Loading...
04.07.21 BLC PacketCity of Boulder 2020 Library Commission Agenda Meeting date: Wednesday, Apr. 7, 2021 Location: Zoom Meeting Meeting start time: 6 p.m. 1. Review Online Meeting Guidelines 2. Reminder: Commissioners please submit monthly volunteer hours in the chat or log them in Count Me In Boulder 3. Approval of agenda 4. Public comment 5. Consent agenda a. Approval of Feb. 3, 2021 minutes b. Approval of March 13, 2021 minutes c. Approval of the Annual Volunteer Appreciation Letter 6. Welcome and administer oath of office to new commissioner Benita Duran 7. Elect Library Commission officers and Boulder Library Foundation members 8. Reflections and impact to the library from the March 22, 2021 Tragedy at Table Mesa King Soopers a. Review library security practices 9. Discussion of April 20 City Council Public Hearing on Library District a. Statement to City Council from the library commission 10. Library Commission update a. Items from commission b. Update on library district discussions with City Council c. Ongoing outreach efforts d. Updates from commissioners representing the Commission in other venues (verbal) i. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) update (Sykes Wilson/Koenig) e. Update on emails and phone calls to Library Commission 11. Library Director’s report a. Budget update 2021 Adjustment to Base Budget ATB1 (see separate memo) b.North Boulder Branch Library update c. Update on current library services d. Schedule change: Security Position Update rescheduled form May to June 2021 Library Commissioners Jane Sykes Wilson Joel Koenig Steven Frost Scott Steinbrecher Benita Duran 1 Library Commission Minutes February 3, 2021 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: February 3, 2021 Contact information preparing summary: Celia Seaton Commission members present: Juana Gómez, Joel Koenig, Jane Sykes Wilson, Scott Steinbrecher Commission members not present: Steven Frost Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Celia Seaton, Administrative Specialist City staff present: None Members of the public present: Benita Duran, Joni Teter Type of Meeting: Regular | Remote Agenda Item 1: Review of Online Meeting Guidelines [0:00:02 Audio min.] Agenda Item 2: Reminder: Commissioners please log monthly volunteer hours Count Me In Boulder [0:00:30 Audio min.] The Commission logged their service. Agenda Item 3: Approval of agenda [0:01:58 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order and Gómez asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There was a nod of approval from the commission for this agenda. Agenda Item 4: Public comment [0:01:13 Audio min.] Duran appreciates the opportunity to observe the meeting; she is an applicant for the 2021 Library Commission. Agenda Item 5: Consent agenda [0:02:50 Audio min.] a.Approval of January 2021 Meeting Minutes: Koenig moved to approve these minutes, Sykes Wilson seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. Agenda Item 6: Update from Library Champions related to recommendation for a draft Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between a library district, Boulder County, and the City of Boulder [0:04:02 Audio min.] Joni Teter spoke on behalf of Boulder’s Library Champions (see handouts.) Teter and Gómez recently held a “very productive meeting” with Council Member Bob Yates in apprehension of the February 23rd Study Session. Council Member Yates discussed the idea of a library funded out of the city budget with a dedicated tax. He suggested review of comparable IGAs and proposed a commissioner be present at the Study Session to answer questions and provide background information. He plans to suggest that City Council form a committee including commissioners or champions to assist City Council’s investigation into the district. These suggestions indicate “active thinking” about the district from a council member and were appreciated by Gómez. Teter deemed it a “most productive discussion” with Council Member Yates. He recommended presenting “high-level example IGA” with “bigger picture ideas,” not necessarily to advocate, but rather to provide a framework. This would be bolstered by FAQ’s and other documents. In response to Steinbrecher’s inquiry, Teter clarified that the trustees for the district would be composed of a subcommittee of the legislative bodies, 2 from council and 2 from county commissioners (who would then appoint the rest). After the first board, the method would be determined by the IGA. He wondered about the difficulty of changing language in Boulder’s Charter and Revised Code. Farnan noted that this very routine procedure of charter amendments by ballot vote typically cycle through every other year. 4 mill has been adjusted to 3.85 to account for updated modeling. Analysis still needed to reflect considerations of the Gallagher amendment. The adjustment for reassessed property values in 2021 has not yet been determined. 2 Library Commission Minutes February 3, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Staff response at the Study Session will likely come from City Attorney David Gehr who will present options for the disposition of assets. A sample IGA could present a recommendation from the options. Farnan: we always go into Study Sessions hoping to narrow the scope, but often come out of it with many more options to research. Steinbrecher wondered what a “magic number” to fund sustainable library service might look like. be Farnan does not have a ready figure, rather tends to consider cost per use. Most state formulas consider a cost per resident. Basing the number on the Baum study, 16.3 million was the most accurate number as of one year ago (leading to the 3.85 mill levy figure). See the pie chart in the handouts indicating the costs to run the library. Three to 4 million in operating costs would be an added factor. Gómez’s instinct is to streamline the upcoming Study Session presentation as much as possible; Farnan concurred along with the other commissioners. Further documentation can be offered to interested council members. Commission agreed on inclusion of the table with historical comparisons 2000-2018. Commission expressed appreciation to Teter for her work putting together these “thoughtful materials.” Gómez relayed Frost’s response to the materials as he was absent from the meeting: he considers them “in line” with the advocacy he has heard from the Library Champions during his time as a commissioner. He volunteered to assist with social media outreach and graphics needed for future campaign. Agenda Item 7: Library Commission Update [1:05:22 Audio min.] a. Items from Commission i. Items from commission:  Adoption of Example IGA and Library District FAQ's. Sykes Wilson made a motion for commission to send these two documents along to City Council; Koenig seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Gómez will compose an email to City Council.  Assignment of February outreach to Friend, Joseph, Swetlik, Brockett, Wallach  Update on Commission applicants ii. Update on library district discussions with City Council – Koenig and Gómez met with Council Member Mary Young who seemed less approving of the district formation than was apparent in the past, suggesting that there are enough funds in the city budget. The idea of forming a district by resolution seemed “autocratic” in her view. Gómez: our representative government is all about taking action. b. Updates from commissioners representing the Commission in other venues (verbal) i. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) update (Sykes Wilson/Koenig) – Sykes Wilson reported budget discussion during the last meeting, with approval planned by March. BLF also reviewed One Book One Boulder’s impact study which was in commission’s January packet. ii. Library Champions – joint efforts c. Update on emails and phone calls to Library Commission Agenda Item 8: Library and Arts Director’s Report [1:29:48 Audio min.] a. North Boulder Branch Library update – project went out to bid. Eight pre-selected vendors will undergo review in the next month. b. Update on current library services – Boulder County has moved its COVID-19 dial to “level orange,” allowing for limited computing on the Main Library’s second floor. Staff plan expanded levels of service for the community by April if public health guidelines agree. c. Update on Library Commission candidate applications and interviews – so far, the City Clerk’s Office reports receiving six applications. d. Report on outcome of city council retreat – library district came up in relation to budget discussions. 3 Library Commission Minutes February 3, 2021 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED BY: ATTESTED: _________________________________________ ________________________________________ Board Chair Board Secretary _________________________________________ ________________________________________ Date Date Agenda Item 9: Adjournment [1:33:45 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be replaced by the annual retreat planned for Wednesday, March 13, 2021, through a virtual setting. 4 Library Commission Minutes March 13, 2021 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: March 13, 2021 Contact information preparing summary: Jennifer Phares Commission members present: Juana Gómez, Joel Koenig, Jane Sykes Wilson, Steven Frost, Scott Steinbrecher Commission members not present: Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director City staff present: Members of the public present: Joni Teter and Miho Shida (Library Champions), Dave Taylor, Stephanie Trees Type of Meeting: Retreat | Remote Agenda Item 1: 2018 BPL Master Plan goals and funding gaps [0:03:02 Audio min.] Overview of 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan goals and funding gaps - where the library is now and what do we need to go forward – David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Master plan goals focus on maintaining library core services, not visionary services. The plan is about taking the library in its current state and use it to better serve the underserved such as older adults and Latinx. Farnan gave examples of current library programs that serve those groups such as the internet hotspot program, started during the pandemic and not sustainably funded. The early 2000s recession resulted in budget cuts for all city departments. Some of the cuts from the library were restored during the past five years but the pandemic resulted in more cuts, eroding those gains. Opening a north Boulder branch library and a Gunbarrel corner library have been requested by the community for about 30 years. The visionary part of the Master Plan is obtaining sustainable funding to meet the goals. For the past three to four years, the library and the Library Commission has discussed with City Council forming a library district. Farnan described that districts receive property tax revenues which are a more stable and predictable form of funding. The commission asked staff to clarify the library’s current Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and the FTE that were cut, how the substitute positions factor in to the library staffing and how the FTE translated into the actual number staff members. Farnan responded that the total FTE is a combination of full-time and part-time staff and the hours worked in substitute positions is approximately equal to 5 FTE over the course of a year. He was asked how much support the library receives from volunteers. They give approximately 28,000 hours (during a non-pandemic year) which is equivalent to 14% of the library’s personnel, and if they were paid staff members their wages would be more than $500,000 annually. The commission asked staff to create talking points that they can share with their family, friends, council and other community members about the library’s past and current staffing levels, how critical substitutes and volunteers are to providing library services, how many staff hours it takes to manage the work contributed by volunteers, and how much more than the total FTE number is needed to keep the library open 70 hours per week. Agenda Item 2: Library Commission’s position on obtaining stable funding [0:25:31 Audio min.] Summary of the Library Commission’s position on obtaining stable funding for the library - Juana Gómez, Library Commission Chair For the past three to four years, the commission has focused on finding sustainable funding for the library. In the 2018 Master Plan, the commission recommended in the foreword to form a library district to establish sustainable funding. Master plan goals are based on real needs of the community, are similar to what other libraries provide to their communities, and are what a highly educated city such as Boulder should have. Gómez: we have not only the support, but a request from the community for the library to be adequate to its demands. She reported how when the commission asked other libraries that had formed districts if they would go back to being municipal libraries, unanimously the answer was “no.” District funding is more stable. It can plan for the ups and downs of the economy, budget for the community needs and facilities 5 Library Commission Minutes March 13, 2021 Page 2 of 4 maintenance, and plan for new branch library facilities and operations. Gómez described the options to form a library district outlined in Colorado Revised Statute and shared information about the community engagement and petition process the Library Champions completed in 2019. Commission’s current recommendation to City Council is to work with the Boulder County Commissioners to form a library district by resolution, negotiate an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and then go to the voters because the IGA spells out how the tax revenues will be spent. Koenig said the COVID issues have magnified the difference between municipal and district libraries. Districts have been able to maintain their previous services. Agenda Item 3: Key information from the Feb. 23, 2021 City Council study session [0:37:56 Audio min.] Discussion of key information from the Feb. 23, 2021 City Council study session on governance and stable funding options for the library Gómez summarized the Feb. 23, 2021 for the retreat attendees. She noted that a staff recommendation was not provided and that council asked for one at the upcoming April 20, 2021 public hearing. Farnan clarified that the City Manager will decide if there will be a staff recommendation. Gómez asked Farnan to share why district funding is more stable funding. He described property values have remained consistent in Boulder and for many other districts in Colorado they have increased. In the case where there was a decline in property taxes, the district has a two-year lag time to plan to address the decline in revenue. Gómez commented how this instability translates through to the community members with such issues as: I don’t get to order my books from another library, I don’t get to take my kids to story hour, I can’t access the internet or a computer, etc. Steinbrecher said a way to understand stability is that property taxes are pretty stable, but a municipal library is subject to the business cycle of sales taxes, competing with other priorities for the city budget and to political whims. Sykes Wilson asked if the IGA has a standard legal framework with a few decisions to be negotiated such as assets, HR, and technology and if there is a period of time in which it can be renegotiated if things aren’t working. Farnan responded the expiration/renewal of the IGA would be written into its terms. Teter commented that 85 to 90% of the IGA is standard language that would not change with rest being negotiable and able to be revisited, e.g. administrative services. Items such as the transfer of facilities would need to be longer term for stability. There was interest from some council members during the Feb. 23, 2021 study session to follow the commission’s request to form a committee of council members, commission members, Library Champions, Boulder County Commissioners and City staff to draft an IGA. The results of the council straw poll during the study session was a majority (5 members) of council does not support a TABOR election in 2021 for a library district due in part to it conflicting with the vote to extend the Community Culture and Safety (CCS) Tax. Teter asked to share this link with the group as an example of how property taxes in Boulder have been stable: Colorado homeowners accumulated an average of $32,000 in home equity last year per Denver Post article. Farnan shared that the tax impact to the average homeowner is about $17 per month, i.e. having a robust public library system costs about 1/3 of the cost of what households pay for internet. Shida said a point that is confusing is the assessed value vs. the sale value. Sykes Wilson asked if we know what might be coming after the CCS tax renewal. She thinks that the commission and champions are poised and ready to with district formation and tax ballot decision. If the decision is postponed it could face competition from other ballot items. She thinks there is a mood in Boulder that the library has community value and people are willing to give non-profits; if we put it off, people may become fatigued post pandemic and not be as willing to raise taxes. Agenda Item 4: Library Champions district strategy [1:15:29 Audio min.] Library Champions strategy for forming a library district to date – Joni Teter, Library Champions In response to Teter’s inquiry, staff indicated that the council parameters for public participation at a public hearing are outlined on the city’s site here. The argument opposed to a 2021 district tax measure concerns how the city’s economy has been hit so hard due to the pandemic. Small local businesses (especially services) have been hit hard. Businesses pay about four times as much 6 Library Commission Minutes March 13, 2021 Page 3 of 4 property tax as a residence. The champions asked council to consider give a tax break in the form of a rebate or grant (that could be built into the IGA if it is a way the library could help small businesses) to small businesses. Once council gets an economic update and can find a way to ameliorate the impact to small businesses, then we can decide if a 2021 district tax measure makes sense. Sykes Wilson asked what percentage of businesses are small and locally owned. Teter suggested that Boulder Chamber of Commerce may have that information. Shea said the commercial property taxes typically get passed through to commercial leases. Another factor is the County is considering a 2021 housing tax. Council has until August 2021 to put a district tax on the ballot. If the district/tax measure is done by petition, the deadline is May 2021 which is challenging. Teter thinks the most important 2021 accomplishment is to form the district with the current council. She thinks the committee is a good idea so an IGA can be defined. One of the other tasks in 2021 is to educate the new candidates for City Council. Agenda Item 5: Discussion of current Library District Strategy [1:35:07 Audio min.] • Will the Library Champions reinitiate a petition? Is there funding? Are there volunteers to do the work? Sykes Wilson asked if the petition signatures collected in 2019 are still valid and if not, can everything be accomplished to form a district and get the tax measure on the 2021 ballot. Teter: in theory the signatures are still valid, but it may be difficult to get a definitive confirmation in a timely manner. She thinks if the champions were to reinitiate a petition on April 21, 2021, they could get 100 signatures and turn them in to the county by the May 2021 deadline. Farnan said the county prefers that new signatures be collected. • Should the Library Commission/Champions bring in Patrick Sweeney of EveryLibrary? Sykes Wilson asked if EveryLibrary has determined how the landscape has changed for library district since the pandemic. Teter said approximately two to three dozen library district initiatives were on the ballot nationally with all passing but two. Teter said she will wait to reconnect with EveryLibrary after April 20, 2021, and that Congress passing a funding bill for libraries speaks to the climate and that people recognize the value of libraries. Gómez asked for a straw poll of commissioners in favor of holding the district tax vote in 2021. Gómez, Sykes Wilson, Koenig, and Frost are in favor of 2021 district tax measure. Steinbrecher prefers to wait until 2022 because the August- September timeframe for soliciting input from the community is unknown in terms of the pandemic. Steinbrecher: although the economy seems to be doing well, we don’t know what it will look like in four to five months; given the upcoming changes on council, the current council may not want to be put in the position of making a decision, and the issues around Gallagher need to shake out. He asked how the commission neatly packages the information about district formation for the community and if the district tax can be positioned as revenue neutral. He commented that although some people are doing well due to the increase in housing values, there are older people that are “house rich” and “cash poor.” Further, the impact of remote work on Boulder’s demographics and how those potential new community members will vote is unknown. Farnan advised the commission to think through the political implications and shared that the county does not support going forward with a district if council is not on board. Teter said the question of who pays for the cost of the election was not resolved last year. Frost thinks the argument to wait is flawed because we never know what will happen in the future. If support of the current council is obtained, he thinks the commission should move forward. He sees it as a brand-new beginning for everyone in Boulder. The library is doing so much with so little, and this is the second time in a decade that it has been put under budget constraints. People respect the library and its staff and telling the community’s stories could be part of the campaign. If the commission can make sense of the statistics for the voters, he thinks it will pass. Sykes Wilson thinks that if the commission can get past the hurdles of getting the issue on the ballot there is a strong argument to be made for getting the library sustainable funding now, given the disruption and reduced access young learners, underserved community members, and older adults have withstood during the past year. Delaying action further will negatively impact the library access to the next generation of young readers. Koenig expressed frustration at the length of time this issue has been discussed. He thinks the commission should move forward. Farnan and Teter urged the commission to determine the outcome they are hoping for from the April 20, 2021 meeting. Teter thinks it is important for council to know what it means to the community not to have full access to the library. The 7 Library Commission Minutes March 13, 2021 Page 4 of 4 APPROVED BY: ATTESTED: _________________________________________ ________________________________________ Board Chair Board Secretary _________________________________________ ________________________________________ Date Date commissioners collectively and/or individually can urge council to create the district so that funding decision can be put to voters. Gómez said that the ideal outcome of the April 20, 2021 meeting is that council forms a district by resolution and then drafts the IGA. Given the weight of the decision for council, Gómez recommends the upcoming commission draft a letter requesting that council at least forms a committee to draft an IGA. Steinbrecher suggested that the commissioners and other interested parties should plan to frame their April 20th public comment and state what they hope council will do. Farnan asked the commission to consider the timeline for their ideal outcome: form a district now (April 20, 2021), seat a library board, and begin negotiating the IGA with the City and County. It will be difficult to accomplish seating the board and negotiating the IGA before the deadline of completing the tax measure for the 2021 ballot. Teter agreed it would be difficult to hit the 2021 deadline with the waiting period for public comment for the resolution. Gómez concurred that the timing may be too tight to have the tax measure in 2021. Sykes Wilson asked the commission and champions if they could, ahead of the meeting on April 20, 2021, voice that the situation the library is facing is a combination of COVID and financial impacts. Teter agreed and said the message should come from both commission and champions. The champions are organizing comments from community members in Gunbarrel, Niwot, members of the historical society, etc. that other libraries are open now and serving patrons and our library cannot because it doesn’t have the resources. Farnan again urged commission to request what they would like council to do: form a committee, negotiate the IGA by July 2021, and form the district by resolution in October 2021, and vote on funding the district in 2022. Steinbrecher agreed with this approach and said there are two steps: informing the public about the issue and framing it for council and non- library city staff. Additional questions from Commissioner Gómez [2:33:39 Audio min.] 1. What is the cost of the North Boulder Branch Library? The current estimate is approximately $10.5 million. The bids close soon. 2. How is the library responding the issue of some of the Dr. Seuss titles that have racist language? The library adheres to the American Library Association’s Right to Read. The library does not censor anything. Staff recognizes that many children’s classics have stereotyped images which are in some cases racist. We hope to provide parents and caregivers the tools to read and discuss those with their children themselves. 3. Will the library receive any of the funds appropriated by Congress in the Restore Act? We are uncertain if the library will receive any of those funds. We may for reimbursement of the hotspot program costs. Agenda Item 6: Departure of Commissioner Gómez [2:36:14 Audio min.] The group appreciated Commissioner Gómez for her leadership, support and service to the library and the community! Agenda Item 7: Adjournment [2:42:07 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the retreat meeting was adjourned. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 7, 2021, through a virtual setting. 8 I, Benita Duran, do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Library Commission which I am about to enter. Benita Duran STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF BOULDER ) SS.: ) CITY OF BOULDER ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of _______________, 2021. Board Secretary OATH OF OFFICE 9 April 2, 2021 TO: Library Commission FROM: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director SUBJECT: Review of Library Security Practices PURPOSE: Following the shooting tragedy that took the lives of ten Boulder community members on March 22, 2021 at the Table Mesa Kings Soopers store, the Library Commission requested the opportunity to review the library system’s security practices. This memo outlines current security service at the Main Library and safety information provided to staff. CONTRACT SECURITY: The City has a services contract with Mercurial Security Solutions on behalf of the library. One contract security officer is scheduled on duty for the current, reduced schedule of open hours at the Main Library. Prior to the pandemic, the library contract was held by JCJ National Security. One contract security officer was scheduled on duty during open hours with a second officer also scheduled for the closing shift. Since the Main Library is currently operating under a reduced schedule with limited public access to the facility, one officer with support from the staff has been sufficient to address behavioral and other security issues, and secure the building at close. As public health and safety restrictions are relaxed, capacity restricts are lifted and more of the facility becomes accessible to patrons, the Public Services team will assess the level of security coverage necessary. This will occur in conjunction with the team’s research and recommendation whether to bring security and/or peer navigator positions in-house as standard city positions. The team leads, Antonia Gaona and Tim McClelland are planning to present their recommendation to commission at the June 2, 2021 meeting. None of the library branch locations nor the Carnegie Library for Local History has security. The Library Leadership Team typically assess the security needs of the system annually prior to budget development for the following year. The current Library Commission may be interested in reviewing the discussions that led to the commission’s recommendation to change from armed to unarmed security officers in 2016 (See highlighted sections in Attachment A). 10 SAFETY INFORMATION AND TRAINING: The City HR and Risk Management Teams offer regular, no to low cost training to city departments on safety issues including de- escalation, conflict management, etc. In 2019, the library formed a department Emergency Preparedness committee with staff representatives from all levels to update safety protocols, develop training videos, and conduct building tours. The committee is responsible for reviewing and updating the safety information annually, and assessing the need to offer repeat training. All of the protocols, contact information, and training videos (including the Active Shooter Training presented in 2019 jointly by Risk Management, Boulder Police and CU Police Departments) are available on the library’s staff intranet site for staff access anytime. 11 Library Commission Minutes 4 November 2015 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: November 4, 2015 at the Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact Information Preparing Summary: Jennifer Bray, 303-441-4160 Commission Members Present: Paul Sutter, Joni Teter, Donna O’Brien, Alicia Gibb, and Tim O’Shea Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director City staff present: Greg Guibert, Chief Resilience Officer Jennifer Bray, Communication Specialist III Public present: Nikki McCord Dick Shahan Joel Koenig Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order and Approval of Agenda [6:00 p.m., 00 Audio min] The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda Item 2: Public Participation [6:00:40 p.m., 00:40 Audio min] Dick Shahan stated that the library staff enjoyed the All Staff Day, very happy with whole thing. Nov. 21 is his last day working at BPL before retirement, and he invited library commissioners to attend the celebration on Nov. 19, from 2- 3:30 p.m at the Main Library. Nikki McCord: On Oct. 27, 2015, she attended a Small Business Development Center event here at the Main Library, saw the security officer with a gun and was uncomfortable that he had a gun. She does not feel safe around anyone with a gun, and cited recent incidents of unarmed, black people being killed unnecessarily. She suggested the Library Commission should consider changing rules around gun carrying, and reconsider contract with security firm if they insist on having a firearm. She stated that she will not be using the Main Library while the security officers are carrying firearms. She also asked why NoBo Corner Library does not accept cash payments for fines or fees, and as she will be using that library in the future, asked that this be changed. She asked to be informed when BPL and Library Commission will be discussing the firearms issue and the fee payment issue at NoBo. Agenda Item 3: Consent Agenda [6:05:58 p.m., 05:58Audio min] Item 3A, Approval of Oct. 7, 2015 meeting minutes (p. 3) Teter sent in a clarification for Item 12D, page 6. Teter motioned to approve the minutes with the recommended changes. O’Brien seconded. Approved with 5-0 vote. Agenda Item 4: Conversation with Greg Guibert, City of Boulder Chief Resilience Officer [6:07:08 p.m., 07:08 Audio min] Guibert presentation about the City of Boulder’s efforts around resiliency, and the 100 Resilient Cities program of the Rockefeller Foundation, of which Boulder is a participant. Any questions? Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: O’Brien: Loves the scientific research about a gene for resiliency in humans. Is there data on why a city might be resilient, or characteristics? Guibert: There are, and a lot of this is brand new, but a lot comes down to social networks. There are 7 identified attributes of resilience, which he’ll send to Library Commission. Gibb: Is there a branding or logo for a Resilient City? Resiliency “certification” of a sort. Guibert: designing a resilience matrix. Some kind of measure of how resilient a city is. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 12 Library Commission Minutes 4 November 2015 Page 2 of 4 O’Shea: In what ways do you think the library could be central to some of these conversations? Guibert: align with other city priorities like affordable housing or climate change. Might be able to have a climate change conversation here at the library or somewhere. Teter: Interacting with the arts, connecting these issues across the globe and seeing similarities. Possibly including the concept of resilience in the next Jaipur Literature Festival or in other forums with the library. International festival, also records all of its sessions and posts them online. Guibert: only city to have engaged youth so far with Growing Up Boulder; as well as using art to convey concept of resilience. Agenda Item 5: Discussion of 2016 Library Commission priorities and annual letter to City Council [6:32 p.m., Audio 32:06 min] Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: Teter had sent an email to Farnan with suggestions for changes for the language around the Jaipur Literature Festival, including about programming and event planning in the Civic Area. Events Department to help assist with events like the JLF. Gibb asking about funding or marketing budget for the library – concept of events department. So that BPL is not stuck as main programming entity for the Civic Area. Gibb stated we probably don’t need to worry about including the actual six questions in the letter itself but possibly referring to them occasionally as needed. Gibb: Suggesting that BPL needs a marketing budget, similar to Parks & Recreation. Gibb: Include some numbers to show the growth in use of BPL programs, like STEAM programs, Jaipur Literature Festival, Makerspace fundraiser event and programs, storytime attendance, new library cardholders are up 25%, etc. Teter: BoulderReads numbers. O’Shea: Number of new cardholders is noteworthy. Teter: BPL serving as a community forum and a place for civic dialogue. General marketing and outreach about the library and all of the ways to use. Sutter: I’m hearing marketing and outreach, events coordination and planning, adding collections, any other thoughts? Highlight things that are really new this year. Keep it to two pages maximum. Agenda Item 6: Library and Arts Director’s Report: [6:52 p.m., Audio 52:38 min] Discussion of Boulder Civic Area parking plan proposed changes to time limits and fees for the Library (Arapahoe Ave.) and Municipal (Canyon Blvd.) lots Sutter mentioned the questions 2, 3, 4 in the director’s report memo. Farnan stated that it’s hard to know if any amount of time would be enough to get the word out about these changes, as people tend to not pay attention to change until they see the impact on them immediately. Impact on library staff, as public tends to think of the Arapahoe parking lot as the library lot. What is really changing here? O’Brien: Questions about 24-hour period (specific time period, banking the 90 minutes throughout a day?) and not being able to use the lots a few times over two days. Teter: What are we trying to manage exactly; and do we truly understand the usage of the library? Sutter: When you park, are you automatically using your 90 free minutes, or can you use the paid time first and save your free 90 minutes? What about moving among different Civic Area lots within one day? O’Shea: Will the parking here in Civic Area lots mesh with the other downtown parking meters, as far as using the pay parking display tickets downtown, and then moving over to the Civic Area lots? Gibb: Does the public know specifically what the “Civic Area” is – as far as boundaries? And where that differentiates from the downtown, other type of managed parking? Need very clear, very good signage. Thinks the parking signs up on campus are not clear. O’Brien: Concern about civil liberties issues with entering license plate information. O’Shea: Any possibility of having the library validate parking for library programs? Farnan: don’t have capacity. Sutter: City employees can park all day, so that’s different from everyone else in the Civic Area lots. Could the library get more employee passes for longer stays at the library? Farnan: Yes, we would need to purchase them. Teter: System not the same for everyone with this difference between general public and city employees, also challenging differences of using the 3-hour time limit in different small chunks. Seems like a disincentive for people to use the Civic Area. What are we trying to do here, exactly? The more I hear about this, the more concerns I have. Farnan: Trying to create turnover. Parking lot does not work well the way it is. One of the goals is to reduce city employee parking in the Civic Area by 10%, and there are some pilot programs underway to incentivize employees to not park in the Civic Area. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 13 Library Commission Minutes 4 November 2015 Page 3 of 4 O’Brien: When there’s something like JLF, will there be a parking pay holiday? Teter: Or at least doing away with the limit on 3 hours of parking in the Civic Area during those festivals? The time limit is the thing I’m worried the most about. O’Brien: How long is STEAM Saturdays? Farnan: Ranges from 2-4 hours. Sutter: I’m concerned about the multiple trips in one day to the library. Only being allowed to park once per day will be a huge headache for all of us, no matter if you were only here for 5 minutes the first time. Need to make sure that if we accept the 3-hour time limit per day, then it should allow multiple trips to make up that 3 full hours of parking per 24- hour period. If we as a commission urge for free Saturday parking, then that may address a lot of our concerns. Gibb: Did the parking study look at Saturdays? Farnan: There were some Saturdays, but we didn’t look at the different days very specifically or closely. Teter: We need specific dates for this new parking program to be assessed and evaluated with data, like April or May or June. How many people are using, how many complaints we’ve had, etc. And how the makerspace will be affected? Gibb: Makerspace users might be here for 6-8 hours, so that could impact the parking time limits as well. Hard to know for sure just yet, but it may become an issue as the Makerspace opens in January. Farnan: There is a city parking structure for longer-term parking next to the St. Julien. Teter: Signage seems like it will need to be really detailed and long to explain all of these options for time of stay. O’Shea: Clearly we have questions, including this does not seem an adequate amount of time to inform the public about these changes. Farnan: Plan is to have ambassadors in the parking lots, signage, handouts, talking points, hopefully a few articles in the Daily Camera. O’Shea: Would it be possible to alert people via the mobile app to notify them their parking time is about to run out? Parking Services does offer a mobile app that does this and we should make sure library patrons know about it. Teter: Questions about the grace period/education period. Farnan answered about the 45-day public education period and ambassadors in the lots, and there will be warnings, however repeat offenders would receive a ticket. O’Shea: New parking system begins about the same time that we begin our new theater program with DBI in the Canyon Theater. Farnan: The time for those film showings should make parking available for those patrons, as well as the parking structure options. Sutter: Concerns about the specific mechanics about how this will work (3 hours gets parsed, what’s the 24 hour period, can you park multiple times within the Civic Area within 24 hours, etc.); would like to push for free Saturdays; really want to look at a six-month or so evaluation period with data (are their seasonal usage changes around parking?); must have clear signage; problems with events parking for larger events and longer stays at library; rollout – time period for rollout has not been sufficient, parity with the rest of downtown makes sense to make it easier for the public to understand. Teter: Price is not the problem, it’s the complexity. O’Brien: Will any of the signage also be in Spanish? Teter: Is Parking Services at all talking about not keeping Saturdays free in the parking structures in the future? Sutter: Will attempt to craft all of these concerns into one email to BPL-Comm email. For David Farnan to pass along to city staff. Farnan: Parking Services and other city staff will come to the December 2 meeting to discuss this program with you, and answer questions, etc. Teter: Worth being proactive in the library newsletter and social media? Farnan: Yes, we should. Sutter: We’ll have another shot at this at our meeting in December, but this is happening really quickly so it’s important to share our concerns. Agenda item 7: Review commission candidate application questions [7:42 p.m., Audio 1:42:15 min] Sutter: Teter had suggestions in her email, but what do others think? O’Brien suggested dropping number 6. Sutter: Let’s go through each one. Number one: strip it down a bit. Change number 2 to: “What is your experience with Boulder Public Library and why do you want to serve on this commission?” Change number 3 to be about how you worked on an advisory commission or board. Number 4 seemed okay but trying to make clearer about what is being asked. Number 5, just take out the renovation and leave in the reinventing piece. Or “What are your thoughts about libraries in the 21st century?” Teter: suggest keeping idea of some constraints, but not saying “constrained revenues” exactly. Tradeoffs. Use question 7 to add in thoughts of tradeoffs or a specific issue such as digital versus print books? Number 7 and number 8 are good questions, but Gibb wonders what populations we’re trying to reach in the term “diverse populations”? Gibb will create a new draft and send to commissioners, for review at the December meeting. Agenda Item 8: Library Master Plan update [7:58 p.m., Audio1:58:28 min] Received no proposals from Request For Proposals; staff will re-do the RFP and will evaluate sending out to allow consultants to bid on pieces of the RFP. Also reaching out to certain firms that do this kind of work. Will push our Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 14 Library Commission Minutes 4 November 2015 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Sutter approved these minutes on 12/23/2015; and Jennifer Miles attested to it. An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Library Commission web page at http://boulderlibrary.org/about/commission.html timeline back about a month. O’Brien asked if any library commissioners would be able to participate in interviews for the consultant. Phares responded that they would. Agenda Item 9: Library Commission update [8:00 p.m., Audio 2:12:38 min] a. Future agenda items – See calendar. O’Brien’s last meeting as commissioner is January. Civic Area parking in December. Revised meeting room policy to December meeting. b. Library Commissioner job description. Reports to City Council. Can we forward this to the city clerk along with the questions for the candidates, so that they can be included as candidates apply and understand more clearly what they are applying for. Teter moved accepting the job description, O’Shea seconded, approved 5-0. c. Boulder Library Foundation update – Boulder Library Foundation / Makerspace fundraiser was a rousing success, met all of our goals, and even made money. A few donation checks received that night. Soft benefits of connections, etc. were made as well. The speaker was wonderful. It was a lot of work, but it was definitely worth it. Next year, do 4-6 smaller events. Also want to launch a “Friends of the Library Foundation” type of organization. Foundation also voted to hire a part-time staff person on a one-year contract position. d. Update on patron email responses from the Library Commission. No discussion. Agenda Item 10: Third quarter library website statistics [8:10 p.m., Audio 2:10:10 min] Farnan went through them briefly. Some were mixed that he has questions about, but no answers. No questions. Agenda Item 11: Adjournment [8:12 p.m., Audio 2:12:38 min] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6:00 p.m. on Weds., December 2, 2015, in the Canyon Meeting Room at the Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave., Boulder, CO 80302. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 15 Library Commission Minutes 6 January 2016 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: January 6, 2016, Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact Information Preparing Summary: Suzi E Lane, 303-441-3106 Commission Members Present: Donna O’Brien, Tim O’Shea, Paul Sutter, and Joni Teter Library Staff Present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Suzi Lane, Administrative Specialist II Eileen McCluskey, Public Services Manager City Staff Present: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Caitlin Zacharias, Comprehensive Planning Associate Planner Public Present: Nikki Rashada McCord Kai McKenzie Anne Sawyer Dick Shahan Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order and Approval of Agenda [6:00 p.m., Audio 0:03] The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. It was noted that Alicia Gibb was absent, but her agenda comments were submitted within the handouts. Agenda approved. Agenda Item 2: Public Comment [6:00 p.m., Audio 1:01] Shahan addressed agenda item 5 regarding armed security officers. He asked if, in the past eight years, whether there had been any incidents where library security officers had to draw their weapon. If not, he wondered if a gun is a necessary object of deterrence. Secondly, regarding the makerspace agenda item 7, he wondered if there is enough information in the document about the use and safety in the mandatory class. It seems to lack in what is being offered. Do you get a certificate that allows you to sign the release warrant? Do volunteers need to take the class? Mr. Shahan feels that the policy is vague. Nikki Rashada McCord thanked the commissioners for informing her of the armed security officers agenda item 5, and she is pleased that this topic is being addressed. She has chosen to address the human impact of what is being considered. She then read her submitted handout. Agenda Item 3: Consent Agenda [6:03 p.m., Audio 6:34] Approval of Dec. 2, 2015 meeting minutes Co mmissioner O’Shea voiced a question regarding the commissioner handbook. A comment about absentee voting in the affirmative, unless you are not actually there for the meeting. O’Shea had to leave the December meeting early, therefore; he was not sure how to vote. It was made clear that he cannot vote. Teter motioned to approve the minutes. O’Shea seconded. Approved with 3-0, 1-abstention, 1-absence Agenda Item 4: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan - Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, and Caitlin Zacharias, Comprehensive Planning, Associate Planner [6:08 p.m., Audio 7:56] The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) is really the long-term vision plan for the community. The plan looks 25 years out, and forecasts out 15 years, and helps set a path and a course for the future. It’s jointly adopted by the city and county and includes the Boulder County Commissioners as well as the Boulder City Council. They have an intergovernmental agreement, so the plan is very well supported, and updated every five years. This is their five- year update. The plan related to the community sustainability framework, library community wellbeing, and economic vitality chapters, and implemented in the Library Master Plan and in different departments such as Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 16 Library Commission Minutes 6 January 2016 Page 2 of 5 transportation, parks and recreation, as well as in other master plans and facilities plans that actually implement it along with their regulations for land use codes, budgeting, capital improvement programs. It is very high arching and detail-specific. The planners are heading into a big phase where they are updating the policy, developing some options and alternatives, and analysis through the coming years. Ms. Ellis’ memo summarized the different products and materials that are available, trends reports, fact sheets and so forth. The plan is more focused around land use and growth factors which are partly the nature of the plan and a lot of the community discussions over the past year. Their work has focused on the physical characteristics of the community land use and demographic characteristics. Available fact sheets and reports may be helpful while updating the Library Master Plan. The Community Engagement Plan is quite robust, which is on the BVCP project webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/boulder-valley-comprehensive-plan-2015-major-update. They are guided by their process committee. They have been given principles to work with, and have a number of ways to get out to the community digitally, in person with listening sessions and culturally sensitive outreach, and hearing from harder to reach areas in the community. Their handout has some survey results that reflect that people love the open spaces, the trails, and the bike system, to name a few. Areas to work on are housing affordability, and some neighborhood character issues. The survey in the fall, which addressed libraries, went out to 6,000 households and received 900 responses. The survey was mostly focused on land use type of issues, but also listed questions on core values. Some voiced a desire for more library locations as they are a vital part of the community. Lesli will share the survey results with David and Jennifer. Looking forward to 2016, they anticipate that they will have some focus work to do. They get direction from approval bodies and what to focus on, and they have a plan to start with. They would like the commission’s input on core values. On the planned policy integration side, there were a lot of suggestions regarding arts and culture, adding a policy on diversity, and community wellbeing. When the library is done with their master plan, they will make sure the comp plan is updated to reflect the library’s changes. Hopefully, there is an opportunity to collaborate on outreach or engagement with the library. In closing, for the next six months, staff will be working on all of these topics, they will be working with the public and then return to the commission later this spring and will be inviting ideas and input around all of the updates. O’Shea asked what the response was thus far. The process committee said that they want the community to know this update is happening, and want them to send a postcard to every household to let them know that they can sign up for events. Over 200 people attended the kick- off meeting. About 450 people attended the (six) listening sessions. There has been a lot of input on the casual surveys online. The upcoming survey will be less open-ended and more focused on options. O’Shea asked where the gaps were. Responses from the Hispanic community were lower. They have had very helpful input from youth, and would like more input from younger families. O’Brien asked if any teenagers had input. They are thinking about having some events that piggyback the end of school. They have a youth community advisory group and they are very engaged, thoughtful and insightful. They also work with Growing Up Boulder. Sutter asked what they are doing regarding land use. Sometime in the late 1980s-90s, there was a recognition that took place that really needed to get people and prosperity into it. And so these elements were added to start to try and bring those things on par. What they are hoping is to create a more solid, strong vision around the people piece, which is the culture and human services, and housing. In the next three years, they would like to look at some of these things together in a more coordinated way. Lesli asked that the commissioners send their thoughts and ideas to her. Public Comments Reopened: [6:33 p.m., Audio 29:09] McKenzie spoke on behalf of the transgender community and facilitates for the Boulder Transgender Support Group. Her specific concern is the Main Library and Meadows Branch. The Main Library only has two bathrooms, which is not enough for anyone in the community, and not a safe space for transgendered people. She hears weekly stories of people being harassed in the bathrooms. Most transgender people never leave binary standards, and a binary bathroom system is totally inadequate and dangerous. In the long term, there is a necessity for an all-gender bathroom that is easily accessible and obviously placed. If you have any questions about the transgender community Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 17 Library Commission Minutes 6 January 2016 Page 3 of 5 please let her know. Sutter stated that he had included his correspondence with Kai in the library commission packet. Agenda Item 5: Private, armed security officers at BPL [6:33 p.m., Audio 32:55] • McCluskey: The real issue is well-trained security officers. • Sutter: Read Gibb’s email since she was absent from the meeting. • O’Shea: He questioned the history of incidents with the library on this issue and would like to be more educated. • Farnan: we do not have a history of a weapon being drawn, or the use of pepper spray. • Phares: It is rare that there has even been any physical contact. • O’Shea: Have any situations of physical violence occurred? • Farnan: Yes, with our staff as well as with our security officer. Our staff is trained to withdraw and call the police. • O’Shea: Is any sensitivity from staff regarding armed/unarmed security officers? • McCluskey: Have you heard from staff that the training required to carry a gun escalates the training they receive. She feels that our security officers are well trained. • Teter: What is important is that we understand how to treat patrons with respect and know how to deescalate situations. We have a good relationship with the police department. One concern is the transition with our security officers going from armed to unarmed. A critical factor is to have officers who are familiar with libraries. • O’Brien: Is the issue with our security officers being armed or the issue of having regular patrols of armed police coming through the library? Will that raise patron anxiety, therefore, choosing not to come to the library? • O’Brien: We should follow the lead of other libraries of no armed security officers. • Sutter: The arguments he has heard for armed security officers are: An active shooter (according to the police, an armed security officer is not effective in this scenario for a building the size of the library). Armed security officers tend to be a higher quality and receive higher training. This has nothing to do with the quality of officers we have now. The perceived safety of our officers and a deterrent. • Sutter: His concern is that an armed security officer makes us feel uncomfortable and that something could go terribly wrong. • O’Shea: Our security officers have a relationship with patrons. We need to understand what a transition would entail. • Farnan: We would need to put out an RFP, which is a months-long process to get new bids. We could pay a higher rate to train our security officers. Possibly we end up with all new officers as our current officers may not want to go unarmed. • O’Shea: What is the general policy on city buildings in Boulder? • Farnan: If you have a license to carry a weapon, you can bring them in city buildings. Mostly negative publicity has been expressed where people go into public places with a weapon. • Teter: Our security officers, who have longevity and know our patrons, know what behaviors may escalate, are a critical piece to consider. • Teter: Recommend move toward unarmed security officers. O’Brien seconded. Approved with 4-0. Discussion to continue at next meeting. • Sutter: For the record, our security officers are doing an excellent job. Agenda Item 6: Thank you to Library Commissioner Donna O’Brien, whose terms ends Jan. 6, 2016 [6:56 p.m., Audio 56:45] Agenda Item 7: Review and approval of BLDG 61 Makerspace Policy, Guidelines for Use, and Tools and Material Donation Guidelines [7:18 p.m., Audio 1:02:20] Sutter stated that this is a somewhat rushed issue to get BLDG 61 Makerspace open; he made some edits and moved items around. Attachment A with track changes: 1. First paragraph: omit the word “free.” 2. Second paragraph: Include “except those on tours.” 3. Regarding “equipment and tools:” there needs to be a distinction between the two. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 18 Library Commission Minutes 6 January 2016 Page 4 of 5 4. Remove “to cover the cost of providing such materials for public use.” 5. Staff should add “Materials may or may not be available for use, and when available, and there may be a fee” as they see fit. 6. A Charge regarding the use and fees of equipment needs to be clear. 7. Regarding damages or clean-up expenses. We need to separate these; we need one sentence about us charging for the use of consumable materials, and they are responsible for any charges associated with loss or damage to our facility. 8. Third paragraph: Remove “including the creation of weapons, pornography, or illegal items.” 9. Last sentence: Add “Projects must be approved… before “At their discretion…” 10. Second paragraph: Change “permission” to “approval.” 11. Second paragraph: It is sufficient to say “Does not constitute endorsement by the BPL.” Remove “its staff.” Attachment B, under BLDG 61 Guidelines for Use: 1. Fourth bullet point: Add “when they enter the space” at the end of the sentence. 2. Last bullet point: Add “for all minors under 14.” Attachment B, under Safety Guidelines: 1. Third bullet point: Change “workshop” to “the space.” Attachment C: 1. Second bullet point: Change “programs” to “Makerspace activities.” Motion to approve the policy as amended in the meeting tonight. O’Brien seconded. Vote 4-0. Agenda Item 8: Library Commission Handbook [7:59 p.m., Audio 1:44:10] Sutter suggested that they devote a little bit of time during this meeting, with the understanding that this will be a multi-meeting process that they do not need to fix everything tonight. The committee will take a critical inventory, divvy up responsibilities and make provisions. Teter: Let’s get a general sense from the commission tonight, have a couple of commissioners take it from here and bring back. Gibb has volunteered to do so. Phares offered a staff member to sit with the subcommittee to make revisions. Teter stated that the bylaws would require a different subcommittee. O’Shea suggested a collaborative (Word) document will be extremely useful, and not taking commission meeting time. Sutter will work with Gibb on the document. It was decided to go briefly through the table of contents: Sutter: Part One: Legal Background. We need to revise the bylaws and get the new charter language connected to this. Part Two: Library Information; Section I. – Commission; • B. List of commissioners needs to be updated. • E. Remove this item. • H. Remove this item but, a. Ask staff to develop a boilerplate paragraph. b. Develop a digitized historical information file. Possibly a link in the handbook. • Add job description. Section II – Principal Documents • C. Remove this item. Section III – Library Operations • B. Replace with Devon’s summary on how the budget process works in general. • D. Just need links to the policies page. Section IV – Communications • Needs to be updated. Our guidelines should be the same as the City of Boulder’s. • B. Remove this item. • C. Recommended we talk to the marketing committee with the foundation to see if they will help with an update or a link to the website. Section V – Commission Meetings • Sutter will continue with revision. Gibb would be a good sounding board as well. Glossary Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 19 Library Commission Minutes 6 January 2016 Page 5 of 5 • Add a link to the BPL website. Sutter and Gibb will meet to come up with a revised table of contents. Agenda Item 9: Master Plan update [8:23 p.m., Audio 2:07:43] Farnan will come up with a strategy, will meet with staff, and may come back with something a little less ambitious. Agenda Item 10: Library Commission update [8:25 p.m., Audio 2:09:26] a) Future agenda items – See calendar for updates. Sutter mistakenly listed the next meeting as February 3, but it is February 10 at the Meadows Branch. b) Discuss updating the Library Commission bylaws and establishing a subcommittee. Teter will work on a draft. c) Boulder Library Foundation update. Teter: The governance committee has met to recommend to the foundation a different way of bringing on commission board members. This topic will be discussed at the next foundation meeting. O’Brien: Will there be expectations for the foundation for the board members? Teter: Yes, there is still a discussion on what that is and on a time commitment. d) Boulder Library Foundation appointment. Regarding Donna O’Brien’s replacement, Tim O’Shea is willing to step into her position. Motion to approve Tim O’Shea, Teter seconded. Vote 4-0. e) Update on patron email responses from the Library Commission. Sutter: We had emails regarding parking. Gibb had comments in her email, in the packet. Sutter: I want to make it clear that this is not our process, we were not driving these changes, and we are not necessarily happy about everything that is happening. Sutter: The other issue is McKenzie’s issue of gender-neutral bathrooms. Sutter and Mayor Suzanne Jones discussed whether this was a library or city issue. It was suggested that we look at best practices elsewhere. Teter feels that this is a city issue. This will be a capital investment, a budgetary issue. Farnan and Phares will be looking into this by April in time for the budget process. Farnan would like the library to set an example. Teter: We need to look at leased facilities vs. owned. Sutter will send an email to McKenzie. Agenda Item 11: Library and Arts Director’s Report [8:42 p.m., Audio 2:26:46] a) Update of hiring the Library Foundation community partnership manager, the new position. We needed to make some mi nor revisions. This is a half-time position funded by the foundation. b) Boulder Library Foundation /BPL cooperative agreement. The agreement will be reviewed by the foundation in January and ask for approval in February. c) Update on plans for the launch of the art house cinema program, Boulder Art Cinema. Library staff and Downtown Boulder, Inc. (DBI) staff are still working on the logistics for getting a bid on electrical work. The sound study showed that we do not have to build a room. Still aiming for mid-February, and currently working on their marketing materials. We are working with DBI on the launch. O’Shea asked if there was an opportunity to market this addition with the International Film Festival in early March. Farnan will take this into consideration. Agenda Item 12: Adjournment [8:51 p.m. Audio 2:35:33] The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at the Meadows Branch, 4800 Baseline Road. Commissioner Sutter approved these minutes on February 10, 2016; and Jennifer Miles attested to it. An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Library Commission web page at http://boulderlibrary.org/about/commission.html Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 20 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: February 10, 2016, Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact Information Preparing Summary: Suzi E Lane, 303-441-3106 Commission Members Present: Alicia Gibb, Tim O’Shea, Paul Sutter, and Joni Teter Library Staff Present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Suzi Lane, Administrative Specialist II City Staff Present: Aimee Schumm, eServices Manager Hillary Dodge, Meadows Manager Public Present: Dick Shahan Nikki Rashada McCord Juana Gomez Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order and Approval of Agenda [6:00 p.m., Audio 0:20] The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm Agenda approved. Agenda Item 2: Public Comment [6:01 p.m., Audio 0:28] McCord addressed agenda item 6e regarding armed security officers. She read her submitted handout. Paul read an email from Joel Koenig, regarding parking. Agenda Item 3: Consent Agenda [6:07 p.m., Audio 6:51] Approval of Jan. 6, 2016, meeting minutes Commissioner Teter requested a change of language on page 3, in the section entitled Public Comments Reopened, regarding transgender bathrooms. Add the word Main in front of Library. Commissioner Sutter requested a change of language on page 5, item 5, where it states: Sutter: Hire quality security officers, or to keep the officers we have. Change this to read: Armed security officers tend to be a higher quality and receive higher training. Sutter motioned to approve the minutes, O’Shea seconded. Approved 3-0, 1-abstention Agenda Item 4: Meeting Room Updates [6:09 p.m., Audio 9:13] Aimee Schumm attended the meeting on behalf of Eileen McCluskey. •Teter questioned the policy regarding the 180 minute meeting room reservation time limit per month as applied to sponsored programs and groups engaged in library business, especially the BLF. •Schumm said that the 180 minutes is our baseline. As we start this program, we are going to reevaluate this in six months to see if we can raise or lower that amount, depending on meeting room occupancy rates and how many people are taking advantage of the reservation system. Library-related business is something that is booked through staff as they have more control over how many minutes are given to a particular group. Library-sponsored events get priority and additional meeting time. We started with 180 minutes, and we can adjust as necessary. Sponsorships go through a different process so staff would be Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 1 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 21 involved in reserving the rooms. •Sutter suggested saying something along the lines of, “This policy does not apply to sponsored programs.” •Teter said that the sponsorship agreement does not address planning meetings. The sponsorship agreement addresses the program, so any meetings you have about planning, updates, or any of those are not addressed. •Sutter referenced page 14, the second bullet point, wondering if that is necessary given that the study room policy is right beneath it. It states that the study rooms cannot be reserved, but then there's also confusion about the branch libraries and study rooms, which can be reserved. He is inclined to strike that parenthetical phrase. Include a bullet point saying that study rooms at the Main Library cannot be reserved, or something along those lines. A link to the kind of equipment and connectors required may be helpful, so all the information is embedded into the software along with the image of each room. •Schumm said that she was not certain she could do that, but will look at her options •Teter thought there is still some confusion about the connector piece, A/V support, anything we could do to clarify that for people would be helpful. Sutter motioned to approve the revised policy with changes from the commission, Teter seconded and the policy was approved unanimously. Agenda Item 5: Library Master Plan Update [6:19 p.m., Audio 19:26] •Farnan said that the master plan project scope is much narrower and the Request for Proposal will be out relatively soon. •Phares said that after evaluating each phase, staff will move on to next steps and possibly hire a consultant for phases 1, 2, and 4. Staff may bring in experts from the library or related fields for Phase 3. Teter asked how facilities review is being handled. •Farnan said that staff is going to do that review mostly in-house. The Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Division of the Public Works Department has an updated study. They need to do some analysis on the current buildings, and this notion of the replacement cost and whether they are continually operating at an efficient level, which kind of plays into owned facilities and rented facilities. The city’s FAM Division has done quite an extensive analysis of all the buildings, but we need them to look at it in a slightly different way and from a financial perspective as well. Staff should have an update next month with regard to the facilities study on the Main Library renovations, and David will have that for commission to review and then it will be posted online. Agenda Item 6: Library Commission Update [6:22 p.m., Audio 22:21] a.By-laws Teter stated that we didn't change the numbering system in the charter and thought that was the biggest concern is that the numbers would be off. Also, the suggestion to eliminate secretaries and the officer position, which is consistent with the way other departments have functioned, and the way we are functioning now. The decision was made to take action on the by-laws at the next meeting. b. Handbook Sutter will send the updated draft with tonight’s revisions to Gibb, Farnan, and Phares for further discussion at the April meeting. c.Foundation Updates •Teter said that they had a good retreat January 16. They spoke about their successes and moving forward. They discussed adding members and looking for a certain matrix and attributes. Currently, the foundation has five openings. The consensus is that the foundation wants two more members but can go up to four. She mentioned that David made some preliminary presentations about programs. The foundation is dealing with some new expenses this year, such as administration costs, which will be discussed in February. •Farnan stated that the Community Partnerships Manager position was posted online two days ago. •O’Shea stated that an RFP went out for a financial manager Feb. 15, so if you have any suggestions, contact him or Teter to put them in for consideration. Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 2 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 22 d.Patron Email No comments e.Armed Security •Teter requested that we reconsider our vote from the January meeting to disarm security officers. After talking to library staff and some patrons, there is another side to this issue, and we did not give that consideration. We didn’t listen to the side that says “I feel safer with armed guards.” Last year, we brought on extra police patrols because negative behavior had risen to a certain level, there is a level of concern and fear among some of our patrons and staff, and a perception that having someone with a gun is helpful, not that they would use the gun. We should spend some time looking at the incident reports and get a sense of what they are. •Sutter stated that if we are going to consider reopening this, it would be useful to have a clear sense of what we are looking to get out of reopening. In terms of if we want staff feedback or more details on incidents and history. This is an opportunity to see what our responsibility is as a commission. •Teter said that not all libraries are the same in the sense of dealing with what we are, with a transient population that is at the level we are. Boulder is very attractive to the transient populations. Denver, for example, has security guards at both doors and checks everybody as they go in. It would be helpful to answer the questions about how libraries are coping. Talk with people about their fears regarding disarming guards as well. •Farnan stated that we need to get more information about what Denver does, to figure out if guns deter crime. The intent is to make our stance clear. Do we want to engage the public? Do we want to ask the staff? We need to balance comments from all, and then the director ultimately makes the decision. •Phares said that looking at incident reports is just going to tell you what happened, it is not going to tell you if it would have been different if a guard didn’t have a firearm. We can give you the answer about reports, which are significantly down this year from where they were last year. •O’Shea generally supported Teter’s assessment. We made a decision without fully appreciating other aspects. I think there's a question that goes beyond what's being discussed which is armed vs. unarmed, and that seems to come down to gun or no gun. I think there are other aspects that I'm not clear on as to non-lethal force, whether that is a taser, pepper spray, or mace included with security. There were some aspects that will be costly to the library for the staffing, some pieces of the puzzle that I just became clearer on after the original conversation. •Farnan stated that our protocol is to call 911 immediately in escalated situations. •Sutter is in favor of reopening this issue. I wish that we had spent more time with staff. I am reticent to opening this up to public. •Farnan pointed out that this meeting is a public process, and we placed a notice in the paper. Also, we can inquire with our current security company if they offer a service that provides non- lethal stopping force. He does not know if they currently provide security officers with pepper spray. We also need to be clear about our intent to have an armed security officer at the cinema program where liquor is sold and served. We pay two security officers overtime, so to be clear on that, whether that's a separate consideration or an equal consideration of the current contract. The City of Boulder will not allow liquor to be served in a civic area, above a certain number of people, without the presence of an armed security officer, so there is this connection between guns and alcohol. We have time to decide, there is no deadline on our current security contract. The difference would be a different contract if we decide to go with unarmed security officers. •Sutter said that it is very important that the commissioners be unified in our approach to this. His suggestions are 1. Library Commission must be unified to this approach if possible. 2. Open up this issue and look at incident reports, what does “armed” mean? 3. What are our strategies? Let’s allow one month to talk to staff, and see how police factor in. Bring this to our next meeting. What we can do to increase safety if we prefer security officers are unarmed? •Phares will get information from 2015; information on what Denver is doing, options for unarmed officers, incident reports (abbreviated analysis and physical encounters), process for Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 3 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 23 enforcing rules when a situation escalates, and any changes since the remodel. •Farnan will check with other libraries that have gone from unarmed to armed security. Sutter motioned to suspend recommendation, wait for additional information, and reopen. Teter seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously. Agenda Item 7: Library and Arts Director’s Report [7:36 p.m., Audio 1:34:56] a.Update on the Library Security Contract at the Main Library: Farnan: The security company did inform us that an armed security officer would be required for an environment serving alcohol. That is something we have to take into consideration under our current contract with this company. We could bring in another company for that event or choose other options. I don't think the Boulder Art Cinema will have the numbers for law enforcement, but I can find that out. b.Update on Research Concerning Gender-neutral Restrooms: Phares supplied handouts. Currently, we are at one restroom above the code requirements at the Main Library. We don't understand all of the implications as of yet if code requires the library to provide restrooms accessible by particular genders. At this point, given the costs associated with doing this, we have to set aside more funds for renovating restrooms since it was something that was not in the scope of the Main Library renovation. We have been trying to collect enough money just to do basic renovations of the restrooms. We would need some support from the city in order to accomplish these goals, if that's what we choose to do, putting in gender-neutral restrooms. Sutter wanted to clarify an important point regarding the useful data that was gathered about how other libraries are dealing with this. It seems like they're dealing with it effectively, passively, by creating family or gender-neutral restrooms that are single use. He thinks it's important that we do some research and find out what other cities are doing and find the best practices and come back with some recommendations, which may have budget implications. If we opt to do this, it’s going to mean there’s something else we are not going to be able to do. He would like the commissioners to think it through with both cost and code in mind. c.Update on Boulder Art Cinema Launch: Cinema’s opening soon, so get your tickets. Go to the DBI website to see the list of movies and purchase tickets. The sound check was fantastic with a first-rate system. d.Update on BLDG 61 Makerspace: Aimee Schumm, eServices manager: BLDG 61 is having its grand opening soon, and she hopes commissioners will try to attend or volunteer. The Facebook post about the grand opening has been viewed by 9,500 as of yesterday. There were several positive comments. She is in need of several volunteers as the event is much bigger than anticipated. e.Boulder Library Foundation Grant Requests: Farnan stated that at the retreat, the foundation made it clear that they were interested in putting somewhat less money in as compared to last year. Last year, the total asked for was half a million. This year, Farnan requested roughly $325,000 with some add-ons which got to around $350,000. The Author Speaker Series is the biggest reduction, with surrendering the pursuit of big-name authors. He is currently pursuing a number of grant opportunities, and has some funders on the line. He informed the foundation that he is asking for $300,000 annually. He does not want to cut any of the programs any further than he has already, as he has made more than $100,000 in reductions. Teter noted that one of the expenses the Foundation is adding this year is an electronic donor management system to support fund-raising, replacing the manual Excel spreadsheet system currently used. Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 4 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 24 f. Civic Area Update: Farnan had hoped to have more information to share prior to going to City Council. Our opportunity will be attending public meetings. City Council will be looking at different levels of feasibility for the Civic Area. There is the question of public safety for all of our buildings as they are in the flood zone. It's just about planning and the planning process and where we go from here. David encouraged commissioners to attend the public meetings; he will try to make it to the open house on March 28. The city is not ready to share the flood report until they share it with City Council which they will get in the packet a week or so before the meeting. At that point, it will be a public document, and everyone will have access to it. It is a work in progress. [Please note: The date of the Civic Area Open House has changes to April 4, 2016.] End of Year Report Farnan noted on the report the remarkable increases in business. We have such a high increase in library users and library card holders, and our program attendance is off the charts. Unbelievable kinds of numbers which come down to the ingenuity and innovation of the staff. Sutter: I think this million person mark ought to be at the center of our marketing. I think we ought to make it part of the, “let’s get a million people to visit the library this year” campaign. It’s really a great thing to highlight and is achievable. Let’s help highlight to the public, get these numbers out there. I am sharing with my north Boulder neighbors, the NoBo numbers, which continue to be really impressive. Farnan: Regarding our downward trends. PC use is still holding really strong but we have a 15% drop this year. More customers are bringing their own devices. O’Shea: I'm interested since you did mention more customers are bringing their own devices, the library as an access point, I think would be relevant numbers. Farnan: Those numbers are not easy to come by. I want to know exactly the number of unique users we have logging into the free public Wi-Fi. O’Shea: It could be lumped into the Civic Area Project. I sit on the advisory team, so I'm happy to reinforce that request. Farnan: It's probably going to be very soon that we would have to report the numbers to the state. We've been lobbying for a number of years to report that usage. We have seen a three thousand percent increase in Wi-Fi use over the last couple years. Regarding the Swift program; we will be discontinuing our participation. If you have any questions about that, please let me know. We had an 80% decrease in use in the last five years. Food for Thought Week-long summer day camp • Farnan: Merlin Camp would be a fee-based, weekday, all-day (8 a.m.-5 p.m.) camp for kids, and they do not stay overnight and will be operated by the Boulder Bookstore. Costs for this kind of camp typically run $400-$500, and the proposition is that we do a couple of weeks in the Druidawn Barron Fantasy Camp at the Main Library. Our take, if they sell out, is in the vicinity of around $7,000. We promote the program, and we are named as a sponsor. This is a potentially good revenue source for us. City Parks & Recreation Department is earning revenue from camps that are happening right in the creek area underneath the library. I want them to be, in some way, affiliated with us; I want to put our stamp on these programs as well. I think a lot of kids would be excited about the opportunity to be in a camp that is literacy based. • Sutter voiced concerns regarding what our primary motivation is, that it seems that this is revenue-driven, will take up library space, and the fee is beyond the reach of some people. Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 5 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 25 •Teter has the opposite opinion. We have a different opportunity here, being creative in the literary realm. As long as we continue with the programs we offer. •Gibb and O’Shea are supportive and want to try it and see. Boulder Book Store •Farnan said that we have multiple requests for access to our newsletter and he has mostly rebuffed them. The Boulder Book Store wanted to get into the Canyon Theater, but we were hoping for more capacity than what they proposed. They asked if we would be willing to promote their event if they slapped our name on as a sponsor, a way to get our name out there. We won't generate any revenue from this; Boulder Book Store will not generate any revenue by having a book talk, but they will generate book sales, and we will not see a percentage of that. •Sutter: We are being asked if we include, in the newsletter, this information rather than sending additional emails out. •Farnan: We do not send additional emails out. •O’Shea: I'm going to err on the side of trying it and see if it does seem like it’s going to draw attention to getting to the million mark. •Sutter: It seems to me not that different from the community bulletin board policy. This is a one-time thing, but I almost think it would be better to think about in terms of should the newsletter have a section on community events, or community bulletin board. If so, what would the parameters be for including something in there? Is it within the purview of the library newsletter to promote other important literary events around Boulder? Sounds great to me and then how are you going to draw the line, who is going to curate? Those seem to be the important questions. Rather than think about it as simply a partnership with the bookstore but a broader platform for the library building a community of literacy. •Teter: It seems to me a logical extension of the sponsorship program. •Gibb: We could monitor it to see how many people drop off the list after that particular newsletter goes out. •Sutter: I think there could also be a great potential partnership with the University of Colorado. History does an annual lecture, and I would love to advertise that to library patrons. •O’Shea: I would also have expectations that the bookstore would reciprocate to their social media streams and lists and share their metrics on that. Farmer’s Market •Farnan: Some ideas from Seeds include dinner/movie, and cooking classes. The cooking class might offer free attendance to observe, and charge for participation and tasting. •Sutter: Regarding Seeds and Makerspace; he suggested that the library and the farmers market consider including an option for people when they register, to be able to pay for an additional participant. Then you have a kind of built-in scholarship capacity that might actually accrue substantially enough that you could occasionally offer a free class. Agenda Item 12: Adjournment [8:18 p.m., Audio 21:26] The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on Wed., March 2, 2016, at the Library Canyon Meeting room. Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 6 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 26 Commissioner Sutter approved these minutes on March 16, 2016; and Jennifer Phares attested to it. An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Library Commission web page at http://boulderlibrary.org/about/commission.html Library Commission Minutes DATE Page 7 of 7 Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 27 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: March 2, 2016, Main Library , 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact Information Preparing Summary: Jennifer Phares, 303-441-4394 Commission Members Present: Alicia Gibb, Tim O’Shea, Paul Sutter, and Joni Teter Library Staff Present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Suzi Lane, Administrative Specialist II City Staff Present: Jennifer Bray, Communication Specialist III Laura Hankins, Collection Development Manager Public Present: Nikki Rashada McCord Dick Shahan Claire Mulholland Arthur Figel Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order and Approval of Agenda [6:00 p.m., Audio 00:19] The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. • Added approval of the Library Commission by-laws Agenda approved. Agenda Item 2: Public Comment [6:01pm., Audio 00:44] Mulholland - Read a statement regarding the issue of openly carried guns by security guards in the public library. A copy was not provided. McCord read a statement. See handouts. Agenda Item 3: Consent Agenda [6:06 p.m., Audio 5:41] Approval of Feb 10, 2016 meeting minutes Teter emailed her edits prior to the meeting. See handouts. Sutter: The bottom of packet page 4, bullet point “Sutter said…” cut “very fairly.” On packet page 7, under Boulder Book Store, Sutter’s last bullet point, change “it’ll be” to “there could also be.” On packet page 7, under Farmer’s Market, Sutter’s comment “he suggested that the library consider…” and “the library and the farmers market.” O’Shea: On minutes page 2, change “contact her” to “contact O’Shea.” On packet page 6, under End of Year Report third to last paragraph stating O’Shea: “Pacific Area Project,” should be “Civic Area Project.” Gibb motioned to approve the minutes with edits, Teter seconded. Approved 4-0. Agenda Item 4: Presentation; Boulder Small Business Development Center (SBDC) [6:11 p.m., Audio 10:18] Sharon King, executive director gave an update of the SBDC’s programs and its partnership with the library. See handouts. • Sutter: Is there a distinction between what programs are free and what you charge for? King replied the budget is partially made up of program revenue. Fees cover cost of programs and consulting. If SBDC Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 28 receives sponsorships, those programs are free. New programs, like the small business start up, was free the first year to generate interest and demonstrate value, now they charge for it. All of the bilingual programs are free. • Sutter: Is someone else underwriting scholarships for some of these classes? Farnan said no requests for scholarships have been received. Farnan shared that the SBDC has found a way to provide more free programs than was originally agreed to. • Teter: Encouraged King to participate in the master planning process. • Gibb: It is nice to have the SBDC so close to the BLDG 61 Makerspace. King shared that there has been discussion about having some seats in SBDC classes available for patrons using the makerspace. • Gibb: Asked for clarification about King’s comment regarding the patent office being hard to get a hold of. King said that the SBDC wants to give businesses access to resources that they cannot reach. Agenda Item 5: Presentation: Library Materials Selection and Collection Development [6:25p.m., Audio 24:05] Laura Hankins, collection development manager, presented information about the collection development staff and the selection of library materials. She thanked the commission for supporting the library by requesting that the acquisitions budget be increased last year. The additional funds were used to purchase more downloadable audio and e-books. See handouts. • Gibb: Does Hoopla (downloaded media) come out of the materials acquisition budget? Hankins confirmed that all of the books, media, and electronic resources are paid for by the materials acquisition budget. • Teter: What’s happening with the research databases? How are they trending? Hankins shared information about the types of research databases offered and that they are organized by subject areas. Farnan added that overall usage was down about 5% in 2015 and that he is not sure if it is an anomaly or a trend. • Gibb: What would be your dream budget as a percentage increase? • Sutter: added…or your sense of priorities? Hankins replied that library data shows that as more money is invested in library materials, circulation goes up. Farnan said that BPL’s current collection spending per capita is approximately $10, and said the goal is to get it to $14 per capita. • Sutter: asked about the goal as a percentage of overall budget. Farnan said the percentage may be skewed for BPL because of the increase in staffing cost with recent introduction of the livable wage. We have to do our best to be good stewards of the public’s money and keep staffing costs to a manageable level so that we have money to spend on materials. • Sutter: said the commission would continue to push for more robust collections. Farnan said we would continue to focus purchasing to get patrons the materials they want (i.e. items that circulate well or have several holds.) • O’Shea: With the foundation beginning a new friends of the library program, is it possible to develop programs around patrons’ consumption habits and circulation or use the momentum around library use and patrons’ interests that the foundation might cultivate? Hankins said there could be ways to grow or cultivate patron interest. • Teter: The foundation has focused on programs, there may be an opportunity to blend this with the collection. Agenda Item 6: Continued discussion on contract armed security officers at the Main Library [7:00 p.m., Audio 59:07] • Sutter: The commission suspended the recommendation it made in January for the library to transition to unarmed security officers. Considering the new information presented in the packet, he requested the commission take action at the meeting, and reopen the issue for discussion. • Teter: In January, the issue seemed straightforward but after the discussion, she talked with other patrons and staff and realized there was another perspective. There is a divide. There are persons who would feel safer with unarmed security officers and there are others who feel the opposite. This mirrors the divide in our culture and isn’t a divide that can be bridged. It isn’t a great rationale to make a decision. Looking at the incidents at BPL was important. There is a pattern primarily of disruptive behavior, mostly verbal. Occasionally, there are incidents that are physical. When incidents are physical, the police are called. The types of incidents aren’t such that deadly force is needed to address them. In the shooter scenario, one armed security officer is not going to be effective in stopping this type of incident. What is important in that scenario, is to get patrons and staff to safety, and get law enforcement on the scene. The primary Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 29 enforcement mechanism the library is using to address disruptive behavior is suspensions and they are effective and appropriate. What is critical is training: personal and de-escalation skills, dealing with mental health issues, and building relationships and treating everyone with respect. She hoped that the current security officers continue to work for the library contract unarmed because they are doing a really good job dealing with issues and building relationships with patrons, staff and the police. Given all the new information, she circled back to her recommendation in January but with a broader understanding of what is going on in our library. She still doesn’t think it is appropriate to have security officers with weapons of deadly force here. •Gibb: Agreed with Teter’s points. She didn’t think that it is within the policies or norms for public libraries to have armed officers. She did not change her stance or recommendation from January. She said in response to persons who had subsequently submitted emails on this issues, that it is one thing to say you feel safe or unsafe with a gun, but it is another thing to look at the data out there and what is happening in our country such as the Black Lives Matter movement and that the CDC [Center for Disease Control] has listed guns to be an epidemic. This is data; it is not a feeling that a person feels, unsafe with or without guns. •O’Shea: Agreed with Teter’s points. There were a number of issues brought to light and aspects of the situation that were inherited. With additional data, he is more secure in his original recommendation. The incident reports show that we are not dealing with a significant number of violent behavioral issues. When altercations occur, appropriate steps have been taken to bring in the police. The current security officers have done an excellent job. His initial concern stands in that staff and patrons, and the security officers continue to build relationships, and that staff and the officers continue to receive appropriate training. With receiving the additional information from staff and the community, opening this conversation through different avenues, we continue to come to the same general awareness. He looked into the security services package, and said that qualifications and training (e.g. sensitivity) are important. He looked at other Colorado libraries and libraries across the country and found that having armed security officers is an anomaly. He doesn’t want to see guns drawn in the library for any reason. This is a balance point for our community. He did not change his initial recommendation. •Sutter: Added a few comments that he has shared previously. We want to make this library as comfortable for everyone as we are able – this is really critical. He was also struck by the fact that the library was an anomaly in having armed security officers. This is a strong argument to move towards unarmed security officers. He takes seriously the perception that guns are a deterrent but it is a very difficult thing to measure. There is a real risk in having an armed security officer in the library. A security officer cited that he has never had to draw his gun in 7 years of service at the library, and that is absolutely what you want to have happen, but then the question is: why do we have guns in the library to begin with? He worries about a gun getting out of the security officer’s hands into someone else’s hands. As a commissioner, his greatest concern is the well-being of the public and he can’t see how the deterrent effect outweighs his concerns with a gun getting drawn in this library by a security officer or by someone else getting a hold of the officer’s gun. He held to his original recommendation. •O’Shea: Asked how is the opening of the Boulder Art Cinema and the security requirements for serving alcohol impacted. Farnan responded that staff can act upon the commission’s recommendation within two months for the daily security service, but the requirements of the current security company to provide services in an environment where alcohol is being served presents complications. The current company will provide one armed officer or two unarmed officers in this case. Employing two unarmed officers doubles the cost of security service for the cinema program. Since the program has not yet realized returns having run for only one weekend, he is reluctant to incur the additional cost. Staff will investigate other options (e.g. other security firms that may not have this requirement) to provide security during the cinema program but he was uncertain about the amount of time this investigation will take. Farnan said that staff would inform the current security company the next day of the decision to transition to unarmed security officers for the daily service, and of the desire to keep the current officers but unarmed. •Gibb: Asked about the difference in cost between armed vs. unarmed security officers and if the difference would offset the cost of having two unarmed security officers for the cinema program. Farnan replied the difference in cost is minimal and would not offset the cost of a second officer. Farnan added that it is the security contractor’s policy, not the city’s policy, that requires one armed or two unarmed officers in an environment in which alcohol is being served. There may be a city ordinance that requires armed officers at events in which alcohol is served with an audience of a certain size. Farnan said the size of the cinema Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 30 program audience would not meet that requirement and he thought that an exception could be requested for unarmed or no security if an event had no history of incidents. • Teter: Asked staff to find out what is city code concerning having armed officers at events in which alcohol is being served. • O’Shea: Asked is there currently a security response policy in place for incidents that are more pronounced. Gibb clarified that the policy states police are called immediately when an incident escalates. O’Shea asked about procedures being in place for lock downs, evacuations, etc. Farnan replied that there are fire evacuation and other protocols in place and asked if O’Shea was referring to a shooter incident. O’Shea confirmed. Farnan said staff has been directed to review online resources that address Run, Hide, Fight, and we have not done a concentrated training program on it yet. It is something that staff will look into. We have brought in training for staff on dealing with and de-escalating incidents, addressing patrons who bring animals into the library, serving persons with mental illness, etc. O’Shea recommended that training for staff on dealing with shooter incidents given that some staff and community members may view that an aspect of security is being taken away regarding the transition from armed to unarmed officers. • Teter: Several years ago, the library had to change the policy prohibiting guns of any kind due to law. More recently, several other libraries have prohibited guns in defiance of the law. She asked that commission consider asking council to consider putting some legislative energy in 2017 into asking for an exception to the “conceal and open carry” laws for libraries similar to K-12 schools. Unlike schools, libraries cannot close the campus. Gibb, O’Shea, and Sutter agreed. • Sutter: Said this cannot be an isolated decision. We have to keep talking to staff and the public to make sure we are providing as effective security as we can in terms of unarmed officers. That may mean we need to bring in the Boulder Police Department more frequently, provide staff with more training. We absolutely want the staff to feel safe in this library. • O’Shea: Asked if the Boulder Police Department would be notified of this change. Farnan replied that he spoke to the City Attorney’s Office and the police chief after receiving the commission’s recommendation in January. • Gibb: Asked to clarify the logistics and timeline and that Ms. McCord be notified once the change is in place. Farnan said the security contractor would be notified the next day and that he would speak to the security officers. If the current officers choose not to stay with the library, Farnan estimated that the hiring and training of new officers could take up to two months. Gibb asked about the officers providing security during the cinema program. Farnan said he understood the commission’s intent not to have armed officers in the library at all but security coverage for the cinema program was something he would have to investigate further and that he doesn’t currently have the budget to hire two unarmed security officers. If we did have to hire two officers now, we would buy fewer books this year. • Sutter: Asked staff to report back to commission with an update on the transition, training for staff, information about city code during the April meeting. The commission agreed to uphold its recommendation made at the January meeting for the staff to transition away from employing armed contract security officers to unarmed officers. Agenda Item 7: Library Master Plan update [7:26 p.m., Audio 1:25:52] Farnan informed the commission that a shortened RFP (Request for Proposal) focused on conducting a community needs assessment was issued, that he had spoken to a prospective consultant, had a meeting with another consultant on Friday, and that he anticipated receiving some proposals. • Teter: Asked if it was intentional that the staff members on the staff Technical Advisory Group were mostly of a short tenure with Boulder Public Library. Phares replied the members were selected based upon their ability to meet the time commitment, their service area expertise, and to be leaders and spearhead project activities to gather broader staff input. Farnan said that buy-in of the staff is imperative to be successful. All staff will be invited to participate and it will be useful to know where the staff thinks the library is going compared to what the community thinks and to understand the disparities between the two. Added Agenda Item: Approval of Library Commission By-laws [7:29 p.m., Audio 1:28:42] Final version of the by-laws was provided as a handout. Gibb motioned to approve the by-laws, O’Shea seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 31 Agenda Item 8: Library Commission update (memo) [ 7:30p.m., Audio 1:29:41] a. Finalize Library Commission Handbook Updates were discussed. Teter asked for clarification on the arts information on the library operations document. Gibb requested that the makerspace be added to the eServices description. Sutter suggested adding information in the budget basics document under the library fund section that states, “As per the city charter expenditures from #2 and 3 above shall be made only upon the favorable recommendation of the library commission” and that “city charter” be a link to the charter section about the Library Commission. Sutter reviewed the changes he and Gibb made to the communications guidelines document. Gibb stated that both the communications guidelines and the guiding principles documents would be included in the handbook. Sutter recommended folding commission meetings into the communications section in the table of contents. Gibb recommended moving the Boulder Library Foundation overview to section three. Teter submitted alternative language for the Boulder Library Foundation overview. Gibb and Sutter will review the final version of the handbook when it is posted. b. Library Foundation update O’Shea: There was discussion on financial forecast and budget, and improvement of bookkeeping, fund managements, and systems by hiring a financial manager. Two positions were included in the approved budget: the community partnership manager and the financial manager. An RFP was issued for the financial manager. Two strategies were discussed for the management of foundation funds: an investment strategy and a more aggressive fundraising, program-focused strategy. The board discussed funding library programs based upon a percentage of the budget and the types of programs it can fund directly from a legal perspective (e.g. Jaipur Literature Festival). The cooperative agreement discussion was deferred to a future meeting. A fundraising membership campaign, the “Library League” was proposed and enthusiastically supported. Governance and new board members will be discussed at a future meeting as well as the proposal to award the library with a lump sum grant to fund library programs. c. Discussion of Civic Area Program Plan Teter and O’Shea provided a handout outlining some concerns and questions about the rapid development of the Civic Area in the plans, and what is coming this summer. • O’Shea: We’ve had some presentations on parking but not much involvement with what the Civic Area process really is undertaking, and once the process begins, it feels like there are some gaps in knowledge as to what is going to be at the library’s doorstep. There are some conflicts with the effort put into the library renovations and new programs and establishing the library as a sense of place and how the civic area process unfolding. He wants to know what the funding stream is for the different phases. The emphasis on the bookend approach may result in changes to the library building, its footprint, and interest in bringing in an outside performing arts center. Information about flood mitigation and the impact to the library was summarized in the handout. Growing the library’s presence as a theater and arts space are blind corners on the plan. He would like clarification on details concerning the event planning for the civic area and what might be advantageous to incorporate into the library’s programs and budget over the next several years. • Teter: We’ve been asking for some time about the impact of the park design in terms of having events going forward. There is a disconnect between what the park planning staff and interested community agencies think is needed in a park design that will accommodate large events. Most of the planning that has been done is about making it a park, not really taking into consideration the programming. We’ve been told there is no plan yet for the bookends, yet there is a design underway the for the east end for the farmer’s market. She asked how the design of event space on the east end connects to the other side. There are questions about the process and an opportunity to look at this in terms of the big picture with the downtown, the hospital, and the university. • O’Shea: There has been a lot of sizzle with regard to the process, but that he is not sure where the meat is. This is a rare opportunity to think about the vision of the Civic Area and the downtown and a missed opportunity for engagement. The library is a central and significant part of what is going to happen in the Civic Area. He would be wary of any plan that doesn’t consider the investments that Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 32 have already been made in the library. • Farnan: The city was on pace to present and have public discussion about the plan nearly a year ago. The conceptual plans for the bookends were beginning to take shape in terms of mass and density. The question still is: Is it the right thing to do given what we know about climate change and flood information? Farnan addressed the question in the handout. There is funding for phase 1 for park development from the Community, Culture, and Safety tax and there is some safety money that will improve the underpass at 13th Street and improve the lighting along the creek path. The goal is to make the creek corridor more visible and bring more people to the park. There isn’t yet a plan in place for governance of, or funding for, programming of the area. Funding for phase 1 does not impact the bookends and council has not approved any concept plan for the bookends. The library buildings are now in the floodplain given climate change. Both library buildings are in play in terms of the plan. On April 5, 2016, council will look at a plan for massing at the west end and potentially one for the east end. A small portion of the north building is in the high hazard zone and the equipment investments made in the building recently in the theater and the makerspace are all mobile. The library is not planning to increase its budget to fund programs in the park area; instead it will work in partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department and other partners such as the Jaipur Literature Festival and the Fringe Festival. The library currently does some programs outside and will continue to do programs in the Civic Area. Impacts of a major flood on the north building are not improving. This doesn’t answer the question if developing the north side of the library is the right thing to do. They way he interprets the flood report, is that something might be possible in terms of development. The Community Cultural Plan recommended a need for performance space. The north building could serve a function that way but its feasibility needs to be investigated. The drawings in the Civic Area Master Plan are conceptual, not final plans. There is a small amount of public art money for the civic area. Farnan serves on the governance committee and has encouraged his colleagues to reach out to all stakeholders. They are trying to make the presentation of events in the Civic Area more feasible. • O’Shea: Didn’t expect answers to the questions presented in the handout but that the reality is there is going to ground broken in the Civic Area sometime this summer which is going to start redefining the space and with that comes expectation or curiosity about what comes next. The fact that the very location of the library is a question is a concern when he has been touting the values of the renovation and new space and there isn’t a clear plan for if this space is maintainable. There is an opportunity to think with vision about the downtown landscape. He thought there was a very clear vision years ago but now it seems we are moving ahead with something that is undefined and there is not a lot of room for discussion. • Teter: This is great to hear and where did this information come from. She strongly objects to staff going to council with recommendations on what to do with the north building without input from the Library Commission. Farnan said the discussion has been about whether this building is safe – can the site be developed or left as empty park land. Teter said if you don’t know the functions and uses the conversation about the plan is meaningless. Events were also part of the vision and it doesn’t seem to be part of the conversation. It was suggested by a council member that Teter spoke to that the Library Commission send a letter to Council reiterating what was in the year end letter along with other concerns about the process. Farnan asked the commission to consider if all library services and space is accommodated and possibly expanded within the development of the site, are they concerned with whether it is on the north or south side of the creek? • Teter: did not know how to answer that in the abstract. • O’Shea: looks at it like fixing it to sell it. If that is the plan afoot, he would have a different perspective of his role with commission and the foundation. A lot of what we’re doing is window dressing on what might be a greater consideration in three years’ time. If there are great opportunities, that is awesome. He was talking about the successful redefinition of space and it is nebulous to understand what is going on. The people that championed 2A have questions; there is a missed opportunity to create dialogues. Farnan said there would be opportunity for dialogue and that the groundbreaking has been postponed until later in 2016. • O’Shea: the plan shows a lot happening in Q1 and Q2 2016. • Teter: asked about the timing on the opportunity for public comment. It is clear there is no opportunity for public participation at the upcoming council meeting. If you want to participate, you have to do so Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 33 at open public comment at the beginning of the meeting – there is no public hearing on this matter. • Sutter: asked the commission how they would like to proceed. There are a series of issues – concerns about process and about the future of the north library building. He asked if the commission would like to draft something formal to council to share these concerns. • O’Shea: has unanswered questions and would like some better answers. Asked “what are we getting and what are the hang ups in this process?” Asked “Is this going to be successful, and how can we make it so?” Asked Sutter and Gibb if they had a sense of what was happening right outside the door. • Gibb: It was going to be new sod and tiered paths. She understood that the bridge over Canyon were sketches. We shouldn’t use the commission to express our own personal wishes for the park. She has trust in the experts making the decisions on the design and said the library is always going to be here. • Farnan: strongly encouraged the commission to write a letter and refer back to past meeting packets in which the plans for phase 1 were shared. • Teter: agreed that the plan for phase 1 was shared with the commission and at the time the commission raised questions that never received a response. There are concerns about that plan. There was no narrative explaining the uses. Specific questions for how event tents would be accommodated don’t get answered. • O’Shea: It is a good opportunity to do some pretty awesome stuff. It seems like there is and extension of where phase 1 leaves off, there are a lot of surrounding areas that come up. When I think of bookends, his first thought is what happens to the library. While it will exist, it is going to require some involvement in what it is going to look like. He is celebrating the change and improvements that have been made, and is a big fan of working with what you have. The goal mentioned of a 500-seat performing arts space, raised his concern and he asked how that is going to fit. He would like to know where the vision comes from and who to address to get clarification. As an active citizen, he is going to use his role as a commissioner to ask what is happening to the library and do we have a better process. The library is a great space to engage people around the civic area. • Sutter: asked again about a letter to council. Gibb added that it should include the part from the commission’s annual letter to council about the Civic Area and some bulleted questions. Timing of the letter was discussed. O’Shea and Teter agreed to draft the letter. • Teter: raised the discussion of the historic designation of the north building of the library and said the commission wants to have input. • Farnan: asked for the commission’s feedback on three possible proposals: leave the building as is, develop the site, or let it go to park land. Sutter said he would need to think about it. Gibb would leave it up to more qualified persons as long as the library would not lose anything. Teter said a park would not help with connectivity to downtown. • Farnan: said the Canyon complete street, while not part of phase 1, impacts the park, parking and the band shell. That is where more expansive events could be accommodated. • O’Shea: It was disappointing that the city couldn’t come to an outcome on the civic use pad. It is a missed opportunity when the community cannot come up with a plan or vision for something that is rare in a town like this. He sees benefit in creating a cultural tie with downtown. It is important to have conversation and explore the issues. He leans toward visionary development of the Civic Area involving different viewpoints. • Teter: One of the fundamental questions in 1992 during the bond issue for the south building of the library, was should the library be moved out of the floodplain. The community voted to have the library stay here in the central corridor. The community has a stake in this. d. Discussion of potential implications on the library regarding the right to rest legislation and the Human Relations Commission’s recommendation to City Council to lift the camping ban This item was added regarding the legislation introduced the past two years on the legal right to rest on public property. • Teter: In 2016, it included a specific provision that people can rest in any public building during open hours. This would have impacts on the library. Sleeping might become a higher use than any library use. The bill was killed in committee but may be reintroduced in 2017. Asked commission to consider writing to council to please oppose it due to the huge impact it would have on the library. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 34 • Sutter: the other issue is the Human Relations Commission’s recommendation to council to lift the camping ban which would impact the library a little less directly. Asked the commission if they wanted to make a formal statement to council on either issue. There was discussion about timing of a letter. Sutter and Gibb offered to draft a letter focusing on library impact. • Teter: regarding the camping ban, suggested a joint conversion between the Library Commission, the Human Relations Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. It might be useful to discuss how recommendations from each impact one another. • O’Shea: regarding the right to rest noted that the most frequently broken library rule is lying down, dozing or sleeping in any library facility. This puts into question one of the enforcement needs. This might roll back a lot of the progress made making the library a welcoming place. There was discussion of inviting Karen Rahn, Director of Human Services to a future meeting to discuss the camping ban. e. Responses to patron email from the Library Commission No discussion on this item. Agenda Item 9: Library and Arts Director’s Report [8:50 p.m., Audio 2:55:03] Farnan asked the commission for any questions on the items in the report and provided a brief report on the opening weekend of the Boulder Art Cinema. Sell out crowds on Friday and Saturday night. Approximately, 700 persons in attendance for the weekend. Sutter asked about the sales for the author event with Jennifer Egan. Farnan reported that ticket sales were lively. a. Facility Sustainability Study update from studiotrope Design Consultants No discussion on this item. b. Discontinuing notary service No discussion on this item. c. BLDG 61 Makerspace grand opening No discussion on this item. There was discussion of establishing a subcommittee and scheduling the commission’s work with the foundation on the community presentation. There was discussion on commissioners attending the new commissioner interviews on March 15, 2016. Agenda Item 10: Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on Wed., April 6, 2016, at the Library Canyon Meeting room. Commissioner Sutter approved these minutes on April 21, 2016; and Jennifer Phares attested to it. An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Library Commission web page at http://boulderlibrary.org/about/commission.html Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 35 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: April 6, 2016 at the Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact information preparing summary: Jennifer Bray, 303-441-4160 Commission members present: Paul Sutter, Joni Teter, Tim O’Shea, Juana Gomez Commission members absent: Alicia Gibb Library staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Antonia Gaona, Public Services Manager Hillary Dodge, Meadows Branch Manager City staff: Jennifer Bray, Communication Specialist III Sam Veucasovic, Facilities Coordinator II Bill Cowern, Transportation Operation Engineer Kathleen Bracke, GO Boulder Manager Molly Winter, Executive Director of Community Vitality Lisa Smith, Communication Specialist Noreen Walsh, Senior Transportation Planner Members of the public present: Nikki McCord Joel Koenig Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [6:02 p.m.] The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m Agenda Item 2: Public comment [6:04 p.m.] Joel Koenig spoke about National History Day, which BPL is involved in, and he has volunteered for these past few years. Boulder Public Library participates with Research Rendezvous in the fall, to help the students as they are developing their papers. His opinion: America and the youth are fantastic! Nikki McCord spoke to thank the commission for their leadership in the decision to disarm the security officers, and she feels safer in the library as a member of the community. Thanks to the Library Commission Agenda Item 3: Consent agenda [6:05 p.m.] Item 3A, Approval of March 2, 2016 meeting minutes Teter had sent in some comments and edits over email. O’Shea had a minor addition on page 5 in his comments in the 2 nd bullet: “The incident reports show that we are not dealing with a significant number of violent behavioral issues.” (The change/addition to the sentence is underlined.) Agenda Item 4: Welcome new commissioner and elections [6:06 p.m.] a. Administer oath of office to new commissioner Juana Gomez; Sutter administered. b. Commission officer election: Teter nominated Sutter to continue as chair, O’Shea seconded. Approved with vote of 4-0. Sutter nominated Teter to continue as vice chair, O’Shea seconded. Approved with vote of 4-0. c. Boulder Library Foundation board member appointment s: Tim O’Shea and Alicia Gibb. Teter moved, Sutter seconded, approved with vote of 4-0. d. Commission photo taken in gallery. (Gibb absent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda Item 5: Presentation: Data on Civic Area parking change implementation – Molly Winter, executive director of Community Vitality; Bill Cowern, transportation operation engineer; Kathleen Bracke, GO Boulder Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 36 manager; Lisa Smith, communication specialist. [6:13 p.m.] Winter introduced topic, and Smith presented the information on how the Civic Area parking changes have gone since they were implemented in January. Cowern, Bracke, and Winter added information for commissioners about employee transportation demand management, parking studies, and that evaluation and study of the changes will continue. Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: Sutter asked about numbers regarding parking utilization. Cowern responded with the numbers dropping from 78% utilization to 75%. In Library lot, was previously utilized above 90% in peak periods; after parking changes, utilization dropped below 80%. Sutter stated that is probably due to higher parking turnover, so more people are able to park there. Parking in surrounding neighborhood did increase, and about 15 city employees on average are parking in the former Boulder Community Hospital parking garage for free now that it’s available. Canyon parking lot is experiencing higher utilization, which is likely library patrons and other Civic Area users. Sutter asked about warnings and citations numbers. Smith responded that there have been over 500 warnings issued so far. Tickets are still only being issued after at least one warning has been issued first, sometimes two. Smith asked for Library Commission’s thoughts on how long to continue issuing warnings? Sutter liked continuing the warnings, and mentioned how some library patrons may not return to the library frequently enough to still be aware of these parking changes. Gomez mentioned the seasonal changes and that area users coming to the park and the creek may also not be aware of the new parking system. Winter mentioned that the explanation language on the kiosks is not intuitive and that staff is working on improving the directions with CALE, the kiosk manufacturer. Teter mentioned the difficulty adding time to the free 90 minutes in the kiosks. Staff will look into this. O’Shea asked about numbers of repeat offenders. Smith said they’d look into it and get back to commission. Smith mentioned the city looking at fee changes, including graduated fines for parking violations, to increase fines for offenders who continue to repeat the violation. Sutter agreed that is a good way to proceed. Teter asked about how the planned removal of the 20 spaces in the Canyon parking lot and asked if this will bring us back to the same high utilization rate that prior to these changes. She also mentioned the free 90 minutes in the Civic Area, but that since no other downtown area lots offer this free time, which could be increasing the pressure on the Civic Area lots. She asked whether staff might consider adding the free 90 minutes to downtown parking – a conversation we may continue to have. Teter mentioned the ParkMobile app works wonderfully, even with the 35 cent fee for the “free parking” so that is good. Using the credit card, it seems you can only pay to add 90 minutes with the app, instead of less time (like 30 minutes or one hour). Winter replied that staff can check if there is a way to have finer increments for purchasing time. You are currently able to pay for less time by using coins or tokens. Teter asked about future discussion items, such as ending the pay parking during the week at 6 p.m. instead of 7 p.m., or about 90 minutes not being enough time, looking at the different user groups at the library for a better discussion. Maybe looking at doing a survey of library patrons. Sutter replied that we are looking for what the “sweet spot” is for the free time amount for using the library. Teter mentioned that she is still concerned about the fact that library volunteers now are a cost to the library budget, in paying for their parking time, unlike volunteers for city departments like Open Space or Parks & Recreation, who don’t have facilities in pay parking areas, so their budgets are not impacted by volunteer parking costs. Winter mentioned that this same issue comes up as far as city employees, as some work in areas where they have to pay for parking near their office, and some work in buildings where there is free parking (OSMP/P&R) as well --- this is a wider discussion and issue. Sutter asked how important revenue is. Winter said that revenue is not the driving factor -- it is a management tool. The equipment is expensive, for example, the kiosks cost$7,000 each. Smith stated that revenue is actually down in this area right now. Sutter also hopeful that employee parking in the area will decrease, as it has not really changed at all. Cowern responded that the most likely factor to decrease city employees parking here is to have them moved to buildings outside of the downtown area, like the former hospital site. Bracke added that more employees are carpooling, and in the warmer months, typically more employees use alternative modes such as biking/busing/walking, and also that they anticipate that more employees will park at the free satellite parking site on Broadway. Teter asked when the next presentation would be, with additional data. Cowern replied that they are collecting more data later this month. Bracke thought that coming back for the June commission meeting, might be good timing. (Teter promised to bring brownies ) Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 37 Agenda Item 6: Presentation: Meadows Branch Library renovations – Antonia Gaona, public services manager; Hillary Dodge, Meadows Branch manager; and Sam Veucasovic, facilities coordinator II. [6:59 p.m.] Gaona presented a PowerPoint and sketch up of the goals and plans for the branch renovation, and presented that the renovations will occur while the branch is closed from May 9-29, 2016. Signs announcing the closure are already posted and patrons have been asking about the renovation and seem excited by the improvements coming to the Meadows Branch. The closure for the renovation will also be communicated in the library e-newsletter and in a news release, as well as on the website, and via social media.  Gomez asked if any of the plumbing fixtures will be replaced , or if they will be repaired and reinstalled? Veucasovic replied that he will look into and confirm, but that if fixtures are near the end of their life cycle, they would be replaced, and with low-flow toilets and urinals.  O’Shea asked about the staff restroom and if any work was being done there. Veucasovic replied that none was really planned, but they could install a low-flow toilet. O’Shea asked if any work was being done on the conference room. Staff: not much, some freshening up with paint and lighting.  Teter asked about the furniture being purchased. Gaona explained that new computer stations, new OPAC stations, new circulation desk. Some furniture alternates are reupholstering the wave couch, new lounge seating, a new custom-built teen bench, new staff chairs, etc. Dodge mentioned that the new laptop bar will have more power outlets, and USB ports. Agenda Item 7: Canyon Boulevard complete street study – Noreen Walsh, senior transportation planner [7:40 p.m.] Walsh presented a general description of the complete streets project they have begun, and are talking to advisory boards and commissions to learn preferences for all users of Canyon Boulevard and improvements that can be made. Explained how staff wants to remove the fact that Canyon Blvd. is a barrier between the downtown area and the rest of the Civic Area – difficult to cross. The project is a two phase process, they are in phase 1. Started in late 2015 to evaluate the corridor. Invited commissioners to the public meeting on April 27, from 6:30 -8:30 p.m., at Boulder High School, with an open house style meeting.  Sutter asked about the phrase “complete street” and all modes? Walsh said that the definition of a complete street is that it is for all users. Sutter asked about the aesthetics as well, and how that plays a role. Sutter mentioned library’s main concern might be getting people across Canyon, and asked Walsh what they were looking at. Walsh said the team is looking at all of the crossings there are now, and how they are used; and mentioned that one of the aesthetics they look at is that of a promenade.  Gomez asked about the 130 feet and how it’s measured . Walsh: Code 65 foot setback from the center of Canyon Blvd. and that gets you the 130 feet of right of way. Gomez: is the speed limit on Canyon set by CDOT or does the city have any oversight of that to get traffic to slow down? Walsh: checking into that. Some of the features they are planning should calm the traffic down as well, and should be able to travel by all the modes there. Gomez mentioned speed humps on 55th where the crosswalks are, which help people see/feel the crosswalks where they should yield to pedestrians and slow down. Walsh: Canyon is a 4-lane road versus 55th, but those are the exact kind of thing we want o hear – hearing that it may be important to slow the traffic down a bit? Gomez: yes, even a bit scary as a driver or a pedestrian.  O’Shea echoed the statements of Sutter and Gomez that it is hard to get across Canyon Blvd. Long ago there was a vision of a bridge across Canyon, and it’s a major thoroughfare. O’Shea also asked about lessons learned from the Folsom “rightsizing” process. Walsh: Currently there are six options, which could also be broken into combinations of the options – the team is pretty open and doing a lot of engagement to hear how the street is working or not working, and they’re trying to hear all opinions and viewpoints. Hoping this will all build a better community relationship, for the boulevard to be designed with the community.  Teter stated that Canyon is a tough street. Asked about the May 18 joint board meeting (Planning, Transportation, Parks & Rec, Landmarks, DMC, etc.) at First Presbyterian Church on 15th St., from 6-7:30 p.m. Do commissioners want to participate in this joint meeting. General agreement that at least some commissioners would probably attend.  Gomez mentioned that the negative public reaction to Folsom last summer could have been the term “right - sizing” itself, so she suggested caution about the term “complete streets.” Agenda Item 8: 2016 budget update and review first round Adjustment to Base requests [8:06 p.m.] Commission discussion, questions, and comments included: Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 38  Teter noted grant funds are deposited into the dedicated library fund, not the general fund. This is important for two reasons: Under the Charter, expenditures from the library fund are subject to Commission approval (rather than Commission “advice” for general fund expenditures). Second, revenues in the library fund remain dedicated to the library - they cannot be returned to the general fund for other purposes (like general fund revenues can). The annual re-appropriation of revenues derived from grants/library fund is a book-keeping exercise necessitated by City budget practices - not a true re-appropriation of dollars. We should make sure that our budget tracking information makes this distinction clear. Table 4 in the April packet does not make this distinction currently. Note that several of the items reflect Boulder Library Foundation contributions; a long standing concern of Foundation supporters has been the fear the BLF moneys will be subject to re - appropriation for non-library purposes within the City.  O’Shea noted use of language of the charter change did not require creation of the Library Fund ; language that should be changed in the memo in the agenda packet: “as a result of the charter change….”  Sutter asked about requesting additional funding (page 5) for ideas coming down the pike: gender neutral restrooms, additional consultants for master plan process, additional staffing for BLDG 61 makerspace. Agenda Item 9: Library Master Plan Update [8:15 p.m.] Farnan: We have completed interviews for consultants, made a selection, and are finalizing the contract. The consultant should be coming to the May Library Commission meeting. Three great consultants responded this time, it was a difficult choice, and this one we chose really challenged our thinking and did a nice job . Agenda Item 10: Library Commission updates [8:16 p.m.] Foundation update – O’Shea: At the last meeting, we had some great presentations and introductions from library staff, foundation board seemed very appreciative and impressed. The library offers a wealth of programming and content that the foundation has a hand in. Discussion about Jaipur and that the library should be central to the event, putting in a few more metrics, there are no other literary festivals like it anywhere in Colorado. This is a critical year to determine the future of this festival, fundraising, etc. Teter: Foundation committing to giving library $250k per year, and are moving away from an investment percentage donation. O’Shea: increasing goals for fundraising. Teter: Foundation meets again next week and four new members have been recommended to join the board. 10a. i. Creation of a Library Commission/Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) subcommittee to draft a community outreach presentation. Farnan outlined that this is to create a presentation explaining library funding and how the foundation plays an important role, etc. out to the community. Promised by May. Stress how important community funding is to library programs. BLF pays for about 90% of library progr amming. Discussion: Teter happy to help, O’Shea happy to help make the presentations, Gibb might be interested (not in attendance), Gomez interested but not sure. O’Shea and Teter: We will ask BLF who would be interested in helping with this. Sutter highlighted that April 17 is the BoulderReads Reading Progress Celebration – it’s a wonderful event where you can see how lives are being changed from this program. Teter on commission calendar: plan a date for the retreat soon. Have it in July, and then not have a July commission meeting. Commissioners should let others know of dates they are not available in July. Sutter will plug in a July date for the retreat. Discussion of the Library Commission’s recommendation to City Council about the Civic Area process. Teter: One of the outcomes of last night’s meeting was a decision that staff resources for the Civic Area will be focused on the East Bookend, especially the Market Hall. Civic area staff will not take up any further work on the West Bookend until after the Library Master Plan is complete. The primary factor driving this decision is limited staff resources. The situation on the north side is very complicated, and we may need to ask for additional budget to hire technical consultants to help with this discussion, since cit staff appears to be unavailable. Complications include the flood mapping around the Main Library, and how that affects the north building especially with where the high hazard zone sits, as well as an some interest in the community to possibly landmark the 1961 building, which would preclude major changes. Farnan talked about improvements to engage boards and commissions around the Civic Area , planning for activating the Civic Area. May 4 meeting at the Main Library, 8-10 a.m., with breakfast. Inviting 7 or 8 boards and commissions to discuss Civic Area. Civic pad discussions at last night’s council meeting. Farnan: thank you for the letter – it really Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 39 Commissioner Sutter approved these minutes on June 1, 2016; and Jennifer Phares attested to it. An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Library Commission web page at http://boulderlibrary.org/about/commission.html helped and was constructive with city staff in generating response and how to articulate plans for presentation to council and the public. Teter: would like to have a meeting with Parks and Recreation Advisory Board about activation and programming in the Civic Area. Agenda Item 11: Library & Arts Director’s report [8:50 p.m.] a. Boulder Library Foundation funding and update b. Update on contract security officers at the Main Library G4S company policy is to not have one guard at an event where alcohol is served (BAC), but this is not a city code requirement. c. Update on gender neutral restroom research Investigating options at Main Library, and will look into possibility for Meadows Branch Library of offering some kind of public access to the staff restroom. Will need more research and thought. Gomez: Boulder Valley School District is also looking into providing gender-neutral restrooms as well. Farnan: public restrooms are a very important part of the customer service experience, and ours are not good. We should have the best restrooms around, and he’s hopeful that we can get something going in this area, and put it in for a budget request for the 2017 budget. d. CO Play & Learn Can’t find the app on iTunes yet. Farnan will talk to Aimee Schumm. e. BLDG 61 gift announcement f. Invitations Agenda Item 12: Adjournment [9:01 p.m.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, in the George Reynolds Branch, 3595 Table Mesa Dr. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 40 To: Boulder City Council Cc: Jane Brautigam, Boulder City Manager From: Boulder Library Commission Subject: Annual Letter to City Council Date: December 15, 2016 On October 21, 2016, the Boulder Public Library (BPL) was recognized as the Colorado Association of Libraries Colorado Library of the Year. BPL continues its role as a leading library both in the state and the nation. At the awards presentation, BPL was described as "a platform for community engagement, lifelong learning, and creativity while serving as Boulder's living room for reading, convening, meeting, and quiet reflection." Our annual report illustrates our activities and programming. As Council explores how the City can improve its public engagement process, the Library Commission respectfully suggests you continue to support the BPL’s ongoing progress in serving the cultural and civic needs of our community. We welcome and encourage Council to further their engagement goals and leverage the Library as a trusted platform and partner in fostering greater collaboration with the public. In considering Council’s question “What do you think the City’s top three priorities should be in 2017?”, we have identified priorities where BPL is at the fore in addressing community needs and considerations: Inclusivity / Human Services; Civic Area / Master Planning; and Sustaining the Knowledge Economy. Inclusivity / Human services As a trusted public space, the BPL is frequently at th e forefront for issues of social equity, perceptions of public safety, and unbiased service to all. This year we addressed patron concerns over armed security, and have begun to investigate all gender / gender neutral restrooms to meet patron needs. Already a national topic, these adjustments are city-wide capital improvement issue. We trust council will provide the necessary means and backing for this effort. BPL Main Branch continues to be a primary downtown interface for Boulder’s homeless and transient population. As Council considers and implements policy that impacts these patrons, we expect to be present in those conversations to offer constructive input on engagement and service impact. The de facto nature of the library as service provider has measurable impacts on patrons and staff. Council’s support for the extensive renovations to the BPL main branch, Reynolds , and Meadows succeeded in redefining the physical space of the library. Staff continues to reintroduce patrons to their ‘new’ libraries. Civic Area / Master Planning As we participate in the larger Civic Area Planning process we are advocating for the Library's continuing role as the west bookend in the redesigned Civic Area. The Library's contribution to activating the redesigned Civic Area will come in two ways: 1.Extending library programming into Civic Area spaces as co-sponsor of cultural and arts programming with community partners. This requires a budget for curation and City support for community events. One of the lessons we lear ned through the library's sponsorship of the Jaipur Literature Festival is that effective programming of cultural events will require that the City be much more active in event planning and execution, which will have both staffing and budgetary impacts. 2.Easing the exploration of options for the redevelopment of the library North Building. The library staff and commission have been in discussions with city staff and boards, including flood, landmarks, parking, and planning. Impacts of the various regulatory agencies, historic significance, and cost offer a complex array of opportunities. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 41 Civic Discourse - Library as a platform Aligned with the City’s goals of Sustainability and Resilience, the library cultivates a creative and thoughtful citizenry. The Library is recognized as a public good through its many services and programs. ●Core Services o The Library’s door count in the past year reached nearly 1 million visitors while expanding service hours to the public at Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries. ●BoulderReads o BPL’s adult literacy program celebrated its 30th anniversary. Its volunteers have donated over 300,000 hours to learners at an in-kind value of over $6 million dollars. ●BLDG 61 Makerspace o BLDG 61 complements the STEAM education mission and has become a primary resource for the public’s exploration of the maker culture. In the past 8 months, BLDG 61 held 250 classes and served 16,000 participants. Classes consistently have a waitlist. o Knight Foundation Grant – For the Tree Debris to Opportunity program, BLDG 61 received support from the Knight Foundation and created partnerships with local agencies and businesses. ●Arts & Culture o The 2-day JLF-Boulder Literature Festival, hosted by BPL in partnership with Teamwork Arts, drew 3,000 attendees and Pulitzer Prize winning speakers. o Other author programs included Rainbow Rowell, Jennifer Egan, Terry Tempest Williams and more. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) We would also like to recognize and express our appreciation for the Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) and its new program, the Library League. The BLF continues to provide us programming support. Asks / Action Items to Council Building upon past successes and considering the goals of BPL leadership, the Library Commission’s priorities in 2017 are to sustain resources and strengthen services to support the community’s evolving needs and long term vision with both the BPL Master Plan and the alignment with our City’s goals of sustainability, resilience, and inclusiveness. 1.We ask that Council fund and back a) all-gender / gender-neutral restrooms to meet patron needs; and b) policies and services that address the homeless community. 2.The success of BLDG 61 requires additional funding for materials and staffing. Boulder is at the forefront of the ongoing transition to a knowledge economy. We ask that Council assign additional funding to support BPL’s maker / creative / STEAM education. 3.Currently the library system has significant capital improvement needs. We anticipate that the Master Plan will further define needs for improvements. We wish to be involved in the discussions regarding 2A and any renewal considerations. 4.We request funding for a facilities study of the North Building programming and improvements. 5.We suggest that the 2017 Council work plan include analysis and discussion of various business models for how programming and events in the Civic Area might be staffed and funded (e.g. private/public partnerships; creating an “events department” staffed by City employees; funding generated through activities held in the Civic Area; funding through the general fund). The Library Commission would also like to thank the City Council and the City Manager for making additional police resources available last winter to improve safety and help eliminate disruptive and illegal behavior within the Main Branch. Library staff and patrons noticed an appreciable difference because of additional police patrols, and they praised the professionalism of the members of the Boulder Police Department who provided this. We hope that City Council will continue to provide such resources as necessary. Attachment A. 2016 Security Discussion 42 DATE: April 2, 2021 TO: Library Commission FROM: David Farnan, Director of Library and Arts Department Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director SUBJECT: Proposed 1st Adjustment to the 2021 Base Budget The first Adjustments to Base (ATB) are scheduled to be presented to City Council for first reading on May 18, 2021. A second reading and possible adoption is scheduled to occur on June 1, 2021. These dates may change due to council addressing other current priority matters. The first ATB presents the Library with an opportunity to adjust its base budget to accommodate continuing operational needs and/or address new needs for the 2021 budget year. Table 1 below shows the library’s proposed first ATB requests. The amounts may be refined as the submission is finalized for the Executive Budget Team. Table 1 Revised 1st Round of Adjustments to 2021 Base Budget GENERAL FUND Title Amount Type Source Description Carnegie Library Preservation Projects and Storage $20,000 Budget supplemental Fund balance Funding from the Blystadt-Laesar House (BLH) restricted reserve to purchase preservation materials, professional media and bound newspaper digitization services, and offsite storage. Carnegie Library Digital Asset Management System support and hosting $30,000 Budget supplemental Fund balance Funding from the BLH restricted reserve to fund support and hosting of the digital asset management system. This ongoing expense is not included in the library operating budget. Support includes configuration, troubleshooting, and staff training of the current system. The BLH fund is dedicated to support Carnegie Library collections and storage. North Boulder Branch Library Construction $58,000 Budget Supplemental Equipment Replacement Fund balance Additional funding contributed for the purchase and maintenance of Automated Materials Handling Equipment for the North Boulder Branch Library. 43 LIBRARY FUND Title Amount Type Source Description Colorado State Library Grant $25,048 Grant revenue Fund Balance Appropriation of 2020 grant funding awarded for collection development. HotSpot Program Grant Funds $18,520 Grant revenue & Donations Fund Balance Grant funding for data plan for HotSpots distributed to BVSD students and other underserved community members during the pandemic. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) Annual Program Support $1,000 Grant revenue Fund Balance The BLF increased the 2021 annual funding. 2020 Boulder Library Foundation Grant $253,844 Grant carryover Grant Appropriation of 2020 Boulder Library Foundation grant funding (unspent) balances. North Boulder Branch Library Construction $15,000 Grant carryover Library Fund Prior year grant contribution from the BLF for a donor wall in the North Boulder Branch Library. North Boulder Branch Library Construction $500,000 Grant revenue Library Fund Initial donation from the Boulder Library Foundation for general use for the North Boulder Branch Library project. 44 APRIL 2021 LIBRARY DIRECTOR’S REPORT North Boulder Branch Library Project Update Competitive bids and general contractor interviews were moved back one week due to the length of the addenda. Unfortunately, the bids that were received by the city were significantly higher than expected by the project team (which was based on recent cost estimates), thus no award will be granted at this time. The project team is investigating possible modifications to the scope to complete the project. The project managers met with the pool of general contractors to obtain their guidance on how best to bring the project into alignment with available budget resources. With some changes to the scope, the project team is confident that a library that is consistent with community vision can be built within budget. The project team is working with City Purchasing, Planning & Development Services, and City Attorney’s Office on next steps in the process. Ultimately, the project team will move forward with these primary intentions: • Modifications will be limited to preserve the current approvals obtained from Planning & Development Review to avoid another development review process. • The building will be built to be as “green” as possible. • As much of the original design will be preserved as possible. These project revisions will take some time to work through and the team anticipates an approximate 6- month delay in breaking ground, with the expectation that construction start before the end of 2021. This moves the opening date of the library to early 2023. Update on Current Library Services The library significantly expanded services the week of March 22, 2021 with the re-opening of the children’s library at the Main Library, limited in-person services at the Meadows Branch Library, and the NoBo Corner Library now offering holds carryout and materials return. This was possible by bringing Public Services staff members back to on-site work 100% of the time, by ceasing the time-intensive process of quarantining and sanitizing materials (a change approved by Colorado Public Health), with the hire of two new staff members, and reinstating library substitutes. The reaction from patrons has been overwhelmingly positive and library staff are so grateful to resume these activities and serve the community. Work continues to plan for further expansion of services, including: access to general seating, limited use of meetings rooms, in-person Storytimes and other programs, increased access to the library collection, and re-opening the George Reynolds Branch Library for holds carryout and materials return. All these services are dependent on COVID-19 restrictions being relaxed further and staffing availability. More information and specific dates will be provided in the coming months. Schedule change: Security Position Update Rescheduled from May to June meeting Antonia Gaona and Tim McClelland requested more to complete their research and development of a plan to convert the security contract to library staff positions that provide security and peer navigator services. They will be presenting the plan for security and peer navigator services to the Library Commission during the June 2, 2021 meeting. 45