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