property Tax on $850K Home ($)1 $160 $193 $204 Annual Property Tax on $1 million Home ($)1 $189 $227 $240 Commercial Property Tax Increase Annual Property Tax on $1 million market value $760 $914 $966 (1)Property tax increase excludes the Library Fund 0.333 mill levy. Note: •Scenarios do not include $3.38M cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. Table 4. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library District Service Area Scenarios •Funding options •Taxes needed for sustainable funding 27 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library District: Property Tax Rates by Service Area 28 (1)All scenarios assume that 0.333 mill Library Fund Mill Levy is not maintained. (2)Scenario #7 and #8 assumes additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. (3)Scenario #8 assumes additional corner library expenses of $486,000 in 2024. Notes: •If the Library District was required to purchase the library facilities, the mill levy would increase by approximately 0.60 mills in Scenario #6, 0.51 mills Scenario #7, and 0.47 mills in Scenario #8. •All scenarios include $3.45M cost allocation beginning in 2020. •All scenarios assume a 20% fund balance. Scenario Service Areas Service Level Maintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion #6 City of Boulder Boundary 3.850 mills¹4.380 mills¹4.560 mills¹ #7 BVCP Boundary2 3.290 mills¹3.730 mills¹3.880 mills¹ #8 Expanded Boundary2,3 3.110 mills¹3.520 mills¹3.660 mills¹ Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library District: Scenario #6 –Increase for Property Owners 29 Service Level Maintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion Property Tax (Mills)3.850 mills 4.380 mills 4.560 mills Residential Property Tax Increase Library Tax on $850K home ($)$236 $268 $279 Library Tax on $1 million home ($)$277 $315 $328 Commercial Property Tax Increase Annual Property Tax on $1 million market value $1,117 $1,270 $1,322 Note: •The 0.333 mill Library Fund property tax levy is not maintained. City of Boulder Boundaries Only Table 5. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library District: Scenario #7 –Increase for Property Owners 30 Service Levels Maintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion Property Tax (Mills)3.290 mills 3.730 mills 3.880 mills Residential Property Tax Increase Library Tax on $850K home ($)$201 $228 $237 Library Tax on $1 million home ($)$237 $269 $279 Commercial Property Tax Increase Annual Property Tax on $1 million market value $954 $1,082 $1,125 Notes: •The 0.333 mill Library Fund property tax levy is not maintained. •Includes additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. BVCP Boundary Table 6. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Library District: Scenario #8 –Increase for Property Owners 31 Service Level Maintain Service Levels Meet Community Demand Service Expansion Property Tax (Mills)3.110 mills 3.520 mills 3.660 mills Residential Property Tax Increase Library Tax on $850K Home ($)$190 $215 $224 Library Tax on $1 million Home ($)$224 $253 $264 Commercial Property Tax Increase Annual Property Tax on $1 million market value $902 $1,021 $1,061 Notes: •The 0.333 mill Library Fund property tax levy is not maintained. •Includes capital and operating expenses for an additional corner library. •Includes additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. Expanded Boundary Based on Patron Use Table 7. Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •If a Library District is formed, the City may gain funding capacity from library direct costs. •The following estimates are based on the 2019 library budget: Library District: Possible City Funding Capacity Gained 32 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5-year Total Operating Budget $8.90M $9.10M $9.31M $9.53M $9.75M $46.59M Facilities Capital $0.38M $0.39M $0.40M $0.41M $0.42M $1.99M Total $9.28M $9.49M $9.71M $9.94M $10.16M $48.58M 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 10-year Total Operating Budget $9.97M $10.20M $10.44M $10.68M $10.92M $98.80M Facilities Capital $0.43M $0.44M $0.45M $0.46M $0.47M $4.22M Total $10.40M $10.64M $10.88M $11.13M $11.39M $103.02M Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation End of Financial Analysis Does council have questions about the financial analysis and scenarios? 33 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation District Formation and Governance David Gehr City of Boulder 34 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation Establishing a Library District Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •The establishing entities determine the appropriate boundaries •Public hearing and 90 days written notice of the proposed establishment to other “governmental units” •The resolution or ordinance must describe: •The district’s legal service area •Identify and provide that the electors must approve the proposed mill levy •The establishing entities appoint the first board of trustees (5 or 7 members) to the library district Establishing the District by Resolution/OrdinanceAttachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •Within 90 days (or as may otherwise be agreed upon by parties) enter into an intergovernmental agreement •Establish a deadline to obtain funding by the TABOR Amendment •Provide terms to transition library services from the establishing entities to the district •Any conveyance by donation or sale of real and personal property used to provide library services •The transition of library employees from the establishing entity to the library district •Interim funding, if any •Administrative, maintenance, personnel, procurement, insurance, employee benefits etc. through contract with an establishing entity •Establishing procedures for future library trustee selection •Generally providing for a mutually beneficial relationship or separation •If the district does not obtain funding the IGA may require it to dissolve Adoption of the Resolution/OrdinanceAttachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •One hundred electors residing in the proposed library district “service area” can trigger an election to form a district by petition •The petition is addressed to the County Commissioners and must be filed at least 90 days before a TABOR election •The petition must comply with C.R.S.§24-90-107(3)(a), including a request for establishment of the district, name of the district, the governmental units involved and contain a description of the “service area” and proposed mill levy •A bond must be filed to pay election expenses in the event the election is unsuccessful unless waived by the county •Once in receipt of the petition, the establishing entities must: •pass a resolution or ordinance establishing the district or •submit the question of establishment to a vote. •After a successful election, library trustees must be appointed and an IGA is to be negotiated to address the matters discussed in above •A TABOR election will be required to establish the mill levy Establishing the District by Petition of Registered ElectorsAttachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation End of Formation & Governance Does council have questions about the formation and governance section? 39 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation •Which of the increased levels of funding outlined in the master plan does council support (Maintain service levels, Meet community demand, Service expansion/vision)? •Does council want staff to conduct public polling to determine the community’s interest in increasing library funding and support? •If council prefers the library remain a municipal library: –Do council members wish to pursue a specific financing option(s)? –Should staff move forward with preparing a proposed 2019 ballot question to increase City of Boulder sales tax and/or property tax to generate revenue to fund a municipal library? •If council prefers the library district as an option: –Does council desire to schedule a meeting with Boulder County Commissioners to further discuss creation of a district and Intergovernmental Agreement? –Should the boundaries of the library district include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) only, or the expanded boundary that includes the City of Boulder, the BVCP area and Niwot/portions west of the city? –Should staff draft proposed 2019 ballot question language for the purpose creating a library district? Additional Council Questions 40 Attachment 8: Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session Attachment H - Library Financial Analysis Presentation STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney Janet Michels, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Kara Skinner, Assistant Director of Finance Hannah Combs, Senior Budget Analyst Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Advisor Date: November 27, 2018 Subject: Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up, Regarding Financing Options for Long Term Sustainable Library Funding EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the July 24, 2018 city council study session, staff presented an overview of the draft Boulder Public Library Master Plan including a summary of community input and master plan goals. The Library Commission’s conclusions and recommendations about the master plan and library funding were also presented. Council provided direction that staff should move forward with hiring a consultant to perform a balanced and impartial analysis of all funding needs and options for funding each service level outlined in the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan. An in-depth financial analysis of all options was conducted by the George K. Baum & Company (GKB). GKB was selected via a competitive process in accordance to the city’s procurement policy. This memo includes a description of the financial analysis and key outcomes. Council also requested information on governance, process, structure, and asset allocation related to the formation of a library district. A legal analysis was conducted to determine the governance issues required under Colorado law for creating and operating a library district. Library districts have their own section of Colorado law - Colorado Library Law, C.R.S. § 24- 90-101, et seq. The law firm of Seter and Vander Wall, P.C. provided valuable input regarding the process required to form and operate an independent library district in Colorado. They also provided information on governance and how library assets may be handled. This memo also includes an overview of governance issues following the financial analysis section. 11 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION 1. Does council have questions about the financial analysis and scenarios? 2. Which of the increased levels of funding outlined in the master plan does council support (Maintain service levels, Meet community demand, Service expansion/vision)? 3. Does council want staff to conduct public polling to determine the community’s interest in increasing library funding and support? 4.If council prefers the library remain a municipal library: Do council members wish to pursue a specific financing option(s)? Should staff move forward with preparing a proposed 2019 ballot question to increase City of Boulder sales tax and/or property tax to generate revenue to fund a municipal library? 5. If council prefers the library district as an option: Does council desire to schedule a meeting with Boulder County Commissioners to further discuss creation of a district and Intergovernmental Agreement? Should the boundaries of the library district include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) only, or the expanded boundary that includes the City of Boulder, the BVCP area and Niwot/portions west of the city? Should staff draft proposed 2019 ballot question language for the purpose creating a library district? BACKGROUND The library master plan outlines three proposed service levels: maintain service levels, meet community demand, and service expansion/vision. A priority issue identified in the master plan is the need to develop stable ongoing revenues to fund programs and services. As with most master plans, in-depth financial analysis is not the focus. Since the master plan highlighted funding needs, staff recommended, and council agreed to hire an independent outside consultant to complete this in-depth financial study. This analysis also supplements and expands on the city’s initial financial analysis conducted for the April 12, 2018 information packet item. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The first step in the financial analysis was to map the long-term operating costs at the three master plan service levels. Several assumptions were used to inform the analysis which are included in Attachment 1. 22 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo The analysis includes two different financial components: the library budget, which includes operating and capital direct costs, and the indirect costs associated with supporting library operations (referred to as cost allocation). Cost allocation are costs for internal services provided to the library from the General Fund including IT, finance, HR, communications, building repair and renovation. See Figure 1 below for the total 2019 library costs at Maintain Service Levels. Figure 1. 2019 Maintain Service Levels Total Library Costs Once operating costs were established and projected through 2024, the analysis identified options for funding. These options included two governance categories: one in which the library remains a municipal library and one in which the library is a district. Five funding options or scenarios were created for a municipal library and three funding scenarios for a library district. The final step of the analysis was to quantify impacts of and issues related to implementing each scenario. Long-Term Costs GKB worked with city staff to identify total operating, capital, and cost allocation based on current costs, and projections of future needs. The financial model developed by GKB then layered master plan costs onto these base costs to show total anticipated costs. The resulting costs are higher than those identified in the master plan due to complete accounting for ongoing staff position costs and addressing the facilities maintenance backlog. The model also assumed 33 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo cost inflation that reflects assumptions used in the city’s fund financials. See figure 2 below for five-year projections of the library’s total budget needs by service level. Figure 2. Total Budget Needs by Service Level 2020-2024 Notes: •Capital outlay = total one-time capital and ongoing facilities costs. •2020-2021 includes capital outlay for North Boulder branch library One of the challenges of comparing costs of a municipal library and a library district is when a municipal library is included as a part of the city’s general fund budget. In this scenario, the library does not pay cost allocation charges (e.g. overhead costs such as finance, HR, IT, communications, building repair and renovation costs, etc.). To insure a fair comparison in the financial analysis, cost allocation charges were included in the comparison data used to analyze the full cost of a municipal library compared to the full cost of a library district. The library’s 2019 approved budget funds the library at the Maintain Service Level of the master plan and indirect costs (cost allocation) associated with library operations are funded by the General Fund (See Figure 1). The total cost to fund the library in 2020 and beyond increases annually due to additional ongoing operating and capital expenses identified in the master plan. See Table 1 below for unfunded operating, capital, and facilities costs projected for 2020 by master plan service level. 44 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Table 1. 2020 Additional Budget Needs by Service Level Note: Cost allocation $3.38 M (2019) not included. It is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. Municipal Funding Options and Impacts Scenario #1 – No Tax Increase This option proposes to fund library needs through reallocation of current, non-dedicated city revenues. This would result in the reducing the budgets of other general fund city services, such as Fire, Police, Human Services, and all support services. The changes would be accomplished through the annual budget process and would not require voter approval. The actual impact on current programs is unknown until budget trade-offs are identified and accepted. Table 2 below provides cost averages of five-year projections by master plan service level. These are the amounts of funding needed to cover the difference between the 2019 approved library budget and the average costs projected for 2020 through 2024 (referred to as the gap). Scenario #2 – Dedicate tax rate (new or reallocated from the General Fund) This option proposes to fund the library increases through a tax increase, either reallocating a current city tax and dedicating it to the library or increasing the tax rate dedicated to the library. Depending on the amount of ongoing funds required from the General Fund, reducing the city’s budgets in the General Fund may be required. Voter approval is required for new taxes. For increased property tax, a voter approved change to the city charter is necessary for a mill increase greater than 1.01 mill. The current maximum property tax mill limit used for operating costs is 13 mills. The current city property tax mill rate is 11.981 mills. Table 2 below provides the property tax mill levy increase or percentage of sales tax needed to fund the cost averages provided in scenario #2. These are the amounts of funding needed to cover the difference between the 2019 approved library budget and the average costs projected for 2020 through 2024 (referred to as the gap). 55 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Table 2. Municipal Library: Funding the Average Gap (2020-2024 Summary) Notes: All scenarios assume that Library Fund 0.333 mill levy is maintained. Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. Gap includes both operating and capital outlay expenses. Scenario #3 – Sales tax funding only This option increases sales tax and dedicates it to fund total library direct costs. The current city sales tax rate is 3.86%. Table 3 below shows the rates needed to fund the total direct costs of each service level (not the gap). Scenario #4 – Property tax funding only This option increases property tax and dedicates it to fund total library direct costs. The Charter of the City of Boulder, Colorado, section 94 caps the total property tax mill levy at a maximum of 13 mills, and the city’s mill levy is currently 11.981 mills. The difference between the total city mill levy and the maximum allowed in the charter is 1.019 mills. If council chooses to dedicate the mill levy increase to the library, charter, section 134 would need to be amended. Table 3 below shows the rates needed to fund the total direct costs of each master plan service level (not the gap). Scenario #5 – Sales and property tax combination 66 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo This option proposes a combination of property tax and sales tax increases to fund total library direct costs. Both tax increases would require voter approval. Whether a charter change would be required depends on the proposed property tax increase. Table 3 below shows the tax rates needed to fund the total direct costs of each master plan service level (not the gap). Table 4 shows the impact of increased property tax rate for property owners. Table 3. Municipal Library: Additional New Taxes to Fund Total Direct Library Costs Only Notes: All scenarios assume that 0.333 mill Library Fund Mill Levy is maintained. Scenarios do not include $3.38 million cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. All scenarios assume a dedicated municipal library fund would have a 20% fund balance goal. 77 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Table 4: Municipal Library Scenario #4 – Impact on Property Owners (1) Property tax impacts exclude the Library Fund 0.333 mill levy. Note: Scenarios do not include $3.38M cost allocation (2019); it is assumed to be covered by the General Fund. District Funding Options and Impacts There are three funding options for a library district, based on the library service areas with defined geographic boundaries that were selected to evaluate potential tax revenues that could be generated by the City of Boulder or a library district to fund library operating and capital needs. A map of these service areas is Attachment 2. The service area for scenarios #7 and #8 are hypothetical boundaries for the purposes of the analysis. If there is interest in pursuing the formation of an independent library district, the actual geographic service area boundaries of a library district are determined by the establishing governmental entities, i.e. Boulder City Council and Boulder County Board of County Commissioners, or in the citizen-initiated petition. A final library district boundary must be aligned with voting precinct boundaries for election purposes. Administrative overhead costs (cost allocation in the municipal scenarios) will be an expense for a library district. GKB benchmarked administrative overhead costs of five Colorado library districts against the city’s 2018 cost allocation estimate for the library. The library district administrative overhead costs were 2 to 3 percent higher than the city’s cost allocation estimate. 88 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Library District Assumptions All library district scenarios assume: The 0.333 mill Library Fund property tax levy is not maintained. $3.45M administrative overhead costs beginning in 2020. Twenty percent fund balance goal. If the Library District is required to purchase the library facilities, the mill levy would increase by approximately 0.60 mills. Scenario #7 and #8 assume additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. Scenario #8 assumes additional corner library expenses of $486,000 in 2024. mills in Scenario #6, 0.51 mills Scenario #7, and 0.47 mills in Scenario #8. Scenario #6 - Service Area: City of Boulder Boundary The boundaries of the district would be the same as the city’s boundaries. The tax impacts of this scenario are summarized in the table 5 below. Table 5: Library District Scenario #6 - Impact on Property Owners City of Boulder Boundary service area Note: The 0.333 mill Library Fund property tax levy is not maintained. 99 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Scenario #7 - Service Area: City of Boulder Planning Area (Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Boundaries) In this scenario the legal boundaries of the district would be the same as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan area. It includes parts of the Gunbarrel community that are in unincorporated Boulder County. If a library district is formed using this area, the final boundary must be adjusted to include complete voting precinct areas therein. The tax impacts of this scenario are summarized in the table 6 below. Table 6: Library District Scenario #7 – Impact on Property Owners BVCP Boundary service area Note: Includes additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. 1010 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Scenario #8 - Service Area: Expanded boundary to align library patrons with funding base Scenario 3 is the largest service area that does not impinge upon the service area of any other governmental entity (municipal or district library). Approximately ninety percent of the Boulder Public Library patron base is represented within this boundary. It includes the City of Boulder, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area, and several voting precinct areas in Boulder County. The tax impacts of this scenario are summarized in the table 7 below. Table 7: Library District Scenario #8 - Impact on Property Owners Expanded Boundary service area Note: Includes capital and operating expenses for an additional corner library. Includes additional library materials costs of $14 per capita. INFORMATION ABOUT POLLING Staff has contact information for several national polling firms that poll the public on local ballot issues. Staff could draft a Request for Proposal, solicit bids and work with the selected firm to develop a poll. Staff anticipates that the firm could conduct the poll early in 2019. Staff would work with the firm to identify a recommended sample size, anticipating at least a 500-voter sample survey. This sample size would enable the analysis of standard demographics, including age, gender, income, education, etc. The estimated costs for developing and conducting a poll of 500 voters is between $20,000 to $25,000. The poll could be paid for using the Library Fund. LIBRARY DISTRICT GOVERNANCE 1111 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Overview A library district may be formed by resolution or ordinance by one or more existing governmental entities (“establishing entities”), or by initiative of citizens through a petition and election process. A library district is an autonomous government and subdivision of the state and is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the establishing entities. After appointment of the Board of Trustees, the establishing entities and trustees must enter into an intergovernmental agreement describing their rights, obligations, and responsibilities to one another (IGA). The Board of Trustees may adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations for its own guidance and policies for the governance of the library as it deems expedient. Library District is an Independent Single Purpose Government A library district is a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State and not a branch, department or service of the establishing entities. It obtains its own financial support through an ad valorem property tax levy authorized and approved in a TABOR Election. The taxes are collected on property with the library’s legal service area. Operational Governance The powers, duties and responsibilities of library district governing boards and their relationship to city and county governments is set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The establishing entities select the first Board of Trustees once the library district is established. Succeeding trustees are appointed by the establishing entities following procedure established by the Colorado Library Law and the IGA. The Board of Trustees is the sole, autonomous legislative body of the district, with the establishing entities retaining the power to appoint. Trustees are not in elected positions. A district board of trustees will receive property tax revenues and spend the resulting revenues to further library purposes. The establishing entities may not place restrictions on the library’s use of funds, so long as the funds are being used legally and in the interest of the library. However, the establishing entities can ensure the continuation of services that an existing library may provide when it is merged into the district through the IGA. The IGA can be used to allow intergovernmental cooperation to perform functions that each unit is authorized to provide. Library districts have power and authority to conduct its business in a manner consistent with other limited power districts, including legislative powers, acquisition, acceptance and disposal of property, employment, budget and tax collection and the ability to enter in to contracts. Table 9. Comparison of Governance, Funding, and Boundaries for a Municipal vs. a Library District 1212 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo MUNICIPAL LIBRARY LIBRARY DISTRICT Establishing entity City Council City Council and County Commission Governing entity City Council Board of Trustees Library board appointment* Members appointed by City Council to serve on advisory commission Members appointed by establishing entities to serve on a Board of Trustees Funding mechanism See municipal options 1 - 5 above See district service area options 1 - 3 above Boundary City of Boulder Service area identified by establishing entities *State law prohibits ex officio status on the library board by a council member. There is nothing in the Colorado library law that prohibits a council member from being appointed to the library board in the same manner as any other resident of the library district. OPTIONS FOR FORMING A LIBRARY DISTRICT A Library District A library district can be formed by resolution or ordinance of one or more existing governments (i.e., the city, the county, or both) (the “establishing entities”); or, by initiative of citizens through a petition process. Establishing the District by Resolution/Ordinance. If a district is a desirable outcome, establishing the library district by resolution or ordinance allows greater control of the process by the establishing entities. This allows the establishing entities determine the appropriate boundaries of the district. To initiate the process, public hearings are held by the establishing entities after published notice to discuss the purpose of the district, its powers; and the financial and other obligations of the establishing entities, if any. The entity that wishes to propose a district is required to give 90 days’ written notice of the proposed establishment to other “governmental units” that maintain a public library so that they may determine whether to participate in the district. Governmental entities that intend to establish a library district are required to adopt a resolution or ordinance that describes the district’s legal service area and provides that the electors must approve the proposed mill levy. The library district is established upon adoption of the resolution or ordinance. The ordinance or resolution establishes that the establishing entities appoint the first board of trustees (5 or 7 members) to the library district. Within 90 days after appointment of the trustees, the establishing entities and trustees must enter into an intergovernmental 1313 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo agreement describing their rights, obligations, and responsibilities to one another, if any (“IGA”). The IGA can be used to: 1.Establish a deadline for the district to obtain funding from its electors at an election authorized by the TABOR Amendment (i.e., at the November 2019 election); 2.Provide terms to transition library services from the establishing entities to the district including: a.Any conveyance by donation, lease or sale of real and personal property used to provide library services; b.The transition of library employees from the establishing entity to the library district addressing earned leave, benefits, retirement funds, etc.; c.Interim funding, if any, for the existing libraries and the district; d.Whether the district will temporarily or permanently purchase or otherwise acquire administrative, maintenance, personnel, procurement, insurance, employee benefits etc. through contract with establishing entities; e.Establishing procedures for future library trustee selection and appointment within the confines established by the Library Law; and, f.Generally providing for a mutually beneficial relationship or separation as the parties’ desire. 3.If the district does not obtain funding within the time allowed, the IGA may require the district to dissolve leaving the municipal library to continue operations. Establishing the District by Petition of Registered Electors. One hundred electors residing in the proposed library district “service area” can trigger an election to form a district by petition. The petition is required to be addressed to the county commissioners of each county proposed to be included in the district and must be filed at least 90 days before a TABOR election. The petition is required to have all the following elements: a.The petition must comply with C.R.S.§ 24-90-107(3)(a), including a request for establishment of the district, name of the district, the governmental units involved and contain a description of the “service area” and proposed mill levy. b.A bond must be filed to pay election expenses in the event the election is unsuccessful unless waived by the county. 1414 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo c. Once in receipt of the petition, the establishing entities must pass a resolution or ordinance establishing the district or submit the question of establishment to a vote. Either way, a TABOR election will be required to establish the mill levy. d. After a successful election, library trustees must be appointed, and an Intergovernmental Agreement is to be negotiated to address the same matters discussed for a library district that is formed pursuant to an ordinance or resolution. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) In any library district scenario, the City Council and the Boulder County Commission would negotiate the terms of an IGA with the library district. The IGA defines several aspects of the district structure and operations including: Library district board appointment and its powers, duties and responsibilities. Allocation of monetary and capital assets Transfer of municipal employees to the district Transitional funding and internal service provision Internal services (if any) provided by contract from the city Governance concerns and operational parameters should be established in the IGA at the time the library district’s first board of trustees is appointed and prior to the district obtaining its own mill levy funding. The district is required to file an annual report with the establishing governmental entities and the Colorado State Library. Summary of Library Assets and Options for Transfer to a Library District The community’s library building and property assets include the Main Library, the George Reynolds Branch Library, the Carnegie Library for Local History, and upcoming north Boulder branch library. The Meadows Branch Library is a rented facility. Other community assets include the book and media collections; computer, business, and materials handling equipment; furnishings and fixtures. There are options (below) regarding how library assets could be transferred from the city to a library district. The options selected would be part of the IGA. o Deed library buildings, properties, and other assets to the library district at no cost, minimal annual cost, or one-time cost. o Lease library buildings and properties to the library district at a determined rate such as, fair market value, original cost, or a different rate set by council. Library monetary assets in the Library Fund and any other funds that have been collected for the library (e.g. Development Excise Tax, Impact fees, proceeds from the sale of the Blystat-Laesar House, and direct contribution from the Library Fund to Facilities Renovation and Replacement (FRR) would be transferred to the library district. 1515 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Changes Required for The Charter of the City of Boulder, Colorado If a library district is formed changes to the City Charter would be required later to update information about the library and remove the sections about the library commission. The charter sections that would need to be removed include: Section 69 - Department of Library and Arts Section 130 - General provisions concerning advisory commissions. Remove references to the library commission. Section 132 - Library commission established. Section 133 - Powers and duties of library commission. Section 134 - Library fund. Impact on city employees of the Boulder Public Library If a library district is formed, City of Boulder employees could be transferred from the city to the library district. If the library district contracts for services with the city, library district employees may retain identical benefits as they had as city employees. Staff discussed with Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) the impacts on employee retirement benefits if a library district formed. The conclusion was no changes are required to the employee or employer status and employees would retain all their vesting and coverage rights. Proper timing of the transfer is necessary to insure no break in service. Staff also researched impacts on employee benefits with the Social Security Administration. The conclusion was neither the employer (the library district) nor the employee would be required to contribute to Social Security. Background The law firm Seter Vander Wall P.C provided a report about the formation of a library district (Attachment 3). Staff and the Library Commission submitted questions about the report which the law firm answered (Attachment 4). The law firm compared library district formation by ordinance and by petition and provided information about the Poudre River Public Library District (Fort Collins), the Berthoud Public Library District and Jefferson County Public Library (Attachment 5). LIBRARY COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK The Library Commission reviewed a draft of this memo and the financial presentation in advance of their special meeting on November 14, 2018. Robyn Moore and Matt Dempsey of George K. Baum and Company were present at the Library Commission meeting as were City of Boulder 1616 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Executive Budget Officer, Kady Doelling and Senior Budget Analyst, Hannah Combs. The Library Commission submitted a series of written questions in advance of the meeting and asked further clarifying questions at their November 14th meeting. Library Commission questions focused primarily on internal cost allocation and facilities maintenance backlog. The city engages a consultant to do a biennial cost allocation analysis and after benchmarking that analysis to existing library districts overhead, staff feel that the assumptions included in this analysis are reasonable. Regarding the facilities maintenance backlog, the commission’s primary concern was ensuring that the analysis included the facilities maintenance backlog; staff confirmed that it does. Attachment 1 with the financial analysis assumptions was added to the memo to better set the context of the assumptions included in the analysis. The Library Commission provided a written response to the financial analysis memo and presentation for council (Attachment 6). NEXT STEPS Next steps will be determined based on council feedback and guidance at the study session. ATTACHMENTS 1.Financial analysis assumptions 2.Library District Service Area Map: Patron Locations within Boulder County 3.Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Report 4. Seter Vander Wall P.C. Q and A on Library District Report 5.Seter Vander Wall P.C. Library District Formation and Case Studies 6.Library Commission memo to City Council regarding the financial analysis 7.Library Assessed Property Values 8. Presentation for November 27, 2018 Study Session 1717 Attachment I - BPL Master Plan: Financial Options and Overview Memo Financial Analysis Assumptions OPERATING COSTS Operating costs include personnel and non-personnel recurring costs. The personnel and non- personnel costs were inflated separately. Recurring costs reflect the library Master Plan service levels. COST ALLOCATION The financial analysis begins in 2019 using the 2018 General Fund cost allocation estimates. CAPITAL OUTLAY Capital and maintenance backlog is $780,000 annually from 2020 through 2024 to account for $3.9M backlog. Annual capital and maintenance expenses average $670,000 from 2019 through 2033. North Boulder branch library o $5M of construction costs from 2019 through 2023 funded by Community, Culture, Safety Tax. o $1.7M of development costs in 2020 funded by Development Excise Tax. Major library renovations (conservative, speculative cost estimates) o $2.5M in 2024 o $5.0M in 2029 Materials handling machine replacement o $1.3M in 2024 Gunbarrel Corner Library (Only in Master Plan Service Expansion service level) o $468,000 in 2024 Additional Corner Library (Only in library district expanded boundary scenarios) o $486,000 in 2024 GROWTH RATES Revenues Property Tax – Assessed Value - •5.0% in tax years 2020 and 2022 (aligns with City’s budget model). •4.0% in reassessment years thereafter. Attachment J - Financial Analysis Assumptions Sales & Use Tax – Taxable Sales: •Aligned with City’s budget model from 2019 through 2024 (1.00% to 1.75%). •2.0% annually after 2025. Expenses •Personnel: 3.0% annually •Non-Personnel/Capital Outlay: 1.0% annually RESERVES AND FUND BALANCE Municipal library options are aligned with city’s fund balance goals (20%). Library District option assume 20% fund balance. SERVICE AREAS FOR LIBRARY DISTRICT SCENARIOS City of Boulder All properties within the City City of Boulder Planning Area (BVCP) All properties within the City Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area Expanded Boundary All properties within the City Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area Several voting precincts within Boulder County including portions of Niwot as well as the mountain communities west of the City LIBRARY DISCTRICT MATERIALS AND FACILITY COST Materials If the library service area increases, additional library materials costs are required due to an increased user base. The library materials budget goal in the Master Plan is $14 per capita. For a district costs grow each year from 2019 through 2024 until $14 per capita is achieved. Facility Additional one-time library construction cost (only in Expanded Boundary scenario) -$486,000 in 2024 Attachment J - Financial Analysis Assumptions APRIL 2019 Prepared for: The City of Boulder / Boulder Public Library Prepared by: The Center for Research & Public Policy, Inc. BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Photos courtesy of Boulder Public Library 603-309-3919 | info@crpp.com | crpp.com Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 2 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the exclusive property of the City of Boulder and the Boulder Public Library. As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United States Privacy Act of 1974, The Center for Research and Public Policy maintains the anonymity of respondents to surveys the firm conducts. No information will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent. Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written consent of an authorized representative of the City of Boulder or the Boulder Public Library. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OWNERSHIP Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 3 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Introduction Methodology Highlights Summary of Findings Appendix Page 4 Page 5 Page 7 History: Use and Relationship Page 10 Meeting Expectations Page 11 Library Perception Statements Page 11 Interest in the Process Page 13 Importance of Funding Page 15 Tax Implications Page 16 Approaches to Funding Page 17 Demographics Page 19 Page 22 Survey Instrument Crosstabulations Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 4 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY The Center for Research & Public Policy (CRPP) is pleased to present the results to two surveys on behalf of the City of Boulder and the Boulder Public Library. The surveys were conducted to collect citizen input regarding the Boulder Public Library and views on meeting future demand for library services. The research study included 500 completed phone surveys among residents of the City of Boulder as well as surrounding areas. A second, identical, survey was completed by 1031 respondents online – also among residents of the City of Boulder and surrounding areas. The phone survey (N=500) was conducted March 15 – 26, 2019. The online version of the survey (N=1031) was conducted between March 15, 2019 through April 5, 2019 The survey included the following areas for investigation: History, use of and relationship with the Boulder Public Library; The Boulder Public Library on meeting expectations of users; Perceptions of the Boulder Public Library; Interest in the process for funding the Boulder Public Library to meet current and future community needs; Overall, support or opposition to increased funding of the library; Support and opposition, at four different levels, to increased taxes for library funding; Impressions of various approaches to funding of the library; and, Demographics. Section 2 of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section 3 includes Highlights derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section 4 is a Summary of Findings from the survey. Section 5 is an Appendix to the report containing the crosstabulations and the survey instrument employed. 1 INTRODUCTION Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 5 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Using a quantitative research design, CRPP completed phone surveys among 500 residents of the City of Boulder and surrounding qualifying areas. An online survey was also completed among 1031 residents of Boulder and surrounding qualifying areas. Survey design input was provided by the CRPP as well as library and city officials. Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys. Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales used by CRPP (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree) are balanced evenly. Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal impact. Telephone Survey All telephone interviews were conducted during March 15 – 26, 2019. Residents were contacted by phone between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the weekend. Respondents qualified for the survey if they were a resident of Boulder or qualifying communities and were 18 years of age or older. All facets of the study were completed and managed by CRPP’s senior staff and researchers. These aspects included: survey design, sample plan design, pretest, computer programming, fielding, coding, editing, verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report writing. All population-based surveys conducted by CRPP are approximately proportional to population contributions within states, towns, and known census tract, group blocks and blocks. This distribution ensures truly representative results without significant under-or-over representation of various geographic or demographic groups within a sampling frame. CRPP utilized a “super random digit” sampling procedure, which derives a working telephone sample of both listed and unlisted telephone numbers. This method of sample selection eliminates any bias toward only listed telephone numbers. Additionally, this process allows randomization of numbers, which equalizes the probability of qualified respondents being included in the sampling frame. A “mixed access” sample of both cell and landline phone numbers was utilized. English and Spanish speaking researchers were available. Statistically, a sample of 500 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of +/- 4.5% at a 95% confidence level. Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 500 cases. Online Survey CRPP programmed an online version of the survey instrument. Boulder and qualifying Boulder-area residents were encouraged to go to the online link and complete the survey. All online surveys were completed between March 15 and April 5, 2019. The survey was available online in English and Spanish. The link was posted on various websites including the Boulder Public Library site. Outreach to encourage participation included posting the link on the library website, in the Boulder Public Library newsletter “BPL Now”, in social media and on distributed postcard fliers. 2 METHODOLOGY Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 6 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Overall On several key, core questions held within this survey, CRPP presents two common views of resulting data – one what depicts the questions that include the “unsure” or “don’t know” respondents and another view that includes only those “with and opinion” where “unsure” and “don’t know” respondents are removed from the data. It is not certain or conveyed that those who are unsure about a topic will “fallout” and decide proportionally as those with an opinion have done, but it is the best guide available to estimate final outcomes if there is to be an election, referendum or plebiscite. This is a function of messaging and communication. All things equal and if messaging (on both sides of an issue) remains steady or constant, these results without unsure respondents in the data may approximate the outcome. Naturally and importantly, readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in time and results are only reflective of the time in which the survey was undertaken. Should concerted public relations or information campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after the fielding of the survey, the results contained herein may be expected to change and should be, therefore, carefully interpreted and extrapolated. Cross tabulations of data were developed and are included with this report. These compare core survey questions by demographic subgroups such as: number of years living in or near Boulder, age, residents with /without children, likeliness to vote in November 2019, ownership of a Boulder business, income, and gender. Each qualified resident who lives in Boulder or qualifying areas surrounding Boulder had an equal chance for participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but may be significantly reduced by increasing sample size. Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 7 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY ON HISTORY: USE AND RELATIONSHIPS Overall, about one-half, 49.0%, of all telephone survey respondents reported being very frequent, frequent or moderate Boulder Public Library users. Others considered themselves light or very light users – 17.4% and 24.8%, respectively. Some, 8.0%, noted they or household members were not Boulder Public Library users. Impressively, 34.9% noted they considered themselves “advocates” of the library while 22.5% noted they would consider themselves “loyal users”. Another 38.0% suggested they were “satisfied” users. Together, 95.4% noted they were either advocates, loyal or satisfied. Just 1.7% indicated they were dissatisfied with the Boulder Public Library, and 2.8% were unsure. ON MEETING EXPECTATIONS A large majority, 89.1%, noted that the Boulder Public Library meets their respective expectations either always (44.8%) or most of the time (44.3%). Others suggested the library meets their expectations sometimes (6.6%), seldom (1.3%) or never (1.1%). A few, 2.0%, were unsure. ON LIBRARY PERCEPTIONS There exists significant and positive impressions of the role the Boulder Public Library plays in the community… The library is important to the vitality of the Boulder and Boulder area – 96.8% agree The library is an integral part of educating youth in Boulder and the Boulder area – 92.4% The library contributes to a positive quality of life in Boulder and the Boulder area – 96.4% The library contributes to lifelong learning – 96.6% ON INTEREST IN THE PROCESS Researchers described, to survey respondents, that the Boulder Public Library Master Plan identified increasing community demand for library programs and expanded services and urged the city of Boulder to create a dedicated and sustainable funding for the library to meet current and future community needs. They were told the city is embarking on a process to look at funding options and were asked how closely they were following the process. Just over one-quarter, 28.0%, noted they were following the process either very closely (6.0%) or somewhat closely (22.0%). Nearly three-quarters, 71.6%, described how closely they were following the process as either “not very closely” (25.6%) or “not at all” (46.0%). Interest was significantly higher after the introduction of the process. Two-thirds (68.0%) noted they were very (20.2%) or somewhat interested (47.8%) in the process. Others, 29.0%, were either somewhat uninterested (13.2%) or not at all interested (15.8%). A few, 3.0%, were unsure. 3 TELEPHONE SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 8 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY ON IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING All survey respondents were presented with the following: “The Boulder Public Library is currently primarily funded by property taxes and sales taxes that are paid in Boulder. The Boulder Public Library Master Plan recognized that the library operates within an annual funding process that does not meet continuing and growing numbers of cardholders and community needs for increasing new programs, services, improved facilities and technology. Researchers asked: “Without knowing the exact amount of money required to meet community demand, how likely are you to support or oppose increased funding of the library in general?” Just over three-quarters, 77.4%, suggested either definitely support (38.6%) or somewhat support (38.8%). Others, 11.2%, suggested they would probably oppose (3.8%) or definitely oppose (7.4%) increased funding. When unsure respondents are removed from the data, the support moves from 77.4% to 87.4%. TAX IMPLICATIONS All respondents were presented with the following: “We have had an opportunity to present the current and future needs of the Boulder Public Library in this survey. To meet needs identified in the Boulder Public Library Master Plan, a property tax increase could be considered for residential and local business property owners. For renters and business tenants, this may mean an increase in rent. Now we are asking you, as a resident of Boulder, Boulder Valley or the adjacent mountain communities, to indicate your support or opposition to investment in the Boulder Public Library. Your household’s share of the cost is put in terms of an average home valued at $850,000.00. Your share of the cost may be more or less depending on the value of your home or business, and likely less if you are a renter.” At $280… Respondents were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $280.00 per year or about $23.33 per month. A total of 45.2% suggested they would definitely (15.0%) or probably support (30.2%) such an increase. Another 38.2% reported they would probably (15.2%) or definitely oppose (23.0%) such an increase. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), support percent moves to 54.2% with 45.8% opposed. At $220… Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $280 were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $220.00 per year or about $18.33 per month. Another 4.6% move to support resulting in a new total of 49.8% who suggested they would definitely or probably support such an increase. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), total support percent grows to 58.8% with 41.2% opposed. Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 9 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY At $160… Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $220 were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $160.00 per year or about $13.33 per month. Another 7.4% move to support resulting in a new total of 57.2% who suggested they would definitely or probably support such an increase. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), total support percent moves to 66.2% with 33.8% opposed. At $90… Respondents who were opposed or unsure at $160 were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $90.00 per year or about $7.50 per month. Another 10.0% move to support resulting in a new total of 67.2% who suggested they would definitely or probably support such an increase. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the total support percent moves to 76.2% with 23.8% opposed. APPROACHES TO FUNDING All respondents were asked, if taxes do increase to enhance library funding, if their preference would be a property tax increase, a sales tax increase or some combination. The largest group of respondents, 34.4%, suggested they would prefer some combination while 29.4% suggested they preferred a sales tax increase and 15.4% said they would prefer a property tax increase. Another approach was introduced by researchers. Each respondent was asked if they would prefer a tax increase or a re-allocation of existing City of Bounder funds to the library by reducing funding for other city programs, services or departments. A re-allocation was supported by 40.4% of respondents while 25.6% indicated they preferred a tax increase. Some, 8.6%, offered that they don’t support either a tax increase or a re-allocation. And, just over one-quarter, 25.4%, were unsure. The idea of an Independent Library District was introduced as follows: “To broaden the funding base for the Boulder Public Library, there is an option to establish an Independent Library District. The purpose of a library district is to share expenses among residents of the City of Boulder, Boulder Valley and the adjacent mountain communities.” Support was approximately two-to-one with 45.4% suggesting they strongly (20.8%) or somewhat supported the concept (24.6%). One-quarter, 24.4% suggested they were somewhat opposed (7.2%) or strongly opposed (17.2%). A large percentage, 30.2%, were unsure. When unsure respondents are removed from the data, support increases to 65.0% with opposition at 35.0%. Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 10 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate telephone survey data – 500 residents. Text, tables and graphs throughout this report present these composite results. The online survey results (N=1031) are also often displayed within tables and graphs held within this report. HISTORY: USE AND RELATIONSHIPS All respondents were asked to report how frequently they or their family uses the Boulder Public Library. Nearly one-third of all telephone respondents, 31.6%, indicated they use the library very frequently or frequently. The results are presented in the following table. FREQUENCY OF LIBRARY USE PHONE ONLINE Very frequent users 15.0 27.5 Frequent users 16.6 32.9 Moderate users 17.8 21.3 Light users 17.4 10.9 Very light users 24.8 5.9 You and household members are not users 8.0 1.4 Unsure 0.4 0.1 Library users were asked to describe their or their household’s relationship with the Boulder Public Library as advocate(s), loyal user(s), satisfied user(s), or dissatisfied user(s). Over one-third, 34.9%, suggested they were advocates. Results are displayed in the following table. RELATIONSHIP WITH BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY PHONE ONLINE Advocate(s) – talking positively about the library in your community 34.9 48.6 Loyal user(s) – likely to remain a long-term user 22.5 37.0 Satisfied user(s) 38.0 11.9 Dissatisfied user(s) 1.7 1.7 Unsure 2.8 0.8 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 11 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY MEETING EXPECTATIONS Library users were asked how often the Boulder Public Library meets their expectations. A large majority, 89.1%, indicated the library meets their expectations either always or most of the time. Results are displayed in the following table. FREQUENCY OF MEETING EXPECTATIONS PHONE ONLINE Always 44.8 34.6 Most of the time 44.3 55.6 Total: Always and most of the time 89.1 90.2 Sometimes 6.6 8.2 Seldom 1.3 0.5 Never 1.1 0.2 Unsure 2.0 0.9 LIBRARY PERCEPTIONS All respondents were asked, based on all they know or have heard, how strongly they agreed or disagreed with several statements related to the Boulder Public Library. The following tables hold the results from both the telephone and online surveys. Telephone Survey STATEMENTS STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE TOTAL: STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE The library is important to the vitality of Boulder and the Boulder area 89.0 7.8 96.8 The library is an integral part of educating youth in Boulder and the Boulder area 75.4 17.0 92.4 The library contributes to a positive quality of life in Boulder and the Boulder area 84.8 11.6 96.4 The library contributes to lifelong learning 85.8 10.8 96.6 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 12 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Online Survey STATEMENTS STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE TOTAL: STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE The library is important to the vitality of Boulder and the Boulder area 88.3 9.6 97.9 The library is an integral part of educating youth in Boulder and the Boulder area 73.4 18.7 92.1 The library contributes to a positive quality of life in Boulder and the Boulder area 87.0 10.1 97.1 The library contributes to lifelong learning 84.4 12.4 96.8 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 13 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY INTEREST IN THE PROCESS All respondents were presented with the following: “A recently adopted Boulder Public Library Master Plan identified increasing community demand for library programs and expanded services and urged the City of Boulder to create a dedicated and sustainable source of funding for library use to meet current and future community needs. The city is embarking on a process to look at funding options. This survey is an important part of that process.” All respondents were asked how closely they are, or have been, following the process to identify Boulder Public Library funding needs and options. Each was asked if they were following the process very closely, somewhat closely, not very closely or not at all. The following graph displays the cumulative totals for those reporting very and somewhat closely as well as not very closely and not at all. 28.0% 71.6% 34.9% 64.4% VERY AND SOMEWHAT CLOSELY NOT VERY CLOSELY OR NOT AT ALL How Closely Following the Library Funding Process? Telephone Online Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 14 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Researchers also measured interest in the library funding process. All respondents were asked if they were very interested, somewhat interested, somewhat uninterested or not at all interested in this process. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals for very and somewhat interested as well as somewhat uninterested and not at all interested. 68.0% 29.0% 83.3% 15.2% VERY AND SOMEWHAT INTERESTED SOMEWHAT UNINTERESTED OR NOT AT ALL Interest in the Library Funding Process Telephone Online Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 15 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING All survey respondents were presented with the following: “The Boulder Public Library is currently primarily funded by property taxes and sales taxes that are paid in Boulder. The Boulder Public Library Master Plan recognized that the library operates within an annual funding process that does not meet continuing and growing numbers of cardholders and community needs for increasing new programs, services, improved facilities and technology. Without knowing the exact amount of money required to meet community demand, how likely are you to support or oppose increased funding of the library, in general? Would you say…?” More than three-quarters of all respondents, 77.4%, indicated they would definitely or probably support increased funding of the library, in general. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the percentage in support moves to 87.4%. SUPPORT/OPPOSE IN GENERAL PHONE (PERCENT) ONLINE (PERCENT) n=500 Total support or opposition n=1031 Total support or opposition Definitely support 38.6 77.4 60.6 90.5 Probably support 38.8 29.9 Probably oppose 3.8 11.2 3.9 6.1 Definitely oppose 7.4 2.2 Unsure 11.4 3.4 77.4% 11.4% 90.5% 6.1% DEFINITELY & PROBABLY SUPPORT DEFINITELY & PROBABLY OPPOSE Support or Oppose Increased Libary Funding? Telephone Online Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 16 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY TAX IMPLICATIONS All respondents were presented with the following: “We have had an opportunity to present the current and future needs of the Boulder Public Library in this survey. To meet needs identified in the Boulder Public Library Master Plan, a property tax increase could be considered for residential and local business property owners. For renters and business tenants, this may mean an increase in rent. Now we are asking you, as a resident of Boulder, Boulder Valley or the adjacent mountain communities, to indicate your support or opposition to investment in the Boulder Public Library. Your household’s share of the cost is put in terms of an average home valued at $850,000.00. Your share of the cost may be more or less depending on the value of your home or business, and likely less if you are a renter.” Respondents were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $280.00 per year or about $23.33 per month. A total of 45.2% are in support with 38.2% opposed. Results are displayed in the following table. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the support percent moves from 45.2% to 54.2%. AVERAGE INCREASE OF $280 / YEAR PHONE (PERCENT) ONLINE (PERCENT) n=500 Total support or opposition n=1031 Total support or opposition Definitely support 15.0 45.2 26.3 61.7 Probably support 30.2 35.4 Probably oppose 15.2 38.2 20.2 30.6 Definitely oppose 23.0 10.4 Unsure 16.6 7.8 Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $220.00 per year or about $18.33 per month. Support grows by 4.6% to 49.6%. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), total support percent moves from 54.2% to 58.8%. AVERAGE INCREASE OF $220 / YEAR PHONE (PERCENT) ONLINE (PERCENT) Total support Total support Definitely support +0.6 49.8 0.3 66.7 Probably support +4.0 4.7 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 17 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $160.00 per year or about $13.33 per month. Support grows by 7.4% to 57.2%. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the total support percent moves from 58.8% to 66.2%. Results are displayed in the following chart. AVERAGE INCREASE OF $160 / YEAR PHONE (PERCENT) ONLINE (PERCENT) Total support Total support Definitely support +0.6 57.2 0.3 76.0 Probably support +6.8 9.0 Respondents who were opposed or unsure were asked how they would vote if their household tax increase for library funding was $90.00 per year or about $7.50 per month. Support grows by 10.0% to 67.2%. Among those with an opinion (when undecided / unsure respondents are removed from the data), the total support percent moves from 66.2% to 76.2%. Results are displayed in the following chart. AVERAGE INCREASE OF $90 / YEAR PHONE (PERCENT) ONLINE (PERCENT) Total support Total support Definitely support +2.8 67.2 0.7 86.5 Probably support +7.2 9.8 APPROACHES TO FUNDING All respondents were presented with various funding approaches or options the City of Boulder may consider related to the Boulder Public Library. Respondents were asked their views on each. Respondents were asked, if taxes do increase, if they would prefer a property tax increase, sales tax increase or some combination. The largest group of respondents, 34.4%, suggested a combination of both a sales and a property tax increase. The following table presents the results as collected. PREFERENCE FOR PROPERTY OR SALES TAX PHONE ONLINE A property tax increase 15.6 23.9 A sales tax increase 29.4 19.5 A combination of property tax and sales tax increase 34.4 32.8 Unsure 20.6 23.9 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 18 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY Respondents were also asked if they would prefer to see a tax increase or a re-allocation of existing city of Boulder funds to the Library by reducing funding for other city programs, services and departments. The largest group of respondents, 40.4%, noted a preference for a re-allocation of funds. Results are shown in the folllowing table. PREFERENCE FOR TAX INCREASE OR RE-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS PHONE ONLINE A tax increase to support increased library funding 25.6 37.9 A re-allocation of existing City of Boulder funds 40.4 35.9 I don’t support either a tax increase or a re-allocation 8.6 4.5 Unsure 25.4 21.7 The idea of an Independent Library District was introduced as follows: “To broaden the funding base for the Boulder Public Library, there is an option to establish an Independent Library District. The purpose of a library district is to share expenses among residents of the City of Boulder, Boulder Valley and the adjacent mountain communities. Thinking about this library funding option, how strongly would you support or oppose a new Independent Library District that is funded by a voter-approved property tax? Would you…?” Support for an Independent Library District was nearly two-to-one – 45.4% to 24.4%. When undecided respondents were removed from the data, the support percent moves to 65.0%. Results are displayed in the following graph. 45.4% 24.4% 58.9% 14.4% STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT OPPOSE Support or Oppose an Independent Library District? Telephone Online Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 19 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS The following are demographics collected among survey respondents from Boulder and the qualifying communities included in both the online and phone surveys. RESIDENT OF… PHONE ONLINE The City of Boulder 74.0 78.1 Gunbarrel 6.2 7.1 Niwot 2.2 2.4 Mountains west of Boulder (Sunshine Canyon, Gold Hill, Sugarloaf, or Jamestown 5.6 2.3 Altona Area (North Foothills) 2.2 0.6 Cherryvale and areas east 2.2 2.4 Unincorporated Boulder County 7.6 7.1 LENGTH OF RESIDENCY PHONE ONLINE 20 years or less 38.0 53.1 Over 20 years 62.0 46.9 EDUCATION PHONE ONLINE Some high school --- --- High school graduate or equivalent 4.6 0.9 Associates degree / trade or vocational certification 0.6 1.3 Some college 6.6 5.4 College graduate 34.6 28.6 Some post graduate 5.0 10.4 Post-graduate or professional degree 46.0 52.7 Prefer not to answer 2.4 0.8 RENT OR OWN PHONE ONLINE Rent 28.4 26.2 Own 69.2 70.3 Prefer not to answer 2.4 3.5 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 20 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY AGE PHONE ONLINE 18 – 24 11.4 3.8 25 – 34 15.0 12.0 35 – 44 16.8 17.8 45 – 54 13.8 17.5 55 – 64 19.6 17.7 65 or older 12.0 28.8 Prefer not to answer 11.4 2.4 HAVE CHILDREN UNDER 18 LIVING IN HOME PHONE ONLINE Yes 15.6 28.2 No 72.2 69.8 Prefer not to answer 12.2 1.9 CURRENTLY A STUDENT? PHONE ONLINE Yes 7.6 6.0 GENDER PHONE ONLINE Male 42.2 30.8 Female 56.8 64.4 Transgender female --- 0.1 Transgender male --- 0.4 Gender variant / non-conforming --- 1.1 Unsure / Prefer not to answer 0.8 2.7 Other / Not listed 0.2 0.5 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 21 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY INCOME LEVEL PHONE ONLINE Under $50,000 10.8 17.6 $50,000 to less than $100,000 14.0 24.1 $100,000 to less than $150,000 9.4 17.2 $150,000 to less than $200,000 6.6 9.7 $200,000 to less than $250,000 --- 5.5 $250,000 to less than $300,000 1.8 2.4 $300,000 or more 2.2 3.5 Unsure 2.6 1.2 Prefer not to answer 52.6 18.9 RACE / ETHNICITY PHONE ONLINE White 87.4 84.7 Black or African-American 1.0 0.8 Hispanic or Latino 0.6 3.8 Asian 0.6 4.1 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ---- 0.3 American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2 0.4 Middle Eastern / North African --- 0.7 Other 1.2 1.0 None of these 1.0 0.4 Prefer not to answer 8.4 8.2 LIKELY TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY – NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE ONLINE Very likely 94.4 92.7 Somewhat likely 3.4 3.1 Somewhat unlikely 0.6 0.5 Not at all likely 0.6 2.2 Unsure 1.0 1.5 OWN A BUSINESS IN OR NEAR BOULDER? PHONE ONLINE Yes 19.4 14.4 Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results 22 BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS The computer processed data for this survey are presented in the following frequency distributions. It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels in the computer-processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire items and available response categories. The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. Responses deemed not appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the “Other” code. Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. the total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column of absolute frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of cases falling in each category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non- missing) cases. That is, the total base for the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the same. However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite substantial percentage differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful analyst will cautiously consider both distributions. The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency distribution (Cum Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the sum of all previous categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked meaning. 5 APPENDIX Attachment K - Boulder Public Library Community Survey Results COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: February 11, 2020 TO: City Council FROM: David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney DATE: February 11, 2020 SS ITEM: Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up ______________________________________________________________________________ Attached please find information on how other library districts have been formed, as requested at the recent CAC meeting. Also attached is a map of all forms of governance of public libraries from the state library. The current state count is: 39 municipal libraries serving 1.86M Coloradans [1/3 of which is Denver] 57 District libraries serving 3M Coloradans. 11 County libraries serving 672K Coloradans [575K of which are Jefferson County.] The first table addresses assets and the other district formation. The information on district formation is not definitive. The state librarian provided the following information related to the district formation table: See attached for an unofficial tracking of library district formation. It is clear that documenting the petition status was not a priority when these notes were taken. The only library that specifically cites a petition in the process of district formation is Red Feather Mountain Library District (Red Feather Lakes). I did some additional scanning of establishment docs and found a few more. Here are the library districts where a petition is referenced in the establishment documents/resolution to form a library district. This list is not exhaustive but illustrates that there have been some library districts where a petition was a part of the process. Given a little more time, I could do a more thorough scan of the establishment documents (which would be worthwhile, since this question may come up again). Estes Valley Library District (1988) Grand County Library District (1994) East Cheyenne County Library District (1996) Red Feather Mountain Library District (2000) John C. Fremont Library District (2004) Poudre River Library District (2006) Southwest La Plata Library District (2019) Library Est Was building ownership transferred? And at what price? If leased, at what cost? Were support services provided to new district Contine to receive county or city funding Clear Creek County, Georgetown 2004 No; leased $1/year Orginally paid County. No longer procure from coutny yes East Routt, Steamboat 1980 No; leased $1 for 20 year lease Not procured no Estes Park Public Library 1988 Building ownership transferred. No cost. Land leased $1/year Contract with Town for employee health benefits, payroll, bookeeping, etc Town gives annual Urban Renewal Aurhtority refund of $10K and check for $27,600 toward building bond Grand County 1995 All 5 branches were leased from the individual towns or county $65/month + tulities for one branch, $1 for 13 years for another branch Not procured no Mesa County Library District, Grand Junction 1992 yes. market price n/a Not procured no Poudre River Library District, Fort Collins 2007 yes. at no cost one building leased yes city handled HR, IT, finance, payroll, etc initially. yes. contract with City for payroll, HR Rangeview Library District, Thornton 1995 yes. at no cost na Not procured Yes, mill levy continued Pueblo City - county Library District 1969 No; leased $1 / year for 99 years Not procured no Weld Library District 1986 Building transferred at no cost. 1 building leased at $10/year county handled HR, IT, finance until 2001. no longer procured no Library AKA Legal Service Area (LSA)LSA County/Counties Year of District Formation Formation by Petition? Date of Library Formation Lyons Regional Library District City Boulder 2014?02/06/1978 (contract made, between Board of County Commissioners of Boulder and the Lyons Depot Library for library services, according to estab. doc.); 1979 (estimate) (Library opened, according to website: http://www.townoflyons.com/history); date of Library's formation not specified in estab. doc. Northern Saguache County Library District Mountain Valley School District RE-1 + Moffat Consolidated School District 2 Saguache 2010 06/08/2010 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Berthoud Community Library District Berthoud Fire Protection District within Larimer County Larimer 2008 06/12/1951 (agreement made, that the Town of Berthoud's firehouse be converted into a public library, according to estab. doc.); 07/08/2008 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.)Gunnison County Library District Gunnison County Libraries County Gunnison 2007 07/12/65 (Gunnison County Public Library formed, according to estab. doc.); 12/18/2007 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.)Garfield County Public Library District Garfield County Libraries County Garfield 2006 09/05/2006 (resolution adopted, calling for an election on the issue of the formation of a library district, according to estab. doc.) Poudre River Public Library District Poudre School District - (town of Wellington + Red Feather Mountain LD) Larimer 2006 08/29/2006 (resolution adopted, calling for a ballot question to be submitted to voters regarding the establishment of a library district, according to estab. doc.); 11/21/2006 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc ) Library District Formation Data Primary information sources: LRS data and documents on file at CSL (10/2013), email correspondence with individual libraries (2011) John C. Fremont Library District (Florence) Florence School District RE-2 - (Penrose Library District + Brookside + Wetmore+state & federal prisons) Fremont 2005 11/02/2004 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District,according to estab. doc.); 02/22/2005 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Rangeview Library District (Adams County) Anythink Libraries County minus Westminster, Aurora, & (.25 X SD Deer Trail 26J) Adams 2003 1954 (a public library established in the area, according to estab. doc.); 1966 (election held to abolish the existing library so a library district could be established, according to estab. doc.); 1988 (the Adams County Library established, according to estab. doc.); 12/15/2003 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Conejos County Library District Conejos Library County Conejos 2001 Poll 2001 (estimate) (voters polled on whether they approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.); date of Library District's formation not specified in estab. docElbert County Library District County Elbert 2000 11/15/2000 (Library District established, following elector approval, according to estab. doc.) Nederland Community Library District Nederland Community Library 5-mile radius from Nederland City Hall w/in Boulder County Boulder 2000 08/22/2000 (resolution for the formation of the Library adopted, according to estab. doc.) Red Feather Mountain Library District calculation changed 2/1/06; base LSA pop = 1,650 (2000 Census figure from State Demography Office) <grow previous year's LSA by change in county uninc pop> Larimer 2000 Petition/Poll 07/12/2000 (resolution adopted, describing a petition to establish the Library District by a ballot issue, according to estab. doc.); 11/07/2000 (voters polled on whether they approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.) Spanish Peaks Library District Huerfano School District RE-1 Huerfano 1998 11/03/1998 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.); 11/25/1998 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Ridgway Public Library District Ridgway Public Library Ridgway School District R-2 Ouray 1997 Poll 1997 (voters polled on whether they approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.) East Cheyenne County Library District Cheyenne County RE-5 Cheyenne 1996 11/10/1996 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Grand County Library District County Grand 1994 07/05/1994 (resolution adopted, calling for an election on the issue of the formation of a library district, according to estab. doc.); 12/27/1994 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Delta County Public Library District Delta County Libraries LD=County plus area in Montrose Co. north of Gunnison River (Maher, CO) Delta & Montrose 1993 03/16/1970, 11/26/1980 (resolution for the formation of the Delta County Public Library adopted, according to estab. doc.); 12/20/1993 (Delta County Public Library converted into the Delta County Public Library District, via the adoption of a resolution, according to estab. doc.) Eagle Valley Library District Eagle County - (Vail + Basalt Library District) Eagle 1992 Poll 11/03/1992 (voters polled on whether they approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.); 1993 (Library District established, according to website: http://www.evld.org/ about) Gilpin County Library District County Gilpin 1992 12/07/1992 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Rio Grande County Library District Carnegie Public Library County Rio Grande 1992 1919 (Monte Vista Carnegie Library opened, according to website: http://www.montevistalibrary.org/6601.html); 1975 (South Fork branch opened, according to website: http://www.montevistalibrary.org/6601.html); 02/04/1992 (resolution adopted, stating that the City of Monte Vista, the Carnegie Public Library, the Town of Del Norte, and the King's Daughters Library entered into an agreement for the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.); estab. doc. does not specify Libraries' dates of formation Ignacio Community Library District Ignacio Community Library Ignacio School District 11 JT within La Plata County La Plata 1991 01/14/1991 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Mesa County Public Library District Mesa County Libraries County Mesa 1991 12/17/1991 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Penrose Community Library District Penrose Library District Parks & Rec District minus some addresses Fremont 1991 1987 (Penrose Community Library opened, according to website: http://penrose.colibraries.org/about- us/library-history.html); 1991 (voter approval secured for a mill levy tax, thus forming the Library District, according to website: http://penrose.colibraries.org/about-us/library- history.html); date of Penrose Community Library's formation and date of Library District's formation not specified in estab. doc Douglas County Libraries (District)County Douglas 1990 1929 (a library began operating in the area, according to this website: http://douglascountylibraries.org/node/6028); 11/06/90 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.) West Custer County Library District 2010 Resolution establishes boundaries along Wet Mountain Fire Protection District; use Custer County School District C-1 (closest geography) Custer 1989 03/06/1989 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Estes Valley Public Library District Park Hospital District Larimer 1988 08/23/1988 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Kiowa County Public Library District Kiowa Public Library County - list of exclusions defined in the resolution establishing the library district Kiowa 1987 07/30/1987 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Dolores Library District / Montezuma County Dolores Public Library Dolores RE-4A Montezuma 1986 07/15/1986 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Mancos Library District Mancos School District RE-6 Montezuma 1986 07/21/1986 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Clearview Library District (Windsor- Severance) Windsor School District RE-4 Weld 1985 08/25/1985 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) High Plains Library District (Weld County) Weld County + (Erie in Boulder County) - (Windsor RE-4 + Dacono PL) Boulder & Weld 1985 09/11/1985 (ordinance establishing the Library District passed, according to estab. doc.) Upper San Juan Library District Ruby M. Sisson Memorial Library Archuleta County SD 50-JT (although incorrect, closest geography to district boundaries) Archuleta 1985 10/22/1985 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) East Morgan County Library District / Brush Brush School District RE-2J within Morgan County Morgan 1981 Poll 1915 (a library formed in the area, according to website: http://emcl.info/?page_id=75); 1981 (correspondence from the Office of the County Clerk indicates that the majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District [meaning they were polled in 1980?], according to estab. doc.) Las Animas-Bent County Library District Las Animas School District RE-1 Bent 1981 01/29/1981 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Ouray Library District Ouray School District RE-1 Ouray 1981 1900 or before (estimate) (a library began operating in the City of Ouray, according to estab. doc.); 10/06/1981 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc) Clear Creek County Library District County Clear Creek 1980 03/03/1980 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) La Veta Public Library District La Veta Public Library La Veta SD RE-2 Huerfano 1980 09/16/1980 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) East Routt Library District Bud Werner Memorial Library Steamboat Springs School District RE-2 Routt 1979 09/01/1970 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 10/07/1974 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District reconstituted as the East Routt Regional Library District, accoding to estab. doc.); 10/26/1976 (East-West Routt County Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 12/19/1979 (resolution dissolving the East-West Routt Regional Library District and forming the East Routt Library District [plus two other library districts] adopted, according to estab. doc.) South Routt Library District South Routt School District RE-3 Routt 1979 09/01/1970 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 10/07/1974 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District reconstituted as the East Routt Regional Library District, accoding to estab. doc.); 10/26/1976 (East-West Routt County Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 12/19/1979 (resolution dissolving the East-West Routt Regional Library District and forming the South Routt Library District [plus two other library districts] adopted, according to estab. doc.) West Routt Library District / Hayden Hayden Public Library Hayden RE-1 Routt 1979 09/01/1970 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 10/07/1974 (Steamboat Springs Regional Library District reconstituted as the East Routt Regional Library District, accoding to estab. doc.); 10/26/1976 (East-West Routt County Regional Library District established, according to estab. doc.); 12/19/1979 (resolution dissolving the East-West Routt Regional Library District and forming the West Routt Library District [plus two other library districts] adopted, according to estab. doc.) Hinsdale Library District / Lake City John Wagner Public Library Tax areas 1, 2, and 4 within the boundaries of Hinsdale County and the town of Lake City Hinsdale 1978 12/04/1978 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Rangely Regional Library District Rangely Regional Library Rangely School District RE-4 Rio Blanco 1978 05/01/1978 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.); 08/04/1978 (resolution for the formation of the Library District corrected, due to a boundary error, according to estab. doc.)Lone Cone Library District (Norwood) Norwood Public Library Norwood School District R2J within San Miguel County San Miguel 1978 11/07/1978 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.) Basalt Regional Library District LD=Roaring Fork District #1 RE - ("Greater Glenwood" + "Greater Carbondale") Eagle & Pitkin 1976 11/22/1976 (resolution adopted by Pitkin County for the formation of a library district with Eagle County, according to estab. doc.) 12/28/1976 (resolution adopted by Eagle County for the formation of a library district with Pitkin County, according to estab. doc.) Rampart Regional Library District (Woodland Park) Rampart Library District - Woodland Park & Florissant Woodland Park School District RE-2 Teller 1976 10/04/1976 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Southern Teller County School/Public Library District Cripple Creek/Victor School District RE-1 Teller 1976 10/04/1976 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) San Miguel Library District # 1 / Telluride Wilkinson Public Library Telluride School District R-1 San Miguel 1975 01/06/1975 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Northern Chaffee County Library District (Buena Vista) Buena Vista Public Library Buena Vista School District R-31 Chaffee 1974 11/19/1974 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Southern Chaffee County Regional Library District / Salida Salida Regional Library Salida School District R-32J within Southern Chaffee County Chaffee 1974 1909 (Juliana Reference Library opened, according to website: http://www.salidalibrary.org/local-history- archives/history-of-the-salida-library.html); 1974 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to website: http://www.salidalibrary.org/local-history- archives/history-of-the-salida-library.html); estab. doc. not on file Pine River Public Library District / Bayfield Pine River Library Bayfield 10 JT-R SD within La Plata County La Plata 1972 11/01/1934 (ordinance establishing a public library adopted, according to estab. doc.); 11/11/1972 (majority of voters approve of the formation of the Library District, according to estab. doc.) Pueblo City-County Library District County Pueblo 1968 07/15/1968 (Pueblo Regional Library District formed, according to estab. doc.) Montrose Regional Library District District = (Montrose County - Nucla) Montrose 1967 10/12/1967 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Arapahoe Library District LD=[Arapahoe County - (Aurora+Englewood+Littleton) + (.25 X SD Deer Trail 26J] Adams & Arapahoe 1966 03/27/1966 (resolution establishing the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Pikes Peak Library District El Paso County - Widefield #3 SD (Note: Widefield = Security PL) El Paso 1963 10/28/1963 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Meeker Regional Library District Meeker Public Library Meeker School District RE-1 Rio Blanco 977 04/04/1977 (resolution for the formation of the Library District adopted, according to estab. doc.) Wyo mi n g Utah Ok l ah o maNewMexico Neb r ask a Kan s as Arizona YumaWeldWashington Teller Summit Sedgwick San Miguel San Juan Saguache Routt Rio Grande Rio Blanco Pueblo Prowers Pitkin Phillips Par k Ouray Otero Morgan Montrose Montezuma Moffat Mineral Mesa Logan Lincoln Las Animas Larimer La Plata Lake Kit Carson Kiowa Jefferson Jackson Huerfano Hinsdale Gunnison Grand Gilpin Garfield Fremont El Paso Elber t Eagle Douglas Dolores Denver Delta Custer Crowley CostillaConejos Clear Creek Cheyenne Chaffee Broomfield Boulder Bent BacaArchuleta Arapahoe Alamosa Adams All Library Jurisdictions Statewide Prepared by CIVICTechnologies. May 2011. N C ol or a do S t a t e L i b r ar y Library Districts County Libraries Municipal Libraries Multi-Jurisdictional Libraries County Boundaries Stat e B order