AADL Board of Trustees Meeting - November 13th, 2017

Media Player

November 13, 2017 at Downtown Library: Multi-Purpose Room

Downloads:

File NameSizeType
aadl_board_meeting_20171113-720.mp46 GB720p Video
aadl_board_meeting_20171113-audio.mp3124 MBAudio

Watch the November 2017 Meeting of the AADL Board of Trustees. Select an agenda item below to jump to that point in the transcript.
For more information, please see the Board Packet for this meeting.

17-171 I. CALL TO ORDER
17-172 II. ATTENDANCE
17-173 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item of action)
17-174 IV. CONSENT AGENDA (Item of action)
CA-1 Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2017
CA-2 Approval of October 2017 Disbursements
17-175 V. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS
17-176 VI. FINANCIAL REPORTS - Bill Cooper, Finance Manager
17-177 VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
17-178 A. BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
17-179 B. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
17-180 VIII. DIRECTOR’S REPORT - Josie B. Parker, Director
17-181 IX. OLD BUSINESS
17-166 A. AADL STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL 3.3: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY BUILDING PRESENTATION - Will Gordon, O’Neal Construction, Inc.
17-163 B. RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISIONS TO BUSINESS AND FINANCE POLICIES
17-164 C. RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISIONS TO CIRCULATION POLICY 3.1
17-182 X. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS
17-183 XI. ADJOURNMENT

Length: 02:08:56
Copyright: Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-alike)
Rights Held by: Ann Arbor District Library
Media Series:AADL Board Meeting
Media Type:Video

Transcript:

  • [00:00:02.80] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Good evening, everyone. I've been told I need to actually speak into the microphone. Sorry. Let me get this out of the way. OK. We have attendance?
  • [00:00:18.44] KAREN: Yes.
  • [00:00:19.30] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. Great. Motion to approve the agenda.
  • [00:00:24.87] JAN BARNEY NEWMANN: So moved.
  • [00:00:26.20] LINH SONG: Second.
  • [00:00:27.65] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Great. All those in favor?
  • [00:00:29.40] MULTIPLE: Aye.
  • [00:00:30.38] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Opposed? OK. The consent agenda, motion.
  • [00:00:38.34] SPEAKER 1: So moved.
  • [00:00:39.24] JIM LEIJA: Second.
  • [00:00:40.05] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. All those in favor?
  • [00:00:42.13] MULTIPLE: Aye.
  • [00:00:42.98] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Opposed? OK. Do we have any citizen's comments, Karen?
  • [00:00:48.34] [INAUDIBLE]
  • [00:00:49.18] OK. Well, if you are here, and you want to comment, you'll have another chance at the end of the meeting. Should they come up to you with a little form? Karen has forms.
  • [00:01:00.64] So if you intended to come to comment, you'll have another chance at the end of the meeting. And you can visit Karen to let her know that you want to do that. OK. That brings us to financial reports.
  • [00:01:17.37] BILL COOPER: Good evening, everyone. You have my report in front of you. I'm just going to highlight our tax receipts, and our overall budget standing here today. So, as of October 31, 2017, we have received $14,882,712, or 95.4% of our budgeted tax receipts of $15,598,058. As of October 31, we are currently under budget by $769,417. Any questions?
  • [00:01:59.31] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Questions, anyone?
  • [00:02:01.11] KAREN: No.
  • [00:02:02.13] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. I don't think so.
  • [00:02:03.33] BILL COOPER: Thank you very much.
  • [00:02:03.90] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Thank you. OK. Jim, you're up with budget and finance.
  • [00:02:10.56] JIM LEIJA: The committee met, and I believe we discussed three items. First we met with representatives of the Old National Bank, to review the portfolio of investments that they hold on behalf of the library. Everything is looking good there. Nothing to report.
  • [00:02:32.46] There will be an additional conversation this evening about some changes to our budget and finance policies as they pertain to investments. So we'll leave that conversation until the point in the agenda when we get to those resolutions. We've started that conversation at our last full board meeting, so these are the revised proposals.
  • [00:02:58.68] And we also had some conversation about the idea of the Ann Arbor District Library starting a foundation, which was an outgrowth of a conversation of budget and finance. And I believe-- and I ask you, Colleen, maybe to say a few words-- about a meeting that Josie and Colleen took with Neel Hajra at the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.
  • [00:03:24.03] COLLEEN SHERMAN: That's true. We did have that meeting with Neel, and we asked a lot of questions about the pros and cons of foundation, and threshold for it.
  • [00:03:33.06] If we had $50,000 that we wanted to put in an endowment tomorrow-- correct me Josie, if I get the numbers wrong-- we could do it. We could also start our own foundation, and I believe that was a $5 million recommended startup, do I have that right?
  • [00:03:47.25] JOSIE PARKER: Correct.
  • [00:03:49.14] COLLEEN SHERMAN: It doesn't make sense to us, at this time, based on our conversations with Neel, and at budget and finance, to start a foundation on behalf of the library. Yes, if we had a donor who is very interested in endowed funding for the library, going with a Community Foundation fund did make good, solid sense. We don't have a donor prospect at this time. Nor do we have a robust annual fundraising plan. And that comes with many question marks as well.
  • [00:04:20.56] What we do have, is we do have a 501(c)(3), and we can accept donations on behalf of the library. There's nothing wrong with us fundraising, but it is complicated by the fact that we're a governmental entity, as well as a 501(c)(3). Josie, can you remind me what year it was established that the library is a 501(c)(3) as well?
  • [00:04:43.53] JOSIE PARKER: That would have been-- Ed may remember this better than I do, I was not director of the library-- it probably was in 1998, or 1999, when you all did that. I could look exactly, I could find it exactly. But it's been almost 20 years.
  • [00:05:02.55] COLLEEN SHERMAN: What's interesting-- and the reason I bring up the time frame is-- it's a really interesting anomaly, where I knew that before, but it wasn't as clear to me. There's no reason for us to start a foundation when we're already a non-profit organization. So we're in this unique slice, in this unique space. So when Josie went to the meeting last summer, with all of the libraries that have foundations, yes we're an unusual entity. But I think we can play to the way we're established, there's no reason for change.
  • [00:05:35.88] And I like where we're at. I think it's a very positive place where we're at, in terms of, are we going to go do heavy soliciting of annual gifts tomorrow? No. But where we're at, we're at a place where, if there are people who want to give to the library, and that's their philanthropic passion, we can take a gift.
  • [00:05:59.10] COLLEEN SHERMAN, do we publish 990s our 501(c)(3)?
  • [00:06:04.09] For the nonprofit?
  • [00:06:05.12] MULTIPLE: Yes.
  • [00:06:07.04] COLLEEN SHERMAN: And I don't recall seeing them, but I can tell you we've had our reason--
  • [00:06:12.64] [INTERPOSING VOICES]
  • [00:06:13.79] --no doubt that we do.
  • [00:06:14.84] JIM LEIJA: And, we are also the board of directors of the nonprofit, which I learned in the context of this meeting. And then additionally, one of the drawbacks of our-- even if we accept donations through our nonprofit, through our 501(c)(3), we are still subject to the rules and regulations of investing that govern us as a governmental entity. Which is one of the pros of establishing a separate foundation. Because those funds could be invested differently, more aggressively, with a higher return--
  • [00:06:51.79] JOSIE PARKER: Or using an existing Community Foundation as a way to do that.
  • [00:06:55.64] JIM LEIJA: As a way to do that, that's right.
  • [00:06:57.32] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Another way to do it, if we're thinking about capital expenditures from a donor, is to have those gifts on a spend down. Structure a payment system with the donor, and make sure we talk to our attorneys, and we do what we do at the University when we raise large gifts.
  • [00:07:15.38] We talk to the attorneys, we make sure everything is above board, we have gift agreements, and then usually there's a payment schedule. But, it would probably be a flow in and out if it's cash. Like it's a cash expendable gift, versus, if this is really--
  • [00:07:27.79] JIM LEIJA: Versus, if it's an endowment. Sorry, I'm skipping three steps of logic in my brain.
  • [00:07:32.41] COLLEEN SHERMAN: --Community Foundation. Which, we have a great energy here in town, we might as well use it if you're a donor who wants to make that kind of gift.
  • [00:07:39.89] JIM LEIJA: This, of course, has also led us to-- within the committee-- to want to review the endowments that we do carry within the organization. Which, I believe we planned to do that at the next meeting. Because there may be some-- they are small and few-- but, there may be some chance to think about how we would reorganize those endowments. Potentially to go into a Community Foundation fund.
  • [00:08:07.70] [INTERPOSING VOICES]
  • [00:08:09.08] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Don't they have to be of a certain size before that makes it practical?
  • [00:08:12.74] JIM LEIJA: That's what Colleen was saying, yeah.
  • [00:08:15.08] COLLEEN SHERMAN: So, right now we have some donors who have given endowed gifts. And they're living donors. Not exclusively, correct?
  • [00:08:24.36] JOSIE PARKER: Not exclusively, no. We have one endowment fund where the donor is not living. The [INAUDIBLE] fund, which is the large one, which is over $300,000. Then there are smaller funds. The Westerman fund. And the Kynaston fund. And the Schaefer fund. And then, the Price fund.
  • [00:08:48.95] COLLEEN SHERMAN: And the way-- you can talk about this all you want. Because this is so interesting.
  • [00:08:55.07] JOSIE PARKER: Well, the Kynaston Fund is an actual endowment that was done through a will that we did not expect. And it was delivered to the library, and the library board voted to accept it under its terms. Which were to invest it within the rules of the law regarding public libraries, and the nonprofit around the library, but that no more than 5% of its principal could ever be spent. For libraries not spent from the [INAUDIBLE] fund, its just remained invested.
  • [00:09:26.39] Then there are the other funds. Schaefer fund is a very small fund that a gentleman-- he came in every year, and gave the library several hundred dollars, at the end of every year, for the purchase of poetry and literary criticism. In memory of his deceased siblings. So, at his death, $10,000 came to the library, to continue doing that. So that's that fund.
  • [00:09:50.99] The Westerman fund. Scott Westerman, who is living, and a resident at Glacier Hills now. He and his wife came to me, and wanted to set this fund up to support the programming and the collection development for children and teens at the public library. So, the Westerman fund. They began the Westerman fund with a $15,000 gift. And I believe, right now, it's at 35,000.
  • [00:10:16.64] It and the Schaefer fund, and the Price fund, and the Kynaston fund, are all funds, quote, "acting as endowments". And can be spent at my discretion. The library director's discretion. Within the rules of agreements in which they were developed. So, we have spent from the Westerman fund over the years for summer reading. And the Westerman's have always supported that. And Mr. Westerman really appreciates that.
  • [00:10:46.58] The Schaefer fund is used exactly for what it was designed for, for the purchase of poetry and literary criticism. It's not a lot, and that amount of money, for that purpose, will last for a very, very long time.
  • [00:10:58.67] The Price fund is a memorial fund for Benjamin Price, who is deceased. And his family gave the library the money several years ago. And they have not determined yet how they would principally like it spent. It was a tragedy. So I said to them, when you know, let me know. And so, the money's safe. And that's how that's been done.
  • [00:11:23.34] The Kynaston fund was set up many, many years ago. Way many years prior to my being employed here, for the professional development of library professionals in the library. So, if we have someone who wants to go to a conference, or some sort of outside education that's extremely expensive, or out of the country. Then we can consider using the Kynaston fund to help do that. But no monies have come in to the Kynaston fund directly in a really long time. So I've been cautious about using a great deal of that money.
  • [00:12:04.16] I think that's all the funds-- and the Lady's Library Association, excuse me. We now have a fund to sign an endowment. It's a fund that the ladies established, where their money goes into a fund that we hold at the library. And then, we work with them about the expenditure. That's primarily for fine arts, and the use of the money to support the fine arts in the library. I beg your pardon, I forgot about them.
  • [00:12:26.30] KAREN: I wasn't going to let you.
  • [00:12:28.18] JOSIE PARKER: I remembered, I remembered. I was just in time.
  • [00:12:32.21] COLLEEN SHERMAN: The way we've structured these funds seems really productive. It seems like we're in great shape. We have the 501(c)(3), and it's manageable for the library. I don't see anything that isn't working in the best interest of the library right now. And the only issue is, does it behoove the library to open a community fund? And my guess is, it all depends. If there's a future donor who wants to do that, a Community Foundation, then yes we do it.
  • [00:13:06.05] JIM LEIJA: Yeah, absolutely. I think that's all the business from the budget and finance committee.
  • [00:13:12.10] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: You were going to mention that--
  • [00:13:13.31] JIM LEIJA: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes. And also, because I was reminded with the launch of the-- congratulations-- with the launch of the Fifth Avenue Press. And the author's party, which I read a great article about in Concentrate.
  • [00:13:29.21] And now, our very own, Rich Retyi, who is back there, is one of the 5th Avenue Press's first published authors. That we have some unfinished business to consider, in terms of the financial model. And so, the budget and finance committee will also add that as an agenda item to discuss, as part of the next meeting, or the meeting after that. And we can bring that conversation back to the board. We'll drill down on it a little bit, and bring it back for full group discussion. Thanks Jamie, for reminding me.
  • [00:14:08.88] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So from the executive committee, I have two updates for you. One is that Josie has scheduled a meeting for the executive committee, with Tom Cabana of EPIC MRA, to do the preliminary question generation process. Am I describing that OK? So that's coming up in a couple of weeks, right after Thanksgiving, I think.
  • [00:14:31.91] So after that, we talked last month about the next step after that. To sort of come to the next meeting with a time for us to talk a little bit more as a group about potential questions, but you'll get the initial process results before that. So you'll have time to look at-- yes, Victoria.
  • [00:14:52.59] VICTORIA GREEN: Jane, can you remind me, the overall timeline for our EPIC MRA study? When are we looking to get it out--
  • [00:14:59.21] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: It's staying the same as what we had originally talked about. So that's February.
  • [00:15:03.16] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: What do you mean, what's going to be given to us at the next meeting?
  • [00:15:06.51] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, when we go out with the questionnaire, the EPIC MRA questionnaire. We get to say to EPIC MRA, what we want them to ask about, so they need to hear from us what we want.
  • [00:15:19.28] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Are we to do that independently, before, or when?
  • [00:15:22.43] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: No. So, the three of us, on the executive committee, will meet with Tom in person, to kind of share what we're hoping to get out of the survey with him. We'll work with him a little bit on formulating a rough draft of what the questions might be. And you'll get that before the next meeting. And then, at the next meeting, we'll talk about what don't you see, what do you think we should have, what do you like that you see.
  • [00:15:48.77] JIM LEIJA: We'll continue to work through and refine the draft.
  • [00:15:50.93] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: How long do we have to make it? The final.
  • [00:15:54.23] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Well, it won't go out until February. So, I would think that even if we don't finish our discussion at the December meeting, we could talk about it again in January.
  • [00:16:03.32] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well, we have categories of information we want to learn about. By age group, by characteristics, what?
  • [00:16:15.02] JIM LEIJA: You've been through the process before, I know--
  • [00:16:16.79] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I have, but I don't remember what--
  • [00:16:18.08] JIM LEIJA: It'll look very similar. And it changes, based on what we want to query. And what we're looking to query-- what we talked about in the last meeting, I think, was that-- of course we'll query demographic information. And they are also looking for a representative pool of respondents through their process. Which they always do, so they want to make sure that they have respondents that fit a wide range of demographic categories.
  • [00:16:46.43] And then, as we walked through it last time, a lot was focused on programs. And I believe that the intention that we all expressed, was that given the work that we're doing with the building here, downtown, that we are looking, generally, to survey on what is the function, purpose, and desire of the community, around what does the library look like downtown.
  • [00:17:10.20] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I understand that. And I have had requests from people in a certain age group, older people, that the population is decreasing.
  • [00:17:20.88] [INTERPOSING VOICES]
  • [00:17:22.06] So those are areas that I want to be sure we covered, too. What people need. Not just handing at people. But what do people need that we might be missing?
  • [00:17:34.53] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Services.
  • [00:17:35.37] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Yeah, services and help.
  • [00:17:37.80] JIM LEIJA: Yeah. Which I think is a great thing, and it was something that we actually asked. And I remember, one of the findings, was that there wasn't-- which is one of the things that sort of always surprises everyone-- is that there wasn't a lot of feedback on what we weren't offering, even when we asked.
  • [00:17:57.69] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well, people aren't always that imaginative on their own.
  • [00:18:01.12] JIM LEIJA: That's right.
  • [00:18:03.13] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: But, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are. Who contact us. So we want to be sure that they get a chance to voice their feelings.
  • [00:18:10.73] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Yeah, absolutely. Oh, and also, Josie has pointed out that I was mistaken. It's John Cabana. So, just for the record. Oh, sorry. I forgot that I'm leading this part of the meeting. I'm just staring happily at the--
  • [00:18:27.40] JIM LEIJA: Is it November?
  • [00:18:30.94] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. So the next thing that we're going to talk about in December, is, of course, the ongoing discussion of Josie's evaluation process. And I say Josie's, but it's really the person in the director's role. So in December we can expect the final report from the two people that we're working with, Sarah and Carrie. To give us, not just an overview of what the process is going to be like, but also the tools that we'll be using, and a roadmap for how we will evaluate the director this year, and then going forward. So you can expect that in December.
  • [00:19:07.54] VICTORIA GREEN: Do you expect that before our meeting that we'll discuss though, the December meeting or the January?
  • [00:19:12.67] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I expect them to give a presentation in December. So I would guess that we'll get something for board packet that's ready to look at it, but I don't know how drafty it will be at that point.
  • [00:19:25.53] LINH SONG: I think we could push forward to the final--
  • [00:19:28.09] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Yeah. I think it's time.
  • [00:19:31.51] LINH SONG: It seems like they have all the pieces.
  • [00:19:34.89] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Anything I missed?
  • [00:19:36.46] LINH SONG: I don't think so.
  • [00:19:39.22] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: All right. Moving on. OK. Josie.
  • [00:19:48.09] JOSIE PARKER: I have, in front of you, a printed director's report. Because of vacation, I did not get it done until I got back, so it's in front of you. But also, we highlighted it.
  • [00:20:00.93] So, we have the U of M event with Congressman John Lewis Monday the 27th. He will not be here. I want to make that really clear. But Nate Powell will be here, the illustrator of this comic. He will be here that day at 1 o'clock, in the multipurpose room, with the presentation.
  • [00:20:20.77] And then he'll go, from here, over to Hill Auditorium, which is where Congressman Lewis will be. But we will live stream that event, upstairs in the board-- nope. In this room, sorry. In this room at 7:00.
  • [00:20:36.79] So it's first come, first serve. No tickets. For anyone interested in being able to listen to that conversation, and not want to be at Hill, or not want to take the chance of not getting in at Hill.
  • [00:20:51.99] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Will that be the only way it's distributed locally?
  • [00:20:57.04] JOSIE PARKER: I also think, is it being live streamed at EMU? It's being live streamed at EMU, Ypsilanti Library was involved in it.
  • [00:21:05.78] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: How about CTN or anything like that?
  • [00:21:08.64] ELI NEIBURGER: There's no television broadcast.
  • [00:21:09.61] JOSIE PARKER: Right. So, here. Or at Hill, or at EMU, if you're interested. But, we're very pleased to be able to have Nate Powell here, earlier in that day. And then, be able to witness that conversation live, even if we're not necessarily in the space. So we're happy about that.
  • [00:21:32.74] JIM LEIJA: Are we going to be able to put it on the web?
  • [00:21:35.30] JOSIE PARKER: I'm not sure what the agreement, so it's probably not ours.
  • [00:21:43.52] JIM LEIJA: Is it coming from Christina Hamilton?
  • [00:21:45.00] ELI NEIBURGER: I'm not sure. They were originally going to have a jumbotron when it was going to be earlier in the year. But now that the weather has changed. Select interior. And ours is actually on the fourth floor.
  • [00:22:01.13] JOSIE PARKER: So, I was right. I thought it was the board room.
  • [00:22:05.63] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Since it's a staff's thing, they always record them. So even if it's not live streamed, you could always watch it on Play afterwards.
  • [00:22:12.27] JIM LEIJA: I'm sure you told me they were live streaming, that's why I'm asking.
  • [00:22:14.39] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Oh, well then, I don't know.
  • [00:22:16.30] JIM LEIJA: We're doing an event with them later, that is going to be live streamed, but--
  • [00:22:19.94] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Who's we?
  • [00:22:20.93] JIM LEIJA: UMass. Sorry, the other we that I represent. You messaged doing it about with them in January. I'm told they are live streaming online. So, I don't know, but the agreement may be different. That's why I'm asking.
  • [00:22:34.96] LINH SONG: Josie, will Nate be available to sign books, or how is his visit going to be structured?
  • [00:22:41.14] ELI NEIBURGER: I'm not sure if that's planned for part of the event or not.
  • [00:22:44.74] JOSIE PARKER: We can know that before, but I don't know it right now.
  • [00:22:48.79] TIM GRIMES: I think there's going to be a signing at the comic book place.
  • [00:22:54.11] JOSIE PARKER: Right, Vault of Midnight. Perhaps the signing at Vault of Midnight.
  • [00:22:57.40] TIM GRIMES: I think they're doing a signing there.
  • [00:22:59.55] JOSIE PARKER: OK. You know, I'm not going to answer for him, but if somebody walked up to him with a comic book and a pen, he'd probably sign.
  • [00:23:09.54] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I think there are a lot of families in Ann Arbor with a serious--
  • [00:23:12.70] JOSIE PARKER: Yeah. So, we'll see. We'll see. These are covers of some of the books that were published, and launched, on November 5 from Fifth Avenue Press. So I thought it would be fun to see some of the covers, if you haven't seen them.
  • [00:23:32.86] The initiatives and projects underway. Just to give you an update on how things are going with MailCat being offline. We have seen an increase of traditional ILL volume. From about 20 items a week to 150 per week. So we're adjusting to that and will continue to as the next couple of months, or few months, goes by. It's not something we can't handle or deal with. It does mean a little bit more of a wait for the patron, but we're getting things for people, which is important for you to know.
  • [00:24:07.18] O'Neil Construction is here this evening. Will Goran's here this evening, to talk to you about the assessment, and his estimations of different options concerning this building. So, I know we're all eager for that. So we'll just keep going. And then you've all spoken about the EPIC MRA survey with John Cavanagh, which will occur in February of 2018. And you're working toward those questions, and you heard that process.
  • [00:24:29.36] This is a summary of public, and staff comments. This was something that was done, that was a happy trails to Ira Lax who retired from the library. And we put it out, and it just got love. So much love. And we're so glad. It couldn't have happened to a nicer person. So, when Ira's retired from the library. And so, I won't read them, but just so you see it.
  • [00:24:53.45] These are librarians loving the library. Librarians go into libraries whenever they travel, I do it. And so we had a librarian at our fairy door. And she tweeted, posted a picture, of the fairy door, and her response to that.
  • [00:25:10.72] And also, somebody else talking about coming into town and getting a library card. It was a priority, first thing they did when they moved here. And I can attest to that. I've done that. I moved a lot in my life, over the years, and that was always a first stop. So I understand how that feels.
  • [00:25:25.28] This is local history photographs put up. And people responding to them, in both these cases, the responders were the little girls. And one of them was like, that's me, I can't believe it, but that's me at Safety Town. And then, another one was a pumpkin at Northeast branch. Before it was Trevor Wood. And the little girl said, I know that's me. And she still lives here, so I thought she'd like to see those.
  • [00:25:56.81] This is about, we had a costume contest. And a family dressed up as characters in Ben Hatke's Legends of Zita the Spacegirl, a comic book. So we took a picture, and we sent it out to Ben. And then, this was his response. So it comes around full circle, it's great fun.
  • [00:26:17.57] And this was a very interesting occurrence that happened online this past month. A guy named Andre Walker decided to go out and say nobody goes to libraries anymore. Close the public ones, and put the books in schools. And he wishes he hadn't said that, really. The responses, from all over the world, were fast and furious, and in the thousands. These are some from Ann Arbor to him about this library. So And we pull those, because we thought you'd want to see that.
  • [00:26:48.74] One of them was, if you're an adult who uses the library, appreciate you AADL and [INAUDIBLE] Library, best programming at adults love libraries.
  • [00:26:59.39] And another person said, I visit the library at least once a week, not to mention daily use of my e-library. It's my favorite tax funded service.
  • [00:27:07.43] And someone says to me, people ask where you're going on your vacation, my response, the library. And I'm laughing, because I went into libraries on my vacation. So, library. This library.
  • [00:27:18.71] So you should know that happened, and in the next page there's some more things that were said, about what Westgate was hopping this afternoon. Whoever says people don't go to libraries, hasn't been to this one.
  • [00:27:30.50] And this was all in response to Andre Walker. And then, down at the bottom is his response back. Dear @library users, I surrender. I surrender.
  • [00:27:40.91] So he had to backtrack, and take it all back. And he did it graciously, I have to say. And he took some-- all the responses weren't as polite as these, I'll say that. There are some really interesting librarians out there.
  • [00:27:58.70] This was Halloween. And this little boy was having his photograph made here in our free photo booth. There were like 46, or 47 photographs, that went up online for families, and little children, from the photo booth. So we can talk about that.
  • [00:28:18.07] And that's my report. And including in this report, are some more library statements. People's comments into us, and their answers. And this will go online with the packet, now. So it will be part of the online record. I just didn't have it ready until today. So, thank you for that.
  • [00:28:36.68] We did have a list of top 10 programs for the month of October. And I'll say this, Charles--
  • [00:28:44.71] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Oh, Charles Blow
  • [00:28:47.09] JOSIE PARKER: Charles Blow. Excuse me, I'm doing it too. That event was 1,100 people. And, while it wasn't held at the library, the library was part of the sponsorship for it. And I can say, someone who participated in it, it was fantastic. It was amazing. And I'm glad, and thank you to the folks in the University, who reached out to us, and included us in the possibility of that. We're very proud to have been a part of something like that.
  • [00:29:12.78] But then we had nine other events that brought in numbers of people, great numbers of people. But, what's interesting about the list, is you have the Blow event, which is obviously an adult event at Rackham. And then, Preschool Story Time, had huge numbers of people at Malletts Creek that month. All in the same list of top 10 programs, so that's the public library. That's wonderful.
  • [00:29:40.52] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I just laughed, because if you're listing the numbers, Rackham holds 1,100 people.
  • [00:29:46.96] JOSIE PARKER: People were lined up around the walls. It was really--
  • [00:29:49.73] ED SUROVELL: Rackham holds how many?
  • [00:29:51.70] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: 1150 people.
  • [00:29:52.94] ED SUROVELL: Yes.
  • [00:29:55.16] JOSIE PARKER: And you were there. It was full. Yeah. That's my report. Thank you.
  • [00:30:01.97] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Great. Thank you. So, we move on now, to our lovely revisiting of strategic plan goal 3.3, the downtown library. So, Will Gordon joins us this evening to deliver some long awaited information.
  • [00:30:25.17] JOSIE PARKER: Thank you, Will.
  • [00:30:28.76] WILL GORDON: Good evening. How am I doing with this? OK? Oh, sorry. I shouldn't touch it.
  • [00:30:41.19] So last time I was here, we talked a little bit about four scenarios with cost estimates that we putting together. This is the next step. So, we've put these numbers together for you tonight. I want you to know that the first scenario is the reserve study scenario, which is simply maintaining this building for the next 30 years.
  • [00:31:18.12] So, scenario one. A couple of things before I get started on this. We are pretty good as a construction company with putting together construction numbers, construction cost estimates. What we're not very good at, is after we build something, we kind of leave, and somebody else takes care of it for a while.
  • [00:31:37.37] So we don't really know what maintenance costs are. So we brought in this group. They're out of Wisconsin. Reserve Advisors. We've worked with them here [INAUDIBLE] and in Ann Arbor, and they put together the scenario one, which is the Full Reserve Study.
  • [00:32:03.63] What they're telling us, is over the next 30 years, it'll cost you about $10.4 million to maintain this building. And when I say maintain it, I'm talking about survival, bread and water stuff. There are no improvements included in that number, there are no upgrades included in that number, there are no surprises included in that number.
  • [00:32:30.74] JOSIE PARKER: You mean if an elevator goes down. Is that what you mean by surprise?
  • [00:32:33.70] WILL GORDON: That's correct. This is keeping your building dry and safe, is the way I look at it. Not safe from a public safety standpoint, but safe in that the elements aren't getting to the structure, and deteriorating.
  • [00:32:49.07] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well actually your numbers are even less than what we thought.
  • [00:32:53.60] SPEAKER 1: Well, this is just scenario one.
  • [00:32:55.74] WILL GORDON: This is scenario one. And I want to be careful with scenario one. I don't necessarily agree with all the numbers that the reserve study group has put out. We're meeting with them over the next two weeks to discuss them.
  • [00:33:11.99] And I want to show you, for example, one of the things that I didn't like, were the windows. Their opinion of the windows is that they are good to fair. I know, from being in here, that in some cases there's water problems with some of the windows. And that, to me, isn't in the category of good or fair.
  • [00:33:38.79] The other thing I didn't like, is if you look into their report, they are suggesting that over the next 30 years, you'll spend a little over $350,000 on Window replacement. That's a number that they use, they take square foot of glass, and then apply a square foot number to it. And if you look in these pictures.
  • [00:34:02.18] The one, upper-left, that is a curtain wall system. You cannot apply their numbers to a three, or four story glass structure like that. And if you look at the lower picture, you can see that your windows-- I mean, that is projecting out. It's a window structure, it's not a window in the way they classify windows.
  • [00:34:24.68] And then you'll see, also in that lower picture, you guys have those, what we call clear story windows at the top. And I know that's one of the places we're seeing some water problems. That you can't apply their numbers to those type of window situations.
  • [00:34:40.05] So, we have some things in here that we're meeting with them to discuss, to understand where they came up with their numbers. I think, though, that their $10.4 million is an OK place to start, for the decision making process. There may be some fluctuation in it as we dig in with them. But I think for the decision making process, it's thoughtful enough that we could share it with you tonight. Yes?
  • [00:35:07.13] VICTORIA GREEN: Can I make a point, though? So, there are some quibbles that you have with it, and the windows do seem like a substantial one to me. $350,000 seems low to me for windows for a building this size, period. Let alone with the complexities of the windows we have.
  • [00:35:21.72] But the second thing I hear you saying, is that figure includes accepting our current level of risk around things like our septic system. Look, I said septic. It doesn't include being proactive to reduce risk around things that we are currently uncomfortable with.
  • [00:35:36.98] WILL GORDON: That's correct. It does, over the next 30 years, replace some of your pumps. But this building, and I've spent some time-- since I was here last time-- a great deal of time on your septic system. And I don't want to take too much of the time, but it's very unusual. I mean, you have five different pumps in this building.
  • [00:35:58.70] And in one case, the easternmost part of the building goes into a crock. And then that pumps all the way over the Western side of the building, where it's collected again in a crock, and pumped back out into the city sewer. I mean, that gives you double the exposure in a pump failure, right?
  • [00:36:20.00] So, I won't spend any more time on that. I know you guys know you have some issues there. And this scenario one doesn't directly address fixing that infrastructure.
  • [00:36:30.83] VICTORIA GREEN: Just fixing it when it fails, basically.
  • [00:36:34.61] WILL GORDON: So, scenario number two. Well, let me let me finish up with scenario one. I think it's important to point out, that when you look at this reserve study, they do show that after a 30 year period, you would still have in reserves $981,000, after 30 years, to start your next 30 years with.
  • [00:37:06.65] Scenario two, is strictly an interior renovation. This would be removing all your ceilings, new lighting, new paint, a minimal amount of new walls, and the demolition of some old walls for programming. New flooring. I would call it, cosmetics of the building only.
  • [00:37:32.67] When we were putting this number together, we decided we would be a little irresponsible if we didn't have a scenario 2a. Which would be replacing any mechanical, electrical, and plumbing items that we would uncover during the removal of the ceilings and removal of the walls.
  • [00:38:00.01] So, what we've done, is scenario 2a would include the upgrading of a lot of your mechanical systems, and the piping, and infrastructure that we could get to when we exposed these ceilings. However, it would not be a complete gut and redo of your mechanical infrastructure.
  • [00:38:26.99] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Can I ask a question?
  • [00:38:28.64] WILL GORDON: Yeah.
  • [00:38:29.06] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, why present us the scenario two if it's so unlikely to be how it works out for us?
  • [00:38:38.63] WILL GORDON: That's a good question. We're just trying to give you options. And that was originally one of the options we came up with.
  • [00:38:47.55] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I totally understand.
  • [00:38:48.30] WILL GORDON: It was just a paint and carpet kind of option, and then we felt like, it's a terrible option. So we invented option 2a.
  • [00:38:57.29] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. Thank you for that.
  • [00:39:00.73] WILL GORDON: So, here's your ranges that we put together for these two options. Number two, again, being the just paint and carpet, new ceilings, new lighting, renovation, were $17.9 million to $22.4 million. And then 2a, with some of the mechanical, and electrical, and plumbing upgrades I've talked about. It wouldn't be a complete upgrade, but it would be fairly major. You can see, it's $19.5 million to $25.1 million, is our range.
  • [00:39:39.92] Now, we've also provided a spreadsheet with a lot more detail, that includes a mid-range number. It shows you the square foot numbers that we use to come up with this, and you can manipulate that however you need to as we go on. For example, on the next few scenarios, there's square footages that, if you decide you want to be smaller or larger, less renovation, more addition, you'll be able to manipulate those numbers.
  • [00:40:14.28] LINH SONG: And again these costs are over a course of 10 years.
  • [00:40:23.10] WILL GORDON: In those ranges, we've included for some inflation over time. Also I think it's important that we point out, in those numbers, those are not strict construction hard costs. We did add design. We did add furniture. And we did add some AV and technology.
  • [00:40:48.51] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, based on what you showed us with the amount we'd have left in reserve, if we do nothing but just renovate the building, and don't raise any more money, we aren't going to be able to afford to keep up this building in 10 years. Am I reading that correctly?
  • [00:41:04.19] VICTORIA GREEN: I heard it was going to be an annual cost of $300,000. I just took $10 million divided by 30. And I guess my question is, Bill-- Didn't we do a facilities estimate?
  • [00:41:18.70] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: We were told $500,000 a year.
  • [00:41:21.05] JOSIE PARKER: And that's something I'll tell you. When we saw the reserve study, we quibbled with the cost too. Because what we've looked at, we look at this being a $500,000 a year rent. To take care of it, keep it safe, keep the weather out of it. But it's about what you do. And we were better equipped to think this thing through in terms of the windows, the roof, that sort of thing.
  • [00:41:47.95] VICTORIA GREEN: OK. I'm glad their number didn't come higher than our number.
  • [00:41:50.68] JOSIE PARKER: Right. It did not come higher.
  • [00:41:58.50] WILL GORDON: So, scenario three was the easiest for us to do. Which is simply, the building that we're in, this existing building, goes away. And ground-up construction of the new 120,000-square foot building. So, that-- hold on to your hats-- is-- and there's quite a spread here-- but that's a $42.2 million to $62.5 million project.
  • [00:42:30.11] And I'll tell you, that you're probably not going to get what you want for $42.2 million. We know we can build you 120,000 square feet for that. Whether it works for you or not, I don't think so. And we can build you a $70 million project, as well. But I really think the range is good when you look at the middle. And when you look at that spreadsheet, middle to upper-middle is probably where you would fall with the programming that you want.
  • [00:43:04.91] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: But you have factored building cost alone, not rental space for being out of this, none of that is included.
  • [00:43:15.02] WILL GORDON: The only soft cost that we included--
  • [00:43:17.66] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: They aren't very soft.
  • [00:43:18.53] WILL GORDON: --a designer, and then some of what we call the FF and E. Which is the furnishings, fixtures, and equipment.
  • [00:43:30.10] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: And to build a building that is the mid-range building of that size, that you're anticipating, it takes how long?
  • [00:43:40.58] WILL GORDON: From start of design, or just construction?
  • [00:43:44.78] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Demolition to completion.
  • [00:43:48.50] WILL GORDON: I would say three years. From go. That's start of design to completion of construction. So, from start of demolition to open the doors, would probably be two years. So a year of design. Two years of actual work in the field.
  • [00:44:08.00] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: OK.
  • [00:44:09.10] WILL GORDON: That's conservative. So the next scenario that it wasn't as easy for us to deal with, was coming up with the combination of new construction, and renovation. And this may be totally off-base, and the wrong way to look at this, but what we did in this particular set up that we've used.
  • [00:44:39.06] The 1991 addition is what we thought we would save, and then we had to save the 1975 addition, because it holds the '91 addition up. And then, the 1958 building would be demolished. And you would build a new addition in that footprint.
  • [00:45:04.56] So, right now you have 111,000 square feet. We've added another, just under 10,000 square feet, just because we thought that you'd probably want to be slightly bigger. I don't know if that's the right direction or not. And again, this goes back to those numbers. Those square foot numbers will allow you to manipulate that in the direction that you think you should go for size.
  • [00:45:30.43] VICTORIA GREEN: So our sewage goes through both buildings, right? The '91, '58, right?
  • [00:45:39.05] WILL GORDON: Yeah, so it comes down the '91 into a mechanical room with the sump in it, which is a big hole in the ground with pumps in it. And then it pumps from there, to another sump, and pumps, that are in the 1958 addition. And then it pumps from there, out into Fifth Street.
  • [00:46:02.90] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN1: Fifth Avenue.
  • [00:46:04.21] COLLEEN SHERMAN: So leading to that. That's a really good question, because in the new building scenario, when you start from scratch. Do you get rid of all things sewage, you get rid of all of the crocks. So, the threat then goes away, as long as we get the building, right? I mean, because it's a threat in terms of cost.
  • [00:46:26.99] And this is something, maybe we want Linda to weigh in to, because we have Linda. OK. So that time bomb, what that costs us, if we assign potential cost to that threat. That's something you want to consider as we weigh the decisions-- weigh these options.
  • [00:46:45.03] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I don't think I'm clear though on scenario four and the sewage crock situation. Would we be able to deal with them entirely?
  • [00:46:52.07] LINH SONG: Or are we just getting rid of one crack?
  • [00:46:59.07] WILL GORDON: What we plan, for scenario four, would be a total gut of 1991, and a total gut of 1975. Ideally, everyone would move out of the library. And you'd go away for two years, and come back with a new addition, and a totally renovated structure on the east side. So yes, it would take care of your sanitary problem.
  • [00:47:28.58] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK.
  • [00:47:29.54] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Am I misremembering that the city itself has old sewage pipes that we're dealing with? Is that wrong?
  • [00:47:40.64] WILL GORDON: The city does have old sewage pipes on a lot of the streets.
  • [00:47:48.21] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: And I think, underneath this building, there are old pipes.
  • [00:47:52.19] LINH SONG: I thought that was just under 5th Avenue. That's the city.
  • [00:47:55.10] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I could be wrong, it's something I assumed. But maybe I'm wrong.
  • [00:47:59.72] WILL GORDON: I do know that some of the sanitary leads, I believe you have two sanitary leads into the building. And they both go into 5th Street. And one of them is a clay pipe, which would indicate it's very old.
  • [00:48:14.81] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: And would it be up to us to take care of that. Or is that--
  • [00:48:18.42] WILL GORDON: Yeah, it's up to the property owner to take care of what we call, the leads. So, from the main in the street, back to the building, would be the library's responsibility.
  • [00:48:30.46] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: But the clay pipes there, we can't do anything about that?
  • [00:48:35.60] WILL GORDON: No, we could replace the clay pipe up to the main in the street. My guess is that main in the street is--
  • [00:48:44.90] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: --also a clay pipe.
  • [00:48:46.43] WILL GORDON: It could be. And that's what I think we were told at one point. OK. That's enough.
  • [00:48:53.95] ED SUROVELL: Do we know what the date of those clay pipes is? Late 20th century? 19th century?
  • [00:49:03.11] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I heard 19th.
  • [00:49:04.48] WILL GORDON: Really? I'm not certain. I know that I've never installed a clay pipe.
  • [00:49:12.23] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: You aren't old enough to have done it in the 19th century.
  • [00:49:15.71] WILL GORDON: No, not quite.
  • [00:49:16.68] LINH SONG: Do people flush diapers down clay pipes? I think that's what caused ours.
  • [00:49:22.80] JOSIE PARKER: It has caused our problems in the past. Diapers and other things, yeah.
  • [00:49:26.48] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Well, where are we sitting now? Are we in '91?
  • [00:49:31.11] WILL GORDON: We're in '58.
  • [00:49:33.08] COLLEEN SHERMAN: OK. That's what I thought. But we're close to '91. '91 is that way.
  • [00:49:39.42] WILL GORDON: The '91 is, yeah.
  • [00:49:44.40] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So one of the attractive things about scenario four, potentially, is that we could preserve some level of operation, without having to rent outside space. But, you made it sound like it would be a lot simpler to do a construction project, if an operating library weren't in the space.
  • [00:50:03.73] WILL GORDON: So, we're early in this process. And so, these numbers that we're showing you. The $28.7 million to $39.4 million, is us getting the whole piece of property for two years.
  • [00:50:19.68] Now, there's a long way to go here, right? You have to weigh the rental of opening something somewhere else. We could look at phasing it. I'm going to tell you that this is a really difficult-- the scenario that I've laid out here-- is difficult to phase.
  • [00:50:34.29] Because you do have equipment in this side, that services that side. For example, your sanitary problem would be huge. We would have to run a temporary line from your crocks over in the '91 somewhere, to keep you up and running while this was demolished. Because this is, unfortunately, the end of the line for your sanitary issue.
  • [00:50:58.89] Now all that can be done. There's not a lot of value in it, in those dollars. But there are certainly ways to phase things, and keep people in here, and keep it open. It's difficult.
  • [00:51:15.37] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I think we needed to hear that, so thank you.
  • [00:51:20.29] WILL GORDON: So, that's scenario four costs right there, that's the range that we've come up with.
  • [00:51:33.26] So scenario one was the feasibility study, or in 30 years, $10 million, $10.4 million to just keep you alive here in this building. And then, scenario two was just the interior renovation. Paint, carpet, new ceilings, light fixtures. Scenario 2a adds the mechanical with that.
  • [00:51:56.22] And I want to warn everybody, that's not a full mechanical, brand new system. It's somewhere in between what you have now. It would be like an interior tenant build-out. I don't know if you've ever rented another space where it's-- new ductwork, you're getting. You're getting some new equipment down in the basement. Some new rooftop equipment. I don't want to sell that, or let you believe that that's a complete MEP renovation.
  • [00:52:31.62] JOSIE PARKER: And also, if I'm not mistaken, 2a doesn't include anything to do with the windows, does it?
  • [00:52:38.09] WILL GORDON: No, there's no exterior in 2a.
  • [00:52:41.32] JOSIE PARKER That's what I wanted to make sure. Nothing.
  • [00:52:42.90] WILL GORDON: We're not touching anything--
  • [00:52:44.48] JOSIE PARKER: No roof, no windows, right.
  • [00:52:49.64] WILL GORDON: And then, number three again, is the brand new building. Number four we just discussed, which is partial renovation, partial new building addition.
  • [00:53:01.63] JOSIE PARKER: Which does include roof and windows.
  • [00:53:04.59] WILL GORDON: Oh, absolutely.
  • [00:53:10.30] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. Other questions?
  • [00:53:13.71] LINH SONG: So we're not too far off from the numbers that we saw 10 years ago, am I right?
  • [00:53:17.87] JOSIE PARKER: Correct. That was a $65 million building, and it was a much bigger building. Just, the plan was a much, much bigger than 120,000 square feet. And it was $65 million. The only other figure I can remember off the top of my head, that it might be of interest to you, was it was going to be to $3 million to move out into rented space for two years, and operate in a downtown location for two years.
  • [00:53:46.69] So that's what that was going to cost them. Just so you know, that was going to-- but those arrangements, that plan, had been made and was ready to go. We would have to do something similar.
  • [00:54:03.70] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: And at that time, we had a specific location that was possible.
  • [00:54:08.50] JOSIE PARKER: We did. Yes, we did.
  • [00:54:10.85] VICTORIA GREEN: Well, and we also, in terms of the $65 million building, we had a list of things that we wanted to get for that $65 million. We have not specified what we're trying-- you gave us square foot numbers. But we didn't give you a list of spaces that we wanted to support new types of activity in the library.
  • [00:54:29.30] LINH SONG: So we should be thinking bigger numbers.
  • [00:54:33.83] JOSIE PARKER: Well, not necessarily. It's about what else happens in the space. How the space is arranged, it's about the design. It can be what they've outlined. It can be larger. It depends. It doesn't need to be larger than you need it to be.
  • [00:54:54.22] And so it's about, what do you want to have happen in the space. We already know, to survive in it, we can't keep doing what we're doing. We have to stop doing a lot of things. To just stop it. Because we're outgrowing it all the time.
  • [00:55:08.89] But what is that future? What does that look like? A performance venue-- I'll use the word auditorium, because that's what it is going to be-- we know we could fill up a 400-seat auditorium on a regular basis in this library.
  • [00:55:27.76] And that space, if you put it in 120,000-square foot building, you would be having to sacrifice in some other ways here, for your space. So that's the additional space. So you think about what square footage is that, how's that laid out, that kind of thing.
  • [00:55:46.13] VICTORIA GREEN: One thing I was struck by. I didn't actually attend the Halloween party, which I was sorry. But when I looked at the photos, I just thought, how much staff work must have gone in to arranging that space to support this activity, which seemed great to me to the community. And how great it was that people could walk in, and see that, and have all that kind of activity, that I thought, oh my gosh, they built a stage. And moved things.
  • [00:56:07.77] JOSIE PARKER: That's right. And every event that happens in the lobby requires all the take out of what's there, including the desk. And arranging for the stage, and the puppet theater was the same type of stage. Changing the Halloween event, you're right. And we have to put it somewhere. So it goes upstairs, to the third floor for the most part. Because that's where we have space for it.
  • [00:56:31.96] VICTORIA GREEN: And then, it also means that we're limited to having things on the first floor that can be moved, right? That's why we have your body bags.
  • [00:56:42.14] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: That's one of my favorite comments from the retreat. I still think of that.
  • [00:56:46.06] LINH SONG: So we need to think about library use in the next 10 years. And then, we also should consider the data that we looked at from SEMCOG with a growing senior population, and then a growing younger population. Because we were seeing a little bit of a bump, with more children in the community. And I think that's reflective of what the schools are looking at too, is how do we accommodate more children.
  • [00:57:11.47] I know they spent, I think nearly 3 million, on portables. And then running bonds, and trying to figure out how to accommodate a growing city. So we have to imagine what the library would look like in 10 years, if we can meet those needs. That's pretty easy.
  • [00:57:34.08] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: We'll have help envisioning all of this. We have all these talented people who work here.
  • [00:57:39.18] COLLEEN SHERMAN: A growing city should have a growing tax base. So, there are a lot of conversations that we can have about the money, and those projections. We've had many of them already. It's such an interesting problem-- opportunity-- how do we serve?
  • [00:57:57.96] I think we're asking a lot of the right questions. And to me, population growth, population change, and then the dialogue with-- I don't want to call them stakeholder groups. There was opposition in 2012. I want to hear from those people, straight up, about their concerns.
  • [00:58:18.15] What's the opposition feel like right now? Is that all tax base? Is it about an increase in taxes, or is it about something else? I don't know. I can fathom, but I just don't know. I would be interested to hear from those people.
  • [00:58:35.16] LINH SONG: I'd be interested to hear if those people have come to Westgate. And what their experiences are, with the library. And how that's changed, since we pursued this in 2012.
  • [00:58:43.80] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Well, yeah, and we didn't have to raise taxes to do that, right? And so, we made some choices, and those choices mean, you don't spend over here, so we spend over there. I just think, it's a conversation, is we decision make.
  • [00:58:59.07] Bringing oppositional voices in sooner, rather than later, makes more sense to me. They're not necessarily going to become advocates, or change their minds, but they can at least inform the decision making process. That's an interesting way to approach.
  • [00:59:12.24] Based on Will's presentation, my gut says its new library. But I understand, that's a decision that's far out. So, Will. It's a lot more money. It's a lot more money. But, there are all of these costs, and risks, with all the other options. That just seem so risky for the library, for a public entity.
  • [00:59:38.14] So, we hold our feet to the fire, we figure out how to pay for it. It's going to be a lot of work to get to the new library. It's climbing a mountain. But it also seems like, what we get for that, is transformative. And it serves the needs of the public. Versus, if we stay here, if this building looks the same way in 30 years, if we haven't painted or re-carpeted, nobody is going to want to come here.
  • [01:00:03.04] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Or even if we paint or re-carpet. That scenario, to me, is like, no. We're not going to spend so much money, just to put a Band-Aid on this building.
  • [01:00:11.45] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Well, yeah. It begs the question, what's the point? Is that what you want your library to do for you, or be for you? I mean, that's not a question you can answer for us. That's a question that the library staff, and the board, and the community, need to take up. But I'm interested to know what you think, too.
  • [01:00:28.59] WILL GORDON: Well, in listening to you talk, one of the things I think I should point out, is in the renovation, new addition scenario. You're really only talking about 40,000-square foot of new building, if we save the '91 and '75. And after looking at this, there's not another good spot to try to save a large chunk of building. So 40,000 square foot, you would get to lay out any way you wanted, and you're trapped in the other 80. Keep that in mind.
  • [01:01:07.36] SPEAKER 4: With sewage crocks.
  • [01:01:08.60] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Well, I want to go back to your point before. Which was, we want to bring in voices. And that's what we're going to do with the EPIC MRA survey, for sure. We'll definitely hear from people about that.
  • [01:01:20.26] VICTORIA GREEN: Can I ask a smaller question? Josie, and others, what impact is rising and rolling at U of M? What have we seen in the impact on the library in the last couple-- it's been record breaking numbers, what, the last five years-- do we see a change?
  • [01:01:36.34] JOSIE PARKER: I don't think we've tracked it that way. Because we don't identify people coming in the door as being students at U of M, or not. Unless they say that they're students at U of M. I can't tell you that. I know that many students tell us, they use Trevorwood, and Downtown, quite a bit. And our hours are really good for them. And the WiFi. And the general environment. But it's anecdotal.
  • [01:02:10.08] VICTORIA GREEN: So, it sounds like, at this point, the best thing we can say, is that it tends to be concentrated in the areas that are the closest to our campuses. And that we see increased use as student population rises. I was thinking about tax basis, because that doesn't affect our--
  • [01:02:26.27] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Well, there was that article--
  • [01:02:27.98] VICTORIA GREEN: If they're not living in dorms it does.
  • [01:02:29.82] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Right, but there was just the really nice summary of the student development, and the housing development craze. Which would indicate, those private developments are paying taxes, in contrast to the dorms. And there's only enough residential housing for less than the first year population. Then they have to live somewhere that's paying taxes. I feel like I'm losing the thread here. Sorry.
  • [01:03:02.91] LINH SONG: So, if we're looking at, say 60 to 80 million. And then we're looking at property that's been going up. I think the McKinley Center was just sold for around 60 million. I think Ed and I chatted about this, and this is the McKinley building on, what is it?
  • [01:03:19.33] SPEAKER 2: Is that Town Center?
  • [01:03:20.35] LINH SONG: Yes. And I think they're building up too, on that. So this isn't really far off. On the idea of a multilevel building downtown being around 60 to 80 million.
  • [01:03:35.52] VICTORIA GREEN: I don't recall that being a terrific building though, either.
  • [01:03:39.00] ED SUROVELL: No.
  • [01:03:39.84] VICTORIA GREEN: Although I can't--
  • [01:03:41.04] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: It's attached to a parking structure.
  • [01:03:42.80] LINH SONG: Right. So that's what was interesting about it. There's an active basement. There's a start up. And then a couple of businesses in the basement. And then restaurants, and retail, on the street level that they're looking to add. Whatever they're looking to add.
  • [01:04:03.97] LINH SONG: I just think it's interesting to try to track what downtown is building. I know there's a lot of discussion about the library lot, but if we're talking about capital costs going into existing buildings downtown, it gives us a little bit of context, to peg our costs against.
  • [01:04:23.72] WILL GORDON: Yeah. The problem with that, is there aren't a lot of comparable buildings. Even office buildings aren't being built downtown. And you guys are not student housing. Seems to be the only thing that's getting built.
  • [01:04:38.00] VICTORIA GREEN: It's too bad the Y lot structure didn't go forward. Because that would be sort of a comparable-- although I think that building is smaller, the lot is smaller on the old Y lot.
  • [01:04:49.81] LINH SONG: Right, interesting. OK. We need to do a lot more homework I think. A lot more outreach.
  • [01:05:00.50] VICTORIA GREEN: And Will, you spent lot of time, clearly, thinking about this. And thank you so much. Is there anything that you'd like to say to us, that didn't fit into your report. That you just think, oh, I'd really like the library board to know this one little fillip.
  • [01:05:14.02] WILL GORDON: I just want to caution you on the reserve study numbers. I'm not completely comfortable with those. And until we vet that out fully with the group that put it together. And that's the only word of caution I've got. I think their numbers are low in some of the categories. In the example I used with windows, I guarantee you that's low.
  • [01:05:40.86] LINH SONG: And the roof, too, right? I know, a local high school, I think their replacement roof is going to be about $5 million. So I'm kind of alone.
  • [01:05:49.29] WILL GORDON: So, we reached out to some roofers. And it depends on what we call, scope. Are you talking just the membrane? Well then, it's probably the right number. But you've got copings, you've got flashings, you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of accessories, hatches, things that have to be installed and flashed properly, that those guys had not accounted for.
  • [01:06:19.73] MULTIPLE: Thank you.
  • [01:06:24.17] WILL GORDON: Have a great evening.
  • [01:06:27.03] COLLEEN SHERMAN: I want to say, Jamie. I love this, that every month we talk about this. It's in chunks, it's digestible, we take up an issue, we learn something. I voice my opinion, I throw it out there, because to me, sharing our opinions. We're going to have to do that at some point. So I just kind of do it, so I can go back and have a record of what my opinion, what my first reaction was.
  • [01:06:53.77] ED SUROVELL: Jamie, can I ask the speaker to come back up for a second? I realize that the opportunity passed to try plan B, or plan 6, or whatever. The one that wasn't discussed, which is building someplace else. That there is a certain intrinsic value in this building, if it were to be sold. Which would, not only develop some cash, even if it were to be demolished by someone else.
  • [01:07:42.61] Was there any examination of the cost alternatives to building on a flat site? For example, building across the street. Or building on another site, prepared by somebody else for us. Or where we prepared it. Within the downtown area, generally. What would it cost to simply build a new building, without having to demolish this one?
  • [01:08:13.48] WILL GORDON: We didn't look at that. But that would be fairly easy for us to pull the demolition out, and give you those numbers. And it wouldn't change those ranges drastically, at all. I think that the demo numbers that we were working with were in the $2 million range.
  • [01:08:33.40] Just as kind of an order of magnitude. I think the real benefit would be, you could build somewhere else. You don't have to worry about renting another space. Or you can keep this open until the day the other building is done, obviously.
  • [01:08:51.60] ED SUROVELL: All right. Thank you. Because I think, if I might suggest, that what we haven't done is to start from scratch. And make the decision that we have selected to build here. And build, rebuild, and remodel, whatever we do, because it's the best alternative. Not because it's the only alternative. And I think that it's very realistic to try to investigate what the benefits would be for a different location. Both financial and in terms of our service to the public.
  • [01:09:49.23] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Do you mean another location downtown primarily?
  • [01:09:51.68] ED SUROVELL: Yes. Well, no. I don't care where it is. I think that our constituency would prefer that it were downtown, and if I had to guess, the trustees would prefer that it were downtown. As well as I expect the library staff would prefer that.
  • [01:10:10.96] However, even that needs to be an affirmative decision. You have to decide, you have to be able to demonstrate, that downtown is the best place to put it. And within downtown, you have to demonstrate that this is the best place to put it.
  • [01:10:30.08] There will be, in the next 30 years, dozens of demolitions. Of new construction. Of slight modifications in street patterns. Major modifications, perhaps, in street patterns. There will be changes in surface transportation. There will be changes in commuter patterns. There will be changes in what both the private sector, and university, do with everything from classroom space, to office space, to government space.
  • [01:11:11.71] And if you presume that we have anywhere from a five year to a 30 year time period, to come up with the best result for where is the library going to be, you may wind up with a much better library. To presume that our hurry is to do the best job, and not necessarily simply to resolve the many questions that exist with this building.
  • [01:11:43.70] You will recall that the previous location was on East Huron. That this location was, in many regards, an accident. School board owned it already, or the ladies thought that there was a library here. It is, in my own opinion, and I haven't been private about this, if you just had to pick, where ought the library to be.
  • [01:12:15.84] I think it ought to be on East Liberty Street, and not here. In terms of street pattern. In terms of visibility to the public. In terms of access to the university, with whom we have a lot of joint projects. In terms of street patterns. In terms of traffic. Liberty Street would be a better site.
  • [01:12:42.66] I think that it is well worth our while to take a serious look at where the library ought to be. And where it could be, if we had adequate time. And I believe, personally, that the library does have adequate time to review what its alternatives are. The longer the time period is, the more opportunity you have to develop private, non tax-based funding.
  • [01:13:24.76] To develop partnerships, with everything from foundations, to the university, to 100 different possibilities. Simply to see, who else is interested in a library, in a library building. What kind of services we will be providing in 10 years? And to whom? And how are they going to get there?
  • [01:13:53.05] So I think there's an enormous range of things that have to be considered, other than simply, what do we do with this building? Somebody said it already. Paint and carpet, for a while. But I think that the trustees, and the library, and the library director, and our community at large, has a responsibility to have a bigger view of what we're doing. And to plan for a future that will produce a building that will service us for another 65 or 70 years. And I am not at all convinced that this location is the place to do that.
  • [01:14:39.40] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Thanks, Ed. I'm glad that you added those thoughts to this discussion. It's important to make sure that we're thinking about more than just what we've been presented with on the page, I think.
  • [01:14:49.89] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: And it's hard to know, to Colleen's point, how do we bring in the people who are not going to be in favor of whatever we agreed what to do, until we decide what we want to do? People don't know what they're against, until they know what somebody else is for.
  • [01:15:07.06] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, we have to really be for something, I think. I think we have to coalesce around a vision.
  • [01:15:12.85] VICTORIA GREEN: I feel like we're talking about numbers and options, but we have not yet defined what our vision is for the library that would make it worth spending that kind of money.
  • [01:15:20.89] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Yeah, and I think that we need to do that next. But, I think it was important for us to understand what the landscape and reality of this building is, for sure.
  • [01:15:30.79] LINH SONG: And then we'll have a better sense of things, once the EPIC MRA survey comes back. And we can see the differences in opinion from the last survey results. And then, this one too. I would like to give the public a chance to understand. I guess, follow along with us, as we learn what the limitations are with this building.
  • [01:15:52.66] And the challenges that staff are facing to do the programs that they want to do here. And then, understand O'Neil's numbers. See the results from the survey. And kind of build a bigger picture around what our choices really are, before we assume that there will be opposition.
  • [01:16:15.61] Because if there is going to be opposition, I would hope it would be informed opposition. And I hope it'd be an opposition where we, as trustees, can engage with community organizers. And say, well, this is what we know. And this is what we've presented to the public. This is why we record and broadcast our board meetings, so that all this information is as assessable to the public as it is to us. So, I think, as we prepare we should also expect folks to be advocates, too. So, I'd hate to think that we would make decisions based on, or limit ourselves in any way, as we think of these things.
  • [01:16:58.78] ED SUROVELL: By the way, I think the presumption that the opposition needs to be informed is false. Opposition doesn't have to be informed, think. Close your eyes, and think of the current political environment. Tell me what part of it is informed. All it has to be is negative. Which is what it was last time.
  • [01:17:21.87] COLLEEN SHERMAN: So, my point was not to inform the opposition. It's to look historically and sometimes we nod to history. And to understand you all lived through that. My question for that past opposition is, what do you think about where we're going? You had opinions strong enough to fight about it before.
  • [01:17:45.49] How can you help us come to our own vision? Can you inform that vision? Or is it simply, you're going to be opposed to, or reactionary, to whatever idea we put forth. Which happens sometimes, and we deal with that when it comes. So, no. It's not our job to inform. I think it is our job to do what we're doing with the MRA. And to do exactly what Lynn said.
  • [01:18:14.96] LINH SONG: Be ready.
  • [01:18:16.34] LINH SONG: Just be ready.
  • [01:18:17.60] ED SUROVELL: If I might add one last comment. And I could talk for an hour on this. Think, again, close your eyes. Let's talk about railroad stations. How long have we been working? The last time I took a train was yesterday.
  • [01:18:36.38] What a nightmare. The poor, sorry excuse for a station. We have been talking for, who knows how long. Anybody know how long we've been talking about the station, whether it's going to be here or there?
  • [01:18:52.46] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: At least 20 years, right?
  • [01:18:54.45] ED SUROVELL: Hmm?
  • [01:18:54.91] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: At least 20 years.
  • [01:18:56.09] ED SUROVELL: Yeah, well, and we've got nothing. Not one thing to show for it. Each side thinks the other one is wrong. But, what it really means to me, is that the prevailing affirmative view better be pretty good. And have a lot of public weight behind it. But, I think it really presents how serious the issue is.
  • [01:19:28.06] And I know, because I still have some scars. That if all I want to talk about is replacing this building, there are lots of people today, with a lot of money, who still will say no. And that it is much easier for me to appropriate $300,000 here to paint and carpet, knowing that an answer that we come up with as a board. And as a library. And as an institution. Will be a very good, defendable, and presentable answer.
  • [01:20:09.48] It's a big job. But, it is doable. Ann Arbor deserves a world class library. And, in my heart, I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to build a world class library on this site. And to do so, we need to make certain that it is the best site. And as I said, in the next 30 years, half of downtown will be torn down. And you have lots of sites to choose from.
  • [01:20:43.96] JIM LEIJA: So, I just need to know. Because Ed's asking for something else. And we are trying to move the question along. I don't get a sense that there's an appetite yet, on behalf of most of the board members, to respond to that question of site. Partially because we don't have actual information to look at in front of us. But Ed can't say that, and we can't not do anything about it. So, I guess Josie, I need to understand--
  • [01:21:21.75] My fellow board members, my fellow trustees, I need to understand if there is an appetite to move forward on that comment that Ed is making. And if so, how are we going to do it? Because I want to keep this process moving, and I don't want to get to 18 months from now, and have Ed saying the same thing. And then having to go back to the drawing board.
  • [01:21:41.30] JOSIE PARKER: When we first started talking about this process, I did indicate a step in it where we needed to do a realty review. And that we needed to look at all available property. And I did say, all available property in our district that would hold a building of the size we had. From 120,000 to 160,000 square feet, which was that range.
  • [01:22:07.65] And to at least be able to say, we looked, we considered, and these were the options at the time at which you looked. And Ed's comment about, it's going to change, of course it's going to change. But there are places. And I think, by saying you're going to look everywhere, then you look everywhere. Even if your intention is to keep it downtown, but you still look everywhere.
  • [01:22:34.74] Because I've had people come to me, and tell me, I don't know if I should put this out there, the library should buy a very popular recreational facility that borders Gallop Park, and the river. And turn it into a library location. And so, that's going to come to you. Those types of things are going to come to you. That's not currently for sale, so I don't think it will come our way.
  • [01:23:00.90] But Ed's right. You look at everything, and it doesn't take long. I could start that process tomorrow, with a phone call. And of a survey of all available property, the size of that property, and what the costs were. And then you can talk about it. But you still don't know what you want to put on it. And I think you must know, first, what you want to put on it. And then, as I said in what I wrote to you all earlier, then you decide where. Because you need to know what you're going to do, and then you decide where.
  • [01:23:37.46] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: That was one of the short comings people told me about our plans, last time. Is they didn't know what we're offering. What we bring more, or better.
  • [01:23:50.77] JIM LEIJA: And to your mind, that process comes after what, a building program?
  • [01:23:55.62] JOSIE PARKER: Well it is a building program that informs that process.
  • [01:23:57.79] JIM LEIJA: That informs the process, so that's when that stuff happens, is after building your program.
  • [01:24:01.83] JOSIE PARKER: You ask the questions in the survey around this process. And you get back that information. My next step was, then you have a library design, or planner, depending upon how you want to approach that, who then comes in and talks with you. And the staff, about the work that happens here. And then you have meetings with different groups in the public, about what their hopes are for the library, what they'd love to have happen at the library. Where have they been, and what have they seen other places?
  • [01:24:33.41] And then community groups we partner with. If you could do this with the library, what would you need to have at the library, in order to do this? Exactly what Ed was talking about. And then, a program is strictly a written description of what happens. Then you determine how much square feet you need, to actually design such a program. And that's when you decide if an RFP for an architect is determined at that time, or not. And how much of that program do you have developed into schematics? Something people can see, that looks like a building.
  • [01:25:10.98] VICTORIA GREEN: Which we did little of last time.
  • [01:25:13.26] JOSIE PARKER: We didn't do it in 12. We did it in six. And in six, we made the decision to not go forward, because of the economy. And when we came back in 12, the decision was made by the board, to not use the plan, the program, that was developed. So we had to start from scratch in a shorter time frame. And we did not have schematics. I recommend schematics. People want to see something.
  • [01:25:37.66] ED SUROVELL: Jim, let me point out what could be done, simply, to maybe deal with some of that. To my knowledge, we don't have a whole lot of discussions with the city planning department. We do not know, as an institution, what the city is up to.
  • [01:25:55.40] It is the judgment of many, that the city downtown is at its limit, and needs to push outward. And to provide new urban areas that involve both middle and high density housing. And new commercial areas. A library could be a centerpiece of renovation and reconstruction of something going north along the railroad tracks. Something looking at Fingerle's. The very large piece of land there. Something currently held by the university, conceivably. Although that's a long shot. That there are many alternatives.
  • [01:26:46.96] But, literally, a third to a half of everything in downtown will be demolished in the next 30 years. As it has been in the past. And that, as it changes, and if you give yourself adequate time to look at what others are doing. And to be an active part of that discussion. And to know that we come to the table with $65 million, and a centerpiece building. That we have an enormous voice, and the support of almost every active part of our community.
  • [01:27:34.00] If you look to the future, not long term, certainly long term for me, maybe. But, for the rest of you guys, you'll be around. That if you understand that planning has to involve a future, and we're talking an immediate present, that's paint and carpet. That I think it's much better, if we're going to stay here, to justify the paint and carpet. Until we know what it's going to look like.
  • [01:28:07.26] And then, in my own judgment, tear the damn thing down. But, we haven't even started that, and the rush to try to push through another project, when the very people that opposed you the last time, are still here, alive and kicking. With the very same argument that somebody made fun of up there on the screen.
  • [01:28:36.37] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I definitely take your point. But, like you said, an hour ago. And we have half an hour to cover-- I think we're going to have a discussion about fines. So, I want to bring our discussion to a close. I think that, what I hear from this group of trustees, is that we take your point. And we want to make sure that we are incorporating, thinking not just about what we do with this site, but where the library could be in this process. And it sounds like Josie is suggesting a way that we do that. So I definitely don't get the sense from the trustees that they are like, no no no, we just stay here. We're only going to look at here. So I think your point is heard.
  • [01:29:16.93] ED SUROVELL: I'm not sure It is.
  • [01:29:18.31] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Jamie, I want to say, that when Will got up to speak. And he started talking about a new building, 120 square foot. I did not presume that he meant here. He kind of talked about it, or nodded to the site. That it's a presumption. Do we need to do these things, like talk to the city? What Those are things that are inherent to the process. There's no acrimony.
  • [01:29:40.46] I want to go back to what Jim said, which is what does the board think. My expectation was what Josie said. That we're stepping it out. And it's very cart and horse. So, EPIC MRA is next. And as Josie's point, we could question Josie's point.
  • [01:29:56.28] OK. Should we go start to do a landscape of real estate, before we get the EPIC MRA data, and before we can say we want xyz? I tend to think no. I think you're right. I agree with you on this one, on that. And if anyone disagrees, maybe there's a middle ground. But I think we're good to move on with the meeting, and everyone had great comments. That's what I think.
  • [01:30:19.54] VICTORIA GREEN: I do want to make one comment. I'm fine about the idea of talking about different locations. I agree with what Colleen said, and you, that we shouldn't presume it will be here. But I want to go on record, since we've talked about moving. I don't envision a future in which I would ever hope to not have a library downtown. If people are thinking we don't need a library downtown, you probably shouldn't vote for me.
  • [01:30:45.34] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Also, that kind of speculation feel-- I'd like to keep us from speculating too far about going to Fingerle, or going to the river, or going here. Or Let's just take it one step at a time.
  • [01:30:58.83] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: As long as you keep all these options as possibilities.
  • [01:31:02.36] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Yeah, exactly. We want to communicate that we're very open to many options at this point.
  • [01:31:06.13] JIM LEIJA: I do think that-- I mean, I agree with Ed. And I think it's interesting to consider what kind of chess piece we are. In the game of downtown. But I think the opposite side of the coin, of course, is that we don't want to become a pawn in somebody else's game of redevelopment. And this is, as Josie said, the catbird seat. Everybody wants this lot. We know that.
  • [01:31:44.59] You all know that you can take some of the criticism of the last bond issue at face value. And some of it, you cannot. That is just the reality. And it's clear, I think, that there are still forces out there that will do whatever they can to keep us in a situation where we can't move forward on this lot. Because somebody else wants it.
  • [01:32:09.60] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I think we've pretty much covered everything by now.
  • [01:32:12.51] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Thank you Jan. OK. Thank you everyone, for a really great discussion. So, we move on to the business and finance resolution.
  • [01:32:25.00] JOSIE PARKER: I just want to point out that we've made up a revision to what we included in the board packet. And it's there in front of you, it's loose. It was just a clarification in a sentence. In our proofreading, we overlooked a contradiction. So, the spirit of it is maintained, but the language is cleaned up.
  • [01:32:48.14] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, this is an item of action. So I think we need someone to read it. And then, second. Sorry, I lost my paper.
  • [01:32:56.55] JIM LEIJA: I will read the resolution. The board resolves that the following library policies are revised as proposed. 7.4, investment policy, general operating fund. 7.5, investment policy, strategic fund equity. 7.6, gifts and bequests policy. 7.9, purchasing policy. 7.11, identification, and disposition, of obsolete surplus, or salvage property.
  • [01:33:28.80] 7.16, library credit card policy. 7.17, library policy for acceptance of payments by financial transaction devices. 7.18, library policy for payment of library funds via electronic transactions. That all resolutions, and parts of resolutions, that conflict with the provisions of this resolution, are rescinded.
  • [01:33:55.85] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Is there a second?
  • [01:33:57.57] LINH SONG: Second.
  • [01:33:58.44] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Thank you.
  • [01:33:59.58] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. Any discussion on this one?
  • [01:34:03.54] JIM LEIJA: Just remind us what we're doing here. Thank you.
  • [01:34:06.38] JOSIE PARKER: What we've done, is we've updated-- primarily, the conversation began with updates necessary for the investment policies. The policies were initially such that the ability to invest out beyond a year was difficult, or prohibited. And at the time, the market was such, that, those types of investments, within a year, were doing really well for the library. That's not been the case.
  • [01:34:35.52] Both our financial institutions have recommended that the library be able to invest within the law. And that's been made very clear here. Within the law, in the terms of what we can do, or not do, with our excess tax money. That they be allowed to manage that money in such a way that it can be out five to 10 years, in some instruments. Not all. And it be a spread.
  • [01:35:01.08] So, the finance committee has met with both investment bankers. We have conferred with our attorneys at Dykema. And recommended that investments be allowed to go out to 10 years, but not longer. And within the portfolio. So not all of the portfolio out that far.
  • [01:35:19.72] So we took this opportunity to also go through all of the finance policies, and update the terminology with titles, and names. And, for instance, the top and bottom watch is no longer relevant to us. Bauer Financial is. That rating system. So we've gone through all of the financial policies, and updated them for that purpose.
  • [01:35:42.45] And also, the other one, was the purchasing policy was updated to 2017 numbers. Which allows the library director to make contracts that go up to a certain amount. And that was updated to 2017 number, which is $33,000. And it goes up each year, according to the CPI. So, it was 1998 numbers, and so we pulled them up to 2017 numbers. So that's done. So that's what's been updated here, and recommended.
  • [01:36:19.08] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Any questions about it?
  • [01:36:22.79] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: It seems perfectly reasonable.
  • [01:36:24.53] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. All right then. All those in favor.
  • [01:36:27.64] MULTIPLE: Aye.
  • [01:36:28.42] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Opposed? OK. Great. All right. Let's move to this last resolution, which is on page 44.
  • [01:36:37.38] JIM LEIJA: I will read the resolution. The board resolves that circulation policy 3.1 is revised as proposed. That all resolutions, and parts of resolutions, that conflict with the provisions of this resolution are rescinded.
  • [01:36:50.65] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So, second? Sorry, Josie.
  • [01:36:52.42] JOSIE PARKER: No, no, my fault.
  • [01:36:54.78] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Second.
  • [01:36:57.60] JOSIE PARKER: So I'm going to ask Eli, if you want to walk through this policy change. And talk about why we're proposing it.
  • [01:37:06.41] ELI NEIBURGER: Meg, could I get the screen back? Thank you. All right. So, there's a couple different changes in the policy. Starting with Section 3.1, k.
  • [01:37:23.55] We've mostly, in k and l, we are removing specificity that binds the library staff from doing customer service related things. For example, one of the things is that a patron account may have a maximum of five claims returned items have not been found. We routinely exceed five claims return when we have a situation that merits it. So, that's the sort of thing where a couple of these things, we are looking to keep the values in the policy, and remove the operational specifics that then change over time.
  • [01:37:56.20] Another example is it says that, a patron may only receive a refund for an item that is returned within three months of being designated as lost. Right? That's not something that we currently do. We give refunds, regardless of how long ago the item was paid. If they bring the item back, and they paid for it, we give them a refund.
  • [01:38:14.70] It also says that we must deduct the amount of the maximum overdue fine, from the refund. We haven't been doing that either. So, in many cases we're catching a policy up to practice, by removing some of the overly specific language, and replacing it. And just leaving that to procedure, as opposed to being enshrined in the policy. So that's 3.1 k and l. Any questions about either of those? OK.
  • [01:38:40.20] Then we're talking about the fines table. So, what we want to look at here, is the way that late fees work. So we did some data analysis, as requested last time. So here's what we've got. So we looked at the past 12 months worth of fees that have been collected. So that's November 26 to November 2017.
  • [01:38:56.64] So, we have assessed a total of $510,000 worth of fees. Out of that, $311,000 has been paid. And $198,000 has been waived. So we routinely waive about 40%, 30% to 40%, of all the fines that are assessed automatically by the system.
  • [01:39:17.13] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Why do you waive them?
  • [01:39:19.11] ELI NEIBURGER: To be nice. And to keep people using the system. And to provide excellent customer service.
  • [01:39:24.38] VICTORIA GREEN: This includes the summer games waivers too, right?
  • [01:39:26.90] EIL NEIBURGER: That includes that when you have your coupon. But that is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of that $200,000 worth of waived. I mean, we might do 500 of those $5 coupons, over the course of the summer. So, it's not a meaningful amount of that part of money.
  • [01:39:42.34] Most of the waivers are people coming up to the desk and saying, I forgot, or whatever. We say, it's fine, it's fine. We waive overdue fines routinely. We do not waive bills, generally, when someone has lost an item. But we waive overdue fines routinely, for things that have been returned. OK? So, then out of that $311,000 worth of fines that were actually paid, $250,000 of that was late fees.
  • [01:40:07.50] The other $38,000 was replacements. Meaning people paying for things they've lost. And then about $14,000 of other fees. We were still doing zoom lens during this past 12 months. So that's some of it. As well as, when you get referred to collections, there is a 995 fee that is added to your account to cover the cost of the collection agency. So, that's the other part of that other fees, but as you can see, that's a small percentage of the revenue. Any questions about this so far?
  • [01:40:33.84] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Say that again.
  • [01:40:35.43] ELI NEIBURGER: When you exceed the balance, and are sent to the collection agency after having 45 days to resolve your account. There is a $9.95 fee that is added on to your account, for being referred to the collection agency. That's how the collection agency charges us. Because we are charged per account. So we pass that charge onto the patron, and that fee is then applied to their account when they've been sent to collections.
  • [01:40:58.73] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: How frequently does that occur?
  • [01:41:01.21] ELI NEIBURGER: We send, I don't have the numbers in front of me. We send, probably about a couple hundred accounts, per month.
  • [01:41:11.93] [INTERPOSING VOICES]
  • [01:41:13.74] So the volume is fairly high. But again, that is something we do have the power to waive that $9.95 fee, when the situation merits it. So that happens as well.
  • [01:41:24.84] ED SUROVELL: Eli, is there anything to learn from who we send the collections? Can we group them? There's this group and that group, or is it random and not worth worrying about who does it?
  • [01:41:41.61] ELI NEIBURGER: It's not generally worth worrying about, with the exception of, there are people who take a bunch of stuff and disappear. That is one, small part of it. But is as close to a persona as you can get. The majority of it, are people who check out a lot of stuff, return it slightly late, and then don't pay attention to their status of their account.
  • [01:42:00.51] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Like me. My account's been sent to collection. I believe I paid all of the fees. Berry Morgan, if you're listening, [INAUDIBLE].
  • [01:42:18.87] ED SUROVELL: What I learned from that experience was that once future occupation bears little relationship to how many fines you owe.
  • [01:42:29.79] ELI NEIBURGER: I mean, certainly this happens all across the board. And it's because there are no limits on use of the collection. And because, as we'll talk about here in a minute, if you check out 20 DVDs, and they all go two days overdue. And you return them two days overdue, and don't look at your account again, you're going to collections 45 days later. So that's one of the things we'd hoped to address with this.
  • [01:42:52.27] OK. So. This is a pie chart of all fees paid by owning location of the material. So, the downtown collection, as you'd expect, is the majority of the fees paid. What is interesting about this one, is that the tools collection, because of the way that we handle the tools, they're all like their own location. So it's very easy for us to pull that out. It's a very small amount of money that comes from the tools collection.
  • [01:43:15.91] Also, what you don't see in here are finds that we collect from MailCat items, which is a similarly small amount of money. But you can see Westgate is very busy, so there's a lot of materials that go out of there that then accrue fines later. Same thing with Malletts, Pittsfield being the least. So this kind of gives you a rough sense of it.
  • [01:43:33.41] And one of the things is we're talking about what the tools late fee should be. The tools collection is very small, and very lightly-- the total number of checkout of the tools collection is very small compared to the whole rest of the collection. So any change is not going to have a huge impact on the fine revenue, because even if you multiply it times 10, your fine revenue from the tools collection, you're still just in the range of one of the branches.
  • [01:43:59.95] ED SUROVELL: Do know what percentage of our tools are checked out? That is, do we know
  • [01:44:09.56] ELI NEIBURGER: At a given time?
  • [01:44:10.10] ED SUROVELL: Do we measure the use of them?
  • [01:44:12.08] ELI NEIBURGER: I don't have that number in front of me, but last time we looked at it, the tools collection was the most intensely used collection in the system in terms of checkouts per item.
  • [01:44:20.09] ED SUROVELL: That was the information I was looking for. Thank you.
  • [01:44:23.51] ELI NEIBURGER: OK. So this just gives you a sense of the breakdown. OK, so there's one other thing that is in the policy, and that's the maximum late fee per item. It says in the policy, there's a value that's written in there, which is that the cost of the maximum late fee should not exceed the cost of the item.
  • [01:44:40.91] That's a great thing to have a policy. It says this is the boundaries of it. Of course, it didn't foresee having some very valuable things in the collection. But also, it means that there is a $10 maximum. OK, so that is the way it currently is for books, and DVDs, and CDs. A $10 maximum.
  • [01:44:57.26] So just to look at how often people hit that $10 maximum, our sample included 260,000 fee records. That's an individual instance of a fee being assessed. Out of those, only 3,775 of them are for the maximum late fee of $10. So that's 1.4%. Again, not a big part of that.
  • [01:45:18.41] Out of that, only 2703 of those maximum late fees were actually paid. The rest were waived. So that's about 1% of the total amount of fines. Out of all of the late fees we collected, the maximum late fees make up about 10% of all of that money that has come in. So maximum late fees account for about 10% of late fee revenue. OK? All right.
  • [01:45:42.71] So to make an attempt to project what impact the policy change would have, we're able to look very easily at the Westgate fines and fees, because the location codes are very well laid out. Just as an example, we can't really tell how many fees came from DVDs, versus came from books at the Downtown Library, because they're both in the same location.
  • [01:46:09.09] That's the way the system works. It can only separate them out by location. So this is one of the things we hope to resolve with our new system, but for now we're kind of bounded in by what the system can deliver. And it can very easily tell us this at Westgate, so we use this to make a projection for the whole collection.
  • [01:46:23.30] So at Westgate during our sample, we received $25,000 worth of book late fees over that period, and $29,000 worth of A/V fees over that same period. What's proposed in the policy change is the decrease of the per day fines for A/V to $0.25 a day instead of $1.00 a day.
  • [01:46:43.82] When the $1.00 a day for DVDs was set, DVDs were a lot more precious and rare. We had a lot fewer of them, and their cost was more. So that's the majority of people who go to collections, are people who have 10 items, and they're one day overdue. That puts them at the $10 threshold and they can't use their card.
  • [01:47:00.95] OK. So that's a total of $54,000 that we received in the past year from late fees at Westgate. If all A/V late fees were $0.25 a day instead of $1 per day, out of this sample, now this does not take into account any impact on behavior that making this change would be, this is just if every one of those $1.00 fees was a $0.25 instead, we would have collected $25,214 for book fees, because that's not changing, and $7,298 for A/V fees. In other words, that's a total of $32,000, a decrease of fine revenue of about 40% from late fees.
  • [01:47:36.38] OK? So if we applied that to the entire collection, a 40% late fee decrease would decrease the amount of revenue from $258,000 to $155,000. When you combined it with the other parts that aren't changing, being the other fees, as well as the replacements, that would be about a 33% decrease in the fine revenue. So that's from $311,000 during the sample, to $207,000, again, not anticipating any behavior changes.
  • [01:48:07.29] VICTORIA GREEN: I have a question. Can you back one slide?
  • [01:48:09.66] ELI NEIBURGER: Sure.
  • [01:48:10.37] VICTORIA GREEN: So when you calculated the decrease, what I saw was that the decrease was substantial on the--
  • [01:48:17.65] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: A/V.
  • [01:48:18.54] VICTORIA GREEN: --were dropped down to $7,298.
  • [01:48:21.22] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes.
  • [01:48:21.41] VICTORIA GREEN: And what I took from that is that relatively few people are hitting the maximum, since the maximum would remain the same.
  • [01:48:27.95] ELI NEIBURGER: The maximum would remain the same. That's-- we can't anticipate that.
  • [01:48:31.56] VICTORIA GREEN So most people are just a day or two-- but with this projection, what you're saying is, it's not that-- since the maximum is $10, it's not that 2,521 items were kept, because then the amount be the same.
  • [01:48:43.48] ELI NEIBURGER: Right. Well I didn't account for hitting the maximum, because we saw only 1% of all fines hit the maximum.
  • [01:48:50.06] VICTORIA GREEN: Got it. So you just--
  • [01:48:51.20] ELI NEIBURGER: And this would make it less likely to hit the maximum. So, because not that many of them are hitting the maximum. So I didn't account for that. So this is just simply a quarter of that fine.
  • [01:49:02.06] VICTORIA GREEN: OK.
  • [01:49:03.56] ELI NEIBURGER: All right. So what this means is if you make this sole change of decreasing the per day fee on DVDs and Blu-rays, from $1 a day to $0.25 a day, that we can expect, or project maybe $100,000 less revenue, which is about 0.6% of the revenue side of the operating budget. So those are the basics of the change.
  • [01:49:33.22] There are two other parts that are in the procedure. These are impossible to anticipate what the impact would be, because we don't have any experience with them. However, we're at a good time of year to do this. If this change were to go into effect with the new system on January 2, by the time we get to approving next year's budget in April and May, we will have several months of experience with this, and we'll be better able to project what our new fine revenue actually is.
  • [01:49:59.84] So as it says in the proposal talking about increasing the tools fine to $5 a day instead of $1 per day, and removing the maximum, so that it is the maximum is otherwise specified in the policy of the cost of the item is the maximum. Currently, there is zero incentive to return an overdue tool once it hits $10, because there's no reason. There's no financial incentive to bring it back.
  • [01:50:25.91] These are the most in demand items in the collection. They're most expensive items in the collection, and $5 per day seemed like a reasonable place to go with that. But it's hard to anticipate-- it's unlikely to make up this difference, because the volume of tool circulation is so much lower.
  • [01:50:41.10] The other thing that is referenced in the policy, is we need to introduce some way to do reservations of tools, because the giant chest at the wedding use case. That's the sort of thing where the overdue fee needs to be serious, because you're ruining someone else's wedding if you don't bring it back on time.
  • [01:50:59.67] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So this is, I know at least one of us has a question about this one.
  • [01:51:03.67] VICTORIA GREEN Actually, can I back up one second?
  • [01:51:05.01] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes.
  • [01:51:05.94] VICTORIA GREEN: To look the part we've talked about so far, what I hear you saying is the reason to lower the fees on videos is just because it's more fair.
  • [01:51:14.61] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes.
  • [01:51:14.77] VICTORIA GREEN: Really, those guys are bearing an undue burden when we originally set it, so we're recommending that no matter what, just because it's more fair, right?
  • [01:51:21.19] ELI NEIBURGER Yes.
  • [01:51:22.16] VICTORIA GREEN: OK. That one I'm following. But I do-- I'm a little freaked out about $50 for tools, because--
  • [01:51:29.57] SPEAKER 2: What does reserved mean?
  • [01:51:30.44] ELI NIEBURGER: That would just be reserved tools.
  • [01:51:32.31] VICTORIA GREEN: Yep, but I'm still a little freaked about the idea of my 13-year-old checking something out, and being present with a $100 bill, because she was two days late with it. I think that our goal here is both one, to be fair, and two, to encourage users to do the things that we think are good for all library patrons, right?
  • [01:51:51.49] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes.
  • [01:51:51.59] JOSIE PARKER: Can we clarify this-- there are two tools-- two tool sets?
  • [01:51:55.28] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes.
  • [01:51:56.03] JOSIE PARKER: So I just want to make sure we clarify--
  • [01:51:59.45] ELI NIEBURGER: Yeah, and she--
  • [01:52:00.17] JOSIE PARKER: OK.
  • [01:52:00.92] ELI NIEBURGER: Yeah. Just for reservations, yeah.
  • [01:52:02.30] VICTORIA GREEN: But I assume they're not separate items, it's just whether or not they--
  • [01:52:04.65] ELI NEIBURGER: They are separate items.
  • [01:52:05.30] JOSIE PARKER: Yes.
  • [01:52:05.80] VICTORIA GREEN: OK.
  • [01:52:06.07] ELI NEIBURGER: They are absolutely separate items. The reserve tools would be a completely separate record in the catalog. You would have to check something that says that you agree that this is going to be charged at a different rate if it's due back later.
  • [01:52:18.62] It would be a different process for reserving it, because you have to specify when it would be. So it is not another-- it's not a separate-- it's not like, this telescope, if you make a reservation. It's like, here are three reservable telescopes, and all the rest of the telescopes that are on the shelf. These would not be on the shelf.
  • [01:52:35.63] LINH SONG: Can a ten year old do it?
  • [01:52:36.80] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Yeah, exactly.
  • [01:52:38.48] ELI NEIBURGER: That's a good question. We haven't ever gotten into that.
  • [01:52:41.42] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Because I think that's kind of the issue, that like--
  • [01:52:43.35] ELI NEIBURGER: Well here's one thing that we've talked about, is that you wouldn't even be able to pick these up at the Downtown Library, just logistically. So you would need to drive possibly to the archives location, is one of the places that we've talked about circulating these out of.
  • [01:52:53.57] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: All right, that makes it harder for a 10-year-old.
  • [01:52:55.67] COLLEEN SHERMAN: I have more questions, as well.
  • [01:52:57.81] ELI NEIBURGER: Please.
  • [01:52:58.73] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Are all tools limited to a one week check out?
  • [01:53:01.64] ELI NEIBURGER: No.
  • [01:53:03.68] COLLEEN SHERMAN: OK. How is it decided?
  • [01:53:07.31] ELI NEIBURGER: It depends on the tool. For example, the telescopes are two weeks, so that you get either side of a full moon. But most of them are one week.
  • [01:53:15.59] COLLEEN SHERMAN: I have checked out a tool for one week two times. It's a yarn swift. I can't get all my yarn wound in one week. So I've asked, can I renew it? No, you can't renew it. If I start getting dinged-- so, you know, I can schedule, like, maybe this weekend I can get the yarn wound. But what if I go over? Right?
  • [01:53:33.47] If I take an extra day, and it's $1, no problem. But if it's $5.00 I can buy a yarn swift for $50. And I start doing this math. Now, this is a ridiculous example. I understand. But lots of people are going to have this thing. Like, what's the value of a $50 yarn swift, when it's $5 a day, and I can pay for the yarn swift in 10 days. I think it's too high.
  • [01:53:53.45] Now your point, however, is well-made, in that you want to incent me to bring the thing back, so somebody else can use it, because there are plenty of other women who want-- women and men who want to wind their yarn out there.
  • [01:54:03.26] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: There are two guys knitting when I came in.
  • [01:54:05.73] COLLEEN SHERMAN: There are plenty of other people out there who want to wind their yarn.
  • [01:54:10.09] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: But is the yarn winder a reservable item? I can't imagine a wedding where they're winding yarn.
  • [01:54:18.00] [LAUGHTER]
  • [01:54:18.47] But that sort of use case where I have a weekend off, or I have a vacation, it's certainly not top of our list of items to make reservable. But if this infrastructure is in place and it's working, it would be something we'd experiment with more titles, having copies.
  • [01:54:30.32] JOSIE PARKER: Or you would lengthen the loan period to two weeks, because it makes sense to do that, because someone's-- likely you're not the only person saying there's not enough time.
  • [01:54:41.13] ELI NEIBURGER: Sewing machines are a longer period for that exact reason.
  • [01:54:43.29] JOSIE PARKER: They're a longer period of time because I said that one week's not reasonable. Right.
  • [01:54:49.34] COLLEEN SHERMAN: So what if fines became exponential for tools, where it's $1 for week one if I'm over, so then I pay $7 if I'm a week late? But then, if I'm eight days late, then it goes up to $5.00.
  • [01:55:01.65] ELI NEIBURGER: I don't know that we can do that.
  • [01:55:03.04] VICTORIA GREEN: Yeah, it seems complicated. I also worry that [INAUDIBLE]--
  • [01:55:05.26] ELI NEIBURGER: It's also hard to communicate.
  • [01:55:05.98] VICTORIA GREEN: --my 13-year-old would get confused about it.
  • [01:55:07.39] COLLEN SHERMAN: Good point. OK.
  • [01:55:09.28] COLLEN SHERMAN: That's true.
  • [01:55:09.74] VICTORIA GREEN: You know, it's interesting--
  • [01:55:11.12] ELI NEIBURGER: This was a starting point. So this is the conversation we wanted to have.
  • [01:55:13.96] VICTORIA GREEN: So I mean, it's interesting. I can see the value to people, being able to reserve things, for sure, but the more you talk about it, the more it sounds like we're really talking about offering a whole new service of reservable items, and it makes it sound more like a rental center, rather than a freely circulating library.
  • [01:55:29.05] ELI NEIBURGER: Well, except this is something that libraries do. As a matter of fact, the new system has a capability to do exactly this, because of course reserves, and all of the things-- it's very common to be able to place a reserve on an item for a set period of time. And even before, well even before we had the tools collection, we had demand for being able to specify when your hold would be due.
  • [01:55:50.62] And we're handling that another way for materials, but in the case, I mean the fact is, were buried in demand for this. You know? I mean, as soon as the weather gets warm again, it is constant. Saying, and right now it's a very manual process, and we can't meet a lot of that demand.
  • [01:56:09.06] But this would be a mechanism by which we could establish a separate collection that was useful for reservations, with its own system, and its own way of circulating. And we'd be able to meet a lot of demand and provide a service that people are asking for.
  • [01:56:23.80] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Is the artwork part of this, or is it--
  • [01:56:26.54] ELI NEIBURGER: The artwork-- I don't think that there--
  • [01:56:28.01] LINH SONG: There isn't a high demand for artwork.
  • [01:56:28.60] ELI NEIBURGER: Again, we would see if there was interest in it. We don't anticipate it, because those things-- it's rarely the case that your event would be ruined if you couldn't get that particular art print on that particular date. it's possible.
  • [01:56:41.18] But we have never had someone ask us for this. Whereas during the summer, every one of the outdoor toys and games has, can I get this on this date? Can I get this on this date? Same thing with some of the projectors, and the PA, and lots of equipment like that.
  • [01:56:56.82] VICTORIA GREEN: So if we're thinking about this as establishing almost a separate collection, would we expect to have all of those items in the regularly circulating collection as well, or might there be you could only get this way?
  • [01:57:06.89] ELI NEIBURGER: I don't think we would have any items that were only available through reservation.
  • [01:57:09.82] VICTORIA GREEN: That feels right to me.
  • [01:57:10.70] ELI NEIBURGER: There would definitely be some items that were not available for reservation. but I mean, it would, again, mostly be demand driven.
  • [01:57:17.42] VICTORIA GREEN: Demand driven.
  • [01:57:18.92] JIM LEIJA: It's been at least 15 minutes, and somebody said sewage, crock or sanitation.
  • [01:57:22.42] [LAUGHTER]
  • [01:57:23.24] So I just-- for the five viewers on the live stream, in case they're playing a drinking game, I wanted to say that.
  • [01:57:29.16] [LAUGHTER]
  • [01:57:30.50] Do you think that we have-- would you-- I'm just thinking about making up some of the potential lost revenue, which is pretty, I mean, percentage wise, is fairly insignificant to the whole. But we are not enforcing a policy that if something is on-- if you have any material that someone else has on hold, that you pay a premium?
  • [01:57:54.17] ELI NEIBURGER: No, that's--
  • [01:57:55.01] JIM LEIJA: A premium fee? And is that something we can do the new system?
  • [01:57:58.34] ELI NEIBURGER: Yeah, it's very tricky to implement it that way. In some ways, we're already doing that by allowing instant renewal for things that people aren't on request. Almost no libraries offer unlimited renewals. Generally, you get one.
  • [01:58:10.57] JIM LEIJA: But I'm just saying, like if I am reading Roxanne Gay's book and I'm like number 500, and the 499th person has held onto that book for six months and is just paying the fine, what can-- can you leverage that? I mean, it's essentially like if at U of M, if you have a recalled material, and you hold on to it, you get paid--
  • [01:58:30.23] ELI NEIBURGER: Well, after a certain amount of time, they get billed for it. And then the bill goes through. Now there's one other thing we didn't talk about, which is changing the billing-- the cutoff threshold, and the collection agency threshold, which is changing both of those to $25. It's very confusing currently that there's these two points.
  • [01:58:48.26] So one is, $10 is too low, I think, for the cutoff, given that we allow unlimited checkouts. So it's very easy to go home with 40 books when you've got a little kid, and the next thing you know, you can't renew any of them, simply because they're all three days overdue. So raising the cutoff threshold, and then that the collection agency threshold would be the same number.
  • [01:59:10.62] So when you get locked out from using your library card, you have 45 days to resolve that. You would receive three biweekly notices saying, here, your balance is over this. Your balance is still over this. Your balance is still over this, before they would be referred to the collection agency. And again, I know we mentioned this last time, our collection agency that we use, by design, cannot affect a patron's credit. It's something we don't talk about too much, because it is helpful to believe that it can affect its credit, in order for it to be effective. But there is not a mechanism by which we can actually impact a patron's credit.
  • [01:59:45.11] JOSIE PARKER: And we're not interested in updating--
  • [01:59:47.37] ELI NEIBURGER: Right.
  • [01:59:49.06] VICTORIA GREEN: So when one clarification on something you said-- if I have 40 books checked out, and they're all three days over due, my experience, I thought, had been that I could renew them, and then I would get assessed the fines and not be able to check out anything else.
  • [02:00:00.05] ELI NEIBURGER: Yes, you could. But It would be like the situation where you have returned them. You didn't know that you returned them three days overdue, and the fine hit your account, and you've got more at home.
  • [02:00:08.14] VICTORIA GREEN: And with our new system, the renewal, and the way that happens that I can renew things, and then not check things out, will still work that way.
  • [02:00:15.86] ELI NEIBURGER: Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing. That's pretty much industry standard, is that fines are assessed when the item is returned.
  • [02:00:22.13] JIM LEIJA: Would you like to propose a revision to this?
  • [02:00:28.38] VICTORIA GREEN: I'm not prepared to vote for it at this point, so I think I would recommend that we do do a revision. I'm not quite sure I know exactly what it should be, though. One question. I am somewhat-- it's interesting. When you're talking about $10 being too low, I actually kind of like that it's low, because that's the number at which I feel comfortable sort of getting to, and then I get locked out of checking anything else, and then I pay the library.
  • [02:00:53.17] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I know I had the same process-
  • [02:00:55.09] VICTORIA GREEN: I kind of work it that way.
  • [02:00:55.25] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I imagine we're not alone.
  • [02:00:56.99] VICTORIA GREEN: So I like that it's lower. I mean, I never want to go to collections. I just think about it this way.
  • [02:01:00.10] COLLEEN SHERMAN: It's a safety-- It's a safety valve. $10 gives you a safety valve. Because if I looked in my account, and it's up to $25, I would freak-- and I missed it in three days--
  • [02:01:09.38] VICTORIA GREEN: Right. I think what you're saying is that we really want to stop behavior like mine, where I'm sort of comfortable paying my fees. We want to make people actually return things on the day that they're due.
  • [02:01:19.04] ELI NEIBURGER: Well, that's the intent of the fee structure. However, I think it's also very much about communication and expectation, and people being able to understand what's coming. So that's where the genesis of those-- of there not being two thresholds of which different things happen. It was like, this is the magic number. When you've passed the magic number, things start happening.
  • [02:01:39.42] JIM LEIJA: I think if we have this-- I mean, I like the idea of the reserved tools system, because I have also run into this issue of time based desires to check things out, right? But the communication around a $50 daily fine has to be absolutely, absolutely impeccable.
  • [02:01:59.20] LINH SONG: Really obvious.
  • [02:02:00.33] JIM LEIJA: And just so out there and above board, and really clear about the intention and purpose.
  • [02:02:07.29] VICTORIA GREEN: We're not trying to raise revenue here.
  • [02:02:08.94] JIM LEIJA: That's right.
  • [02:02:09.59] VICTORIA GREEN: We're just trying to meet user needs.
  • [02:02:10.63] JIM LEIJA: Right. And so we are in the discussion period of the resolution here, and I think we have two options, which is to vote on the resolution, or maybe three. Vote on the resolution with some kind of revision, or call the question on whether or not to vote today. Is that correct?
  • [02:02:28.68] JOSIE PARKER: You can table it, too.
  • [02:02:29.25] JIM LEIJA: We can table it. All right. So I would move to table this resolution, so that we can all do some individual thinking, and maybe ask--
  • [02:02:39.47] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well, it takes a lot of digesting.
  • [02:02:41.28] JIM LEIJA: --digest, and ask Eli questions. So I move to table.
  • [02:02:45.48] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I second.
  • [02:02:46.50] JIM LEIJA: Thank you.
  • [02:02:47.07] VICTORIA GREEN: But not tabling it with the idea of not revisiting it. I mean, I think we're committed to the idea of changing it.
  • [02:02:52.21] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Revisit in December.
  • [02:02:52.47] JIM LEIJA: I would table and revisit in December. It would be helpful, I think, for Jamie as the President, to hear from individuals about what questions Eli might address at the next meeting.
  • [02:03:05.00] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Thank you. Correct.
  • [02:03:05.77] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well, I think he's been very detailed, and there's been a lot of thought has gone into this already.
  • [02:03:09.53] JIM LEIJA: So we need to call that for a vote.
  • [02:03:10.36] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Agreed.
  • [02:03:10.89] VICTORIA GREEN: One suggestion I think I'd make, is rather give us one resolution, in case we don't all come to consensus on everything, you might want to split the pieces out. We haven't talked about, for example, having the tool daily fine raised to $5 to the cost of item.
  • [02:03:21.98] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: We don't have be unanimous.
  • [02:03:22.80] VICTORIA GREEN: I know, but we just, we might agree as a group on some provisions, and not others. So we have to think of a way that we could support that, if in the future we are prepared to vote yes on some parts.
  • [02:03:33.06] JIM LEIJA: We can do that now.
  • [02:03:34.84] VICTORIA GREEN: Oh, we could do that in the meeting?
  • [02:03:35.91] JIM LEIJA: That's absolutely right. We just have to draw up the resolution in real time, which I've become skilled at doing.
  • [02:03:42.42] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: It's true. However it is ten minutes after 9:00.
  • [02:03:45.66] JIM LEIJA: However it is 9:10, and if-- unless the staff feels this is an absolutely urgent need for us to resolve right now--
  • [02:03:52.32] ELI NEIBURGER: It will be in December.
  • [02:03:53.36] JIM LEIJA: It will be in December.
  • [02:03:54.10] JOSIE PARKER: It would help us a lot to resolve as much as you can now, as we start moving through changing this website over, and getting things done.
  • [02:04:02.26] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: We could take out the tools, but I see Ed has his hand up.
  • [02:04:05.36] ED SUROVELL: I was just going to say, I'm going to support it as proposed.
  • [02:04:08.85] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: As proposed.
  • [02:04:10.55] ED SUROVELL: And there is no such thing as a perfect fine system. What I heard here was some enlightened self-interest--
  • [02:04:22.28] [LAUGHTER]
  • [02:04:24.36] --and something about the shoe pinching, perhaps. I am going to support it as it is. I am quite certain that the library will come back to us with the particular pinches in three to six months, and saying we made a mistake, and we need to revise this, this, and this.
  • [02:04:51.04] But you will know until you put in place. And I think what I heard was defensible. I don't always agree with it. I didn't fully understand a few pieces. I'm not a tool user. If I need a yarn winder, I'm going to buy it.
  • [02:05:09.22] [LAUGHTER]
  • [02:05:10.18] And I recommend you do, too.
  • [02:05:11.78] LINH SONG: I also have Roxane Gay's books.
  • [02:05:14.20] ED SUROVELL: Especially if you use that much of it. But I will support it as proposed, and I think we ought to just go ahead.
  • [02:05:22.87] JIM LEIJA: So we have to vote on the motion on the table--
  • [02:05:25.72] JAMIE: We have a motion on the table. We have a motion to table on the table that we need to vote on.
  • [02:05:30.67] ED SUROVELL: We need to vote on, that's correct.
  • [02:05:33.06] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Ed's considering voting tonight. Is anyone else, before we vote on that motion?
  • [02:05:37.18] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: I'm ready to vote tonight.
  • [02:05:37.99] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: You're ready, Jan? Victoria's not. Well, take your vote, and then--
  • [02:05:43.59] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Victoria's not [INTERPOSING VOICES]
  • [02:05:46.74] JIM LEIJA: I'm going to play Margaret, and be like, rules of order! Take the vote, Jamie.
  • [02:05:51.13] [LAUGHTER]
  • [02:05:51.95] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Maybe she's one of the five viewers at home.
  • [02:05:54.12] JIM LEIJA: She might be.
  • [02:05:54.90] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK, so all those in favor of tabling?
  • [02:05:59.08] VICTORIA GREEN: Aye.
  • [02:06:00.95] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: We have two, three? Two. OK. Opposed? OK.
  • [02:06:09.51] JIM LEIJA: Jamie, did you vote?
  • [02:06:11.20] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I thought I don't vote.
  • [02:06:12.05] [LAUGHTER] You
  • [02:06:12.62] JIM LEIJA: Of course you vote.
  • [02:06:14.50] [LAUGHTER] Oh,
  • [02:06:16.43] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: God.
  • [02:06:17.39] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: Well, we don't have another motion.
  • [02:06:19.04] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Well, it doesn't matter which way I vote, so.
  • [02:06:21.13] JIM LEIJA: We got the votes, OK.
  • [02:06:23.32] JOSIE PARKER: But you have to vote. You can't not vote.
  • [02:06:26.84] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: I vote let's not table. Let's get it done.
  • [02:06:29.69] JIM LEIJA: OK. So the next question we have, we can move the resolution as is, or we can accept all-- we could move to accept all but the tool section.
  • [02:06:42.56] ELI NEIBURGER: Or the fines section.
  • [02:06:43.64] JIM LEIJA: Yeah, the tools and the fine table. I would actually-- like let's just focus on the tools, and-- because there are other fine changes, correct? Or no.
  • [02:06:53.65] ELI NEIBURGER: Well it's just the removal--
  • [02:06:54.52] JIM LEIJA: Oh, it's eliminating the--
  • [02:06:55.35] ELI NEIBURGER: It's removing DVDs from the-- we're removing the dollar a day tier.
  • [02:06:59.11] JIM LEIJA: So we could rewrite the resolution to accept all of the changes to policy 3.1, with the exception of tools reserved and tools.
  • [02:07:09.04] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So wait, do you want to remove it so that we can vote on everything else tonight? Or do you want us to fix it?
  • [02:07:17.24] JIM LEIJA: Yeah, that's what I'm-- Yeah, or we can try to fix it.
  • [02:07:22.16] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Did Jim make a motion?
  • [02:07:23.68] JAN BARNEY NEWMAN: No.
  • [02:07:24.10] JIM LEIJA: No.
  • [02:07:24.97] COLLEEN SHERMAN: Can I make a motion?
  • [02:07:26.56] JIM LEIJA: Yes, you can do whatever you like.
  • [02:07:29.37] COLLEEN SHERMAN: I think we're ready to take a vote, just to vote, on the policy as is. I think we'd get a split vote, but I'm OK with that. I'm interested to know how the vote will go.
  • [02:07:41.80] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: That vote is already on the table. That's how we opened the discussion.
  • [02:07:44.49] JIM LEIJA: That's what we can vote on right now.
  • [02:07:46.08] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: So we could just do that right now, and see where we are. OK.
  • [02:07:50.07] LINH SONG: Let's just do the vote.
  • [02:07:51.25] JIM LEIJA: But it's Victoria, you know, expressing some serious reservations, so if you like to rewrite, or a different resolution, we can do that.
  • [02:08:02.52] VICTORIA GREEN: I think we should go forward with voting on this resolution, and if it passes, I think we're done. I don't think I have anything else to say, substantive. And if it doesn't pass, then we should work on a resolution that we can pass. Does that make sense to people?
  • [02:08:16.50] LINH SONG: It's super reasonable. All right All those in favor. Aye. No!
  • [02:08:24.76] [LAUGHTER]
  • [02:08:26.06] JIM LEIJA: Look at that.
  • [02:08:26.62] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Good job. OK. So motion passes.
  • [02:08:30.39] ED SUROVELL: Enlightened self-interest.
  • [02:08:32.23] ELI NEIBURGER: Thank you very much.
  • [02:08:32.53] JIM LEIJA: Congratulations. Go ye and charge $50 a day.
  • [02:08:36.57] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: No! Try to make sure behavior-- try not to do that. OK. Oh my gosh. So this one's comment, has anyone made it?
  • [02:08:47.64] ED SUROVELL: They're all gone.
  • [02:08:48.10]
  • [02:08:49.90] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: OK. All right.
  • [02:08:52.52] JIM LEIJA: We are--
  • [02:08:54.71] JAMIE VANDER BROEK: Good night everyone.
  • [02:08:55.94] MULTIPLE VOICES: Thank you.
  • [02:08:56.89]


| Report Problem